Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 03-20-2012, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But this isn't. It's pure apologetics, based on an ignorance of the use of both "brother" and "lord". This ignorance is due to the retrojection of later usage into Paul for the non-titular "lord" and a willfulness to not read what Paul generally meant when he used "brother", ie a believer.

This argument is based on a misunderstanding of greek, linguistics, and methods of identification. Since Fillmore et al.'s 1988 paper on idioms, the view that a "lexicon" composed of individual words was sufficient when combined with a grammatical component has been all but abandoned, even with in the dying field of generative linguistics (see e.g., Jackendoff's most recent works, particularly The Architecture of the Language Faculty). Most linguists reject the componential model entirely.

The point, however, is that one cannot simply say adelphos=adelphoi except that it refers to more than one. We're talking about a time in which people shared first names more than they do today, but lacked surnames. In greek (like latin) the standard method of identification was to use a construction "X, the Y of Z" where X and Y shared the same case, and Z was a genitive construction. The most common forumula was identification through kin, and specifically the father: "X the son of Y." However, place of origin, title, other kin connections, etc., were also used (for some of these, the formula became "X of Z" or "X the Z"). The point, however, was to establish that this particular X was different from another with the same name. Thus "Apollonius the Roman" would hardly be sufficient, as it would describe a high too many people. Apollonius of Tyana, however, was sufficient.

Paul uses adelphoi repeatedly just as english speakers do today to describe everything from a other members of a biker gang to fellow ODA members in one's SF company. However, he does not use the singular in the same way, and in particular he does not use the specific formula found in Galatians: Iakobon ton adelphon tou kuriou (James the brother of the lord).

This is the standard identification construction: X the Y of Z. "The lord" is how Paul refers to Jesus. And this james is identified and distinguished from others by his kinship connection.

It's exactly the same construction we find in Josephus: ton adelphon...Iesou only Josephus (who was not a christian), doesn't call Jesus "lord" and identifies him using the participial construction legomenos Christos. However, the formula is still there. He uses the same formula a few lines later to identify a Jesus, the son of Damneus. That's how people could refer to someone named Paul or Jesus or Mark or whatever ensure their audience knew whom they were speaking of.

There's a lot of hype but very little content in this post. Paul has set a personal idiom through most of his writing such that a reader would expect when he uses the term "brother(s)" he generally means "believer(s)". Paul can call Titus "my brother"

Τιτον τον αδελφον μου [= του Ραυλου] (1 Cor 2:13),

which is structurally no different from

Ιακοβον τον αδελφον του κυριου.

Paul has set up a precedent in which the common understanding of "brother" in Paul is not biological. When you come to Gal 1:19, there needs to be a contextual indication that Paul actually means "biological brother" for the reader to come up with the notion, but there doesn't seem to be. You have no way to arrive at the apologetic understanding from the text itself. This is not a cartesian issue of simple x = y: there has to be contextual clues for a different understanding than the normal usage of "brother", which in Paul is not biological.

Words mean what they usually mean unless you have a reason to know that they aren't being used that way. You don't in this case.

judge · 03-20-2012, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

When you come to Gal 1:19, there needs to be a contextual indication that Paul actually means "biological brother" for the reader to come up with the notion, .

What an unthinking thing to say! The primary meaning of the word is "biological brother!"

Quote:

This is not a cartesian issue of simple x = y: there has to be contextual clues for a different understanding than the normal usage of "brother", which in Paul is not biological.

Again , what a thoughtless thing to say! You have few scraps from Paul in which he is writing to communities of believers. This is avery narrow context. And you want to argue on that basis that every time Paul uses brother it must be non biological.
You have no idea of what Pauls "normal" use of the word brother is. You don't have nearly enough data.

You do realise don't you that these scraps we have from pauls are letters, don't you?

Toto · 03-20-2012, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

When you come to Gal 1:19, there needs to be a contextual indication that Paul actually means "biological brother" for the reader to come up with the notion, .

What a stupid thing to say! The primary meaning of the word is "biological brother!"

??

It has just been demonstrated to you that the most common meaning of the word in Paul is fellow believer, not biological brother.

Watch your language.

spin · 03-21-2012, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

It's exactly the same construction we find in Josephus:...

