Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
04-18-2007, 07:26 AM | #91 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
You just made his point. Josephus doesn't mention any other Essenes by name, but Paul, if we assume your hypothesis to be correct, mentions other brothers of the lord by name without the appellation.
|
04-18-2007, 07:56 AM | #92 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Actually, mentioning brothers is analogous to mentioning Essenes.
|
04-18-2007, 11:36 AM | #93 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
|
04-18-2007, 12:00 PM | #94 |
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
|
04-18-2007, 12:30 PM | #95 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
TedM: Which leaves the curious result of Paul ONLY referring to specifically James as "the brother of the Lord", when it seems likely that both Cephas and John also were "brothers of the Lord" if the meaning is of one "believer" and not "biological brother".
The question for spin is why doesn't Cephas or John get the appellation brother of the Lord if brother of the Lord is indeed a general reference to believer. Spin's reply: Although Josephus mentions Judah the Essene once and talks about the Essenes a number of times, how many other Essenes does he mention? (Hint: the number of fingers on your left foot.) Here spin cites Josephus as a parallel, namely that Josephus named only one Essene with the appellation Essene, though he talks about Essenes in general yet never mentions any other by name. My point is that spin's conclusion is non sequitur. If spin's hypothesis is correct, that Cephas and John are brothers of the Lord, why didn't they receive that appellation as well? Spin, also, can you please clarify your position on "brothers", "brother of the Lord", and also "brothers of the lord"? Finally, the analogy ultimately fails since Josephus names a number of different Ioudai, but Paul seems to mention only one James. That Paul could refer to different James is ad hoc and lacking in any evidence, save to rescue this sinking hypothesis. I don't think even spin would argue that, though. |
04-18-2007, 12:58 PM | #96 | ||||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
Quote:
Paul had always dealt with Cephas differently and, as to John, we only have Paul talking of him in a few verses in Galatians. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
spin |
||||
04-18-2007, 01:19 PM | #97 | ||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Oh? Can you clarify then, please?
Quote:
Quote:
Id est: James is the brother of the Lord -> Judah is an Essene Other brothers are mentioned -> Other Essenes are mentioned Only James is named as a brother -> Only Judah is named as a brother Therefore, you don't need to name other brothers to understand that James is merely one of the brothers (of the lord). Am I misunderstanding your position? |
||
04-18-2007, 01:55 PM | #98 | |||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
|
I didn't claim that Cephas and John were brothers of the lord. Paul only mentions James once as a brother and once in close proximity to brothers.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
spin (How's Quintilian?) |
|||
04-19-2007, 10:07 AM | #99 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: USA, Missouri
Posts: 3,070
|
Quote:
1. If all believers were "brothers of the Lord", there is no need for Paul to mention it at all in this context. 2. If all apostles were "brothers of the Lord" there again is no particular reason for Paul to have mentioned it. 3. If there was no other James who was an apostle, there was no reason for Paul to have mentioned it. Therefore, if Paul was using it to identify James beyond just being an apostle, we can conclude that: 1. "brothers of the Lord" was a subset of believers 2. some apostles were NOT "brothers of the Lord" 3. There was another James who was an apostle. It may be that Paul threw in "brother of the Lord" for no helpful reason--just as further information: James, the apostle, who also is considered a "brother of the Lord". But, since he had just mentioned Cephas as an apostle in the verse just before James is mentioned and didn't also called him a brother of the Lord, it seems to me to add to the likelihood that Cephas was not a brother of the Lord, which supports #s 1 and 2. Further, my take is that in 1 Cor Paul is implying that the "brothers of the Lord" are a group that has priviliges that he and his companions don't have. This further implies that they are a select group which doesn't include ALL believers. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have these main possibilities, assuming that for Paul, "brothers" refers to all male believers: 1. "Brothers of the Lord", which also refers to all believers, despite the way in which Paul refers to them. 2. "Brothers of the Lord" which refers to all believers in Jerusalem, despite the exclusion some apostles, and possibly of even Cephas and John. 3. "Brothers of the Lord", which was a select group within the believers for reasons unknown, but not biological. It likely excluded the apostles John and Cephas despite their prominence and place in Jerusalem. Paul might be expected to explain the group's prominence, as well as to distinguish linguistically between the "brothers" and the "brothers of the Lord" but doesn't. Tradition has lost all traces of them. 4. "Brothers of the Lord", which was a select group within the believers because they were literally biological brothers of Jesus. It excluded John and Cephas because they weren't related to Jesus. We would not expect Paul to explain the group's prominence because there would be no need to. Tradition has preserved their existence, and the tradition was in writing as early as 20-30 years after Paul wrote Galatians. To me, #4 seems the most likely. ted |
||||
04-19-2007, 10:22 AM | #100 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,787
|
Ted, Chris, and spin, how would you treat Quartus in Romans 16.23?
Gaius, host to me and to the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer greets you, and Quartus, the brother.He is identified only as the brother. Does that affect anything in this discussion? Ben. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|