jakejonesiv

That is a good point about keepings Paul's writings in a jar. 2 Corinthians 4:7

aa5874

Of course you are making an assessment of Galatians 1.19 using only the Pauline writings in ISOLATION.

Please read, your own post #174. Now look at your assessment of usage of "brother" and "sister" using the PAULINE writings in a JAR.

You are most obviously making an assessment of a Pauline passage using only Pauline writings in ISOALTION, just as you recommended.

But, what is far more troubling is your refusal to use other pertinent sources to help in your assessment.

Mistaken about what? The Church writers used Galatians 1.19 as one of their source for their claim that James was the the brother of Jesus.

What is the Greek word for "brother" meaning "sibling"? Is not that word found in GALATIANS 1.19?

Is there a mistake with the Greek word for "brother" in the Pauline passage?

If JAMES had a brother called JESUS what Greek word should have been used for brother?

Mark 6:3 - Galatians 1:19 - What mistake are you talking about? You could be mistaken!

By the way, I do not find this discussion tiresome at all. This is exactly why I am on this board.

gurugeorge

Umm, well that is just the point of the thought-experiment isn't it? Remember, we've not consigned those other sources to oblivion, we're just holding them to the side to look at "Paul" for a moment, to see what he has to say for himself.

Not a necessarily a mistake, but something's awry because "Paul" does obviously use the term as a "term of art" denoting some kind of inclusion/status in the community elsewhere in the same writings. Why wouldn't it be being used in the same sense wrt James? (Especially if we consider that a phrase denoting actual siblingood in the ordinary language of that time would have likely been phrased slightly differently in that context - I think Earl D. goes into this.)

IOW, the fact that later writers interpreted the term's use re. James as denoting siblinghood is a datum, and of course it does have some weight, but it doesn't prove that "Paul" was using the term in that way, especially if, when you look at "Paul" in isolation from those later attributions (granted the fact that "he" actually existed and lived long before them), that's not the most natural reading of the text (which is that he was using the term "brother" in a cultic sense with James in the same way as with the other uses).

Now, when you zoom out again, it makes even more sense to take it that way, because there are reasons why the later writers might have been either mistaken or deceiving: sheer error (loss of information s a result of the Diaspora); the desire to fabricate a human-to-human lineage connection to the cult figure (i.e. to fabricate an "apostolic succession").

aa5874

But, in ISOLATION, you are now using what you think Paul wrote as your remedy to resolve the ambiguity in the very PAULINE writings.

Paul has now become the corroborative source for Paul.

Why don't you or haven't YOU extended your THOUGHT EXPERIMENT to the Gospels, Eusebius, or Jerome before you make up your mind about Galatians 1.19?

But, if you were to suspend your ISOLATION of the Pauline writings and look in the other writings of the NT you will notice, perhaps immediately, that the authors used similar phrasing when referring to siblings.


Mt 17:1 - Mr 1:19 - Mr 3:17 - Mr 5:37 - Mr 6:3 - Lu 6:14 - Ac 12:2 - Ga 1:19 - Again if James was propagated as the Lord's sibling what phrase should the Pauline writer have used?


... Again, once you have placed the Pauline writings in ISOLATION you cannot claim that there were writings after or before, the order of writing must come when you suspend the ISOLATION and compare with other writings.

IF you found a piece of paper in the desert and examined it in ISOLATION, as you suggested in post #174, it will be difficult to date it.

You must therefore take into consideration that the very writing you have in ISOLATION may be full of mistakes and may have been written to deceive. After all you, the Pauline writings have been considered to be heavily manipulated, but only when you remove the VACUUM it becomes noticeable.

What results would really get if you found the Pauline writings in a desert and analyzed them as if in a Jar?

The answer must be obvious, the wrong results.

gurugeorge

Well, in terms of the language used, what other source is there?

Oh we'll get to those in good time, don't worry! But let's look at what Galatians says first, shall we? After all, we've determined it's first in time; so let's look at it in its temporal position (hence we notionally forget about later writings about this writing - just for the moment).

Remember, I've never said total isolation - obviously it's in a language that wasn't spoken just by one person, and there were writings before, people were thinking and saying things before, and we have access to those writings.

We're not bothered about interpolation at this point, we're just moseying along seeing what the text says, how words are used in it, etc. We note internal incosistencies that may betoken interpolation, but we're not too worried yet whether there has been any.

aa5874

There are numerous sources that CAN help to resolve whether or not the passage in Galatians 1.19 refers to a sibling of JAMES.

Once a passage is ambiguous or is questioned, you must look outside of the Pauline writings to settle the matter.

I asked you already for the Greek word for brother (a sibling), you have not answered.

What is Greek for brother as found in Galatians 1.19?

If you found the Pauline writings in a desert, not knowing when it was written, and examined it in isolation, would you just assume that you know what was written before?

Well, why are you worried about the Gospel writers, Eusebius, and Jerome?

If you found what appears to be Epistles in a desert, authenticity and veracity would be your primary problems.

gurugeorge

Yes, but one needn't look at outside writings subsequent to the assumed date of the "Pauline" writings. If "Brother (adelphos) of/in the Lord" is used consistently to denote the cultic sense of brotherhood in "Paul", then unless there's something else in "Paul" that might suggest a blood relation between this "James" fellow and "Jesus", or unless it's clear from internal evidence that the word is being used in the ordinary sibling sense in that context, it's logical to apply the cultic sense of the word for "James" too.

Not yet; at this stage your primary problem would be simply translating the text and seeing what it says for itself - of course you triangulate with other writings, but for the purposes of the thought experiment you don't triangulate (just for the moment, just at this stage) with anything that comes later than the assumed date.

And in fact, if the later writings have "James" as a sibling of "Jesus", while the earlier writing doesn't, the earlier writing has more weight, and the possibility is open that the later writings are wrong, lying, misinterpreting, etc.

aa5874

Well, please show me where else in the Epistles is the phrase " the Lord's brother" used consistently. I see the phrase only once in Galatians 1.19.

Can you please tell me which earlier writing claimed James was not a sibling of Jesus?

gurugeorge

As I originally posted in this thread:

"In 1 Corinthians 9:5 we have the phrase "the brothers of the Lord". That siblings of a human Jesus are being spoken of in that context seems to be ruled out by "sister wife" denoting something like "believing wife", in the very same passage."

There are a few other points in the Epistles where it's clear that the term is meant the same way, as denoting some sort of cult status - check Doherty if you want more details.


Eh? What I said above is that there's an absence of the claim of siblinghood, not a positive claim of non-siblinghood!!!

renassault

Believing wife is not part of the context where the Lord's brothers is. Furthermore, if it meant other believers, Cephas' name would not have been separated.