Just to be clear, you are amiss with the linguistics. Josephus hasn't regularly used the term "brother" in a non-biological sense, so it is not meaningful to point out that he uses the same structure as Paul. The only way you can meaningfully derive similarities with external literature is to find a writer who, like Paul, evinces the same sort of personal idiomatic usage, but then shifts to the common usage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

...ton adelphon...Iesou only Josephus (who was not a christian), doesn't call Jesus "lord" and identifies him using the participial construction legomenos Christos. However, the formula is still there. He uses the same formula a few lines later to identify a Jesus, the son of Damneus. That's how people could refer to someone named Paul or Jesus or Mark or whatever ensure their audience knew whom they were speaking of.

judge · 03-21-2012, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Words mean what they usually mean unless you have a reason to know that they aren't being used that way. You don't in this case.

You can't say what Paul "usually" means by adelphos (brother). You can look at some instances where he uses the word to refer to fellow believer but you cant use that the way you want to. You cant say whats normal without more data

aa5874 · 03-21-2012, 12:13 AM

It is just mind boggling that people here go over the same argument using ONLY the evidence from ONE source to resolve Galatians 1.19.

It is just illogical to use Galatians 1.19 and the Pauline writing ALONE to resolve the matter.

It is for this PRECISE reason why MULTIPLE sources are employed. We cannot BLINDLY accept ONE source.

Apologetic sources DENY or REJECT any claim that the Apostle James was the biological brother of Jesus Christ.

1. Jesus Christ was of the SEED of God WITHOUT a human Father based on Apologetic sources

2. James the Apostle was the Son of Alphaeus and Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus

There is NO other source that can CONTRADICT.

We have NUMEROUS Apologetic sources that mentioned Galatians 1.19 and NONE claim that James the Apostle was a biological brother of Jesus.

There is NO corroboration at all for Galatians 1.19.

judge · 03-21-2012, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegionOnomaMoi

This is the standard identification construction: X the Y of Z. "The lord" is how Paul refers to Jesus.

.

Unless it's the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul (in greek) seldom uses the Lord (3 instances). Otherwise it's my/our Lord (most instances).

Curiously the creators of pauls letters in Aramaic in the peshitta appear to have changed the greek (unles the aramaic came first) and never refer Jesus as the Lord but only as my/our lord.

But the greek is not as clearly delineated and uses both the lord and my/our Lord to refer to Jesus.
But, of course spin will argue that any time paul uses the lord to refer to Jesus must be an interplolation

judge · 03-21-2012, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Watch your language.

yes i dod go back and change it (pretty quickly too) but not quick enough.

LegionOnomaMoi · 03-21-2012, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Just to be clear, you are amiss with the linguistics.

And what linguistic framework/theory are you using to conclude this? Obviously not cognitive linguistics. And not functional linguistics or typology. And even generative linguistics, a framework developed decades ago, has shifted and is rejecting your view.

Quote:

Josephus hasn't regularly used the term "brother" in a non-biological sense, so it is not meaningful to point out that he uses the same structure as Paul.

He hasn't used the term "brother" at all. "Brother" is english. What do you know about construction grammar? Or the use of constructions in other linguistic frameworks, from Hudson to Jackendoff?

Quote:

The only way you can meaningfully derive similarities with external literature is to find a writer who, like Paul, evinces the same sort of personal idiomatic usage, but then shifts to the common usage.

Paul doesn't use "personal idiomatic usage." He applies an identification construction common in Greek (and latin and hebrew and other IE languages, but that hardly matters here).

If you want to debate the validity of linguistic theory, I really hope you've actually studied linguistics.

As for "structure" and so forth, can you actually read greek?

spin · 03-21-2012, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

But this isn't. It's pure apologetics, based on an ignorance of the use of both "brother" and "lord". This ignorance is due to the retrojection of later usage into Paul for the non-titular "lord" and a willfulness to not read what Paul generally meant when he used "brother", ie a believer.

Judge did beat me on "sister".

I don't read judge. On linguistic issues he generally doesn't know what he's talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

From my website:

Quote:

a) Out of the six other occurrences of 'lord' in 'Galatians', five are about Christ:
1:3 "our Lord Jesus Christ":
It is written only sixteen verses before "James, the brother of the Lord").
Remark: in a narration, when the bearer of a title has been identified, then the next mention of someone defined only by that same title refers to the aforementioned bearer.
5:10 "in (the) Lord", 6:14, 6:17 "the Lord Jesus" & 6:18
The sixth one (4:1) refers to a heir, generally.
None are about God.

b) As mentioned before, "brothers of the Lord" appears in 1Co9:5. Then, who is this Lord? He is defined four verses earlier at 1Co9:1 "Jesus Christ our Lord".

c) "Lord", Paul's favored title for Jesus, is used in passages relating to a "flesh & blood":
1Co11:23-25 Darby "the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was delivered up, took bread, ... after having supped [supper] ..."
1Co11:27 Darby "So that whosoever shall eat the bread, or drink the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty in respect of the body and of the blood of the Lord."
Php2:5-11 NIV "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: ... taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself ... and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord ..."

d) 'Jesus' occurs in 'Galatians' (15 times), but never on its own, always accompanied by either 'Christ' (1:1,12;2:4,16(2);3:1,14,22,26,28;4:14;5:6) or 'Lord' (6:17) or both (1:3;6:14,18).
But in one instance 'Lord' (meaning Jesus) is without 'Jesus' (5:10) (not including "brother of the Lord" --1:19).

It's not a matter of numbers, but of usage. Here's a general discussion of the issue of κυριος that'll help.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

Even Acts doesn't know anything about a James in charge of affairs in Jerusalem who was the brother of Jesus. (Does anyone make the connection before Origen?)

Acts does mention James as the leader, but, I agree, does not declare him a brother of Jesus. However Acts mentions brothers of Jesus going to Jerusalem (1:14). That does not take away that James as not being a brother of Jesus.

Here's an example where an argument from silence is functional: the fact that a James head of the church mentioned in Acts could be the brother of Jesus is highly significant. A living relative of our savior. But not a sausage. If James really were the biological brother of Jesus, then it would have been used in Acts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

And that doesn't stop you from saying the obvious either. I don't know if Jesus existed, but then I think that's the only sensible position:

There is enough evidence in the Pauline epistles to show Paul knew about a HJ. And he did not give extraordinary attributes to that HJ, on the contrary.

And people are supposed to believe you because you say so? Such statements are of no use.

Continuing to push the fact that Paul gives no extraordinary attributes to Jesus is again wasted breath. I'm not a mythicist. Paul needs a real Jesus, otherwise how could the sacrifice work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bernard Muller
Instead he made points based on a human Jesus (as in Gal3:7-4:7, as shown below) as if he was already completely accepted (as does the author of Hebrews).

The same silence.

With Gal3:7-4:7, I made a positive argument that his audience had to know about the existence of a HJ, as Jew from human origin. No silence here.

The silence regards what communications Paul had with his Galatian community other than what is in the letter. We only know that it was sufficient for him to have some authority over them and that he thinks, contrary to other visitors, they should be following his Jesus. Obviously, they got enough from Paul for him to be in the position of giving epistolary advice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller
and 1Cor 11:22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not?

You need to consider the statement six verses earlier.

Why do you have to go into these complications? Church of God means Christians, generally, churches (plural) means Christian congregations in several cities. Sometimes "Church of God" is followed by "which is in Corinth" as in 1Co1:2. That shows that "Church of God" needs to be specified when applied to the Christians of one city.

I have explained what I am ding. I'm trying to eradicate the sort of thing I see you doing, ie retrojecting ideas into Paul that aren't there. Concommitant with that, I'm on the lookout for signs of Paul having been bowdlerized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

Being explicable doesn't mean that the given explication is correct. I worry that you give your opinions of what is reasonable as though they verge on evidence.

Do not worry! I agree with your first point. The more you find reasonable motives to explain an action the better! That proves an action is not far-fetched. That does not prove the motive you propose is the right one.

Your responses generally do not alleviate the worry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Muller

Quote:

Working on prior examples and guesswork and being wrong enough times.

And following leads up to they go to a dead end, then testing other leads, etc.
Wrong sometimes, but right most of the times.

You don't have any working prior examples to help you out. You can't go back and say, "well, in that example we can see what happened." That leaves you not knowing whether your investigative theories are bullshit or not.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-21-2012, 12:13 AM	#116
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	It is just mind boggling that people here go over the same argument using ONLY the evidence from ONE source to resolve Galatians 1.19. It is just illogical to use Galatians 1.19 and the Pauline writing ALONE to resolve the matter. It is for this PRECISE reason why MULTIPLE sources are employed. We cannot BLINDLY accept ONE source. Apologetic sources DENY or REJECT any claim that the Apostle James was the biological brother of Jesus Christ. 1. Jesus Christ was of the SEED of God WITHOUT a human Father based on Apologetic sources 2. James the Apostle was the Son of Alphaeus and Mary the sister of the mother of Jesus There is NO other source that can CONTRADICT. We have NUMEROUS Apologetic sources that mentioned Galatians 1.19 and NONE claim that James the Apostle was a biological brother of Jesus. There is NO corroboration at all for Galatians 1.19.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.