spin

He just hasn't got the expression right. It's "snake oil formula". That sums up most of LOM's participation in this thread, that and the obfuscations with grammar books or the garden path with Dickey's article, but mainly the snake oil formula. Despite what Paul usually meant, he can dictate what Paul must have meant by applying the umm, formula. But then, even applying the snake oil, he's gotta work the con. "It doesn't tell you on the label, but this formula is efficacious in all sorts of situations!"

When LOM intelligently presents an argument, perhaps I might need to intelligently address it. But snake oil, really?

"That's right, folks, you don't have to pay a penny. The first bottle is free."

Applying formulae, and misunderstanding the significance of simple expressions makes it hard to appreciate LOM's linguistic training. He could have googled "personal idiom" if he were really that stumped. He could have found this or this or perhaps this to help get a grasp of ordinary English after having been trapped in the confines of his new linguistic jargon. Instead he plugged on in the restrictions he placed on himself not understanding, just as he plugged on trying to restrict Paul by applying his formula. But the snake oil didn't work like a charm. The placebo effect is not guaranteed.

This was just a one trick show. Besides the formula, there is nothing, but smoke (such as Dickey's article) and mirrors (the repeated insistence of its applicability). He has failed to support his case with anything tangible. We are still left knowing that Paul generally used "brother" not in a biological sense and no attempts at shoehorning Paul into the inadequate formula have had any success. He can't justify his results because he can't show the relevance of the formula and he hasn't shown he understands the starting materials.

tanya

Many thanks to spin and LegionOnomaMoi for a very informative discussion.

Question 1:

no cher. What we have in Galatians 1:19 is this:

ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου

Neither of you has commented, or perhaps I missed it, on the significance, if any, of
" if not "

Why would "Paul" write "if not", were it not to dispel disapproval of the underlying concept that Iesou had a brother named James?
Why is no one focused on Paul's protest? This is a peculiar sentence. Is this the sentence one would normally send to a congregation in Galatia? This sentence appears to me, rather, to be directed at those writers who have objected to the notion that Jesus was an earthly, physical being, rather than an apparition, himself. "Paul", whoever he may have been, was arguing with an invisible opponent, else, why insert, "if not". In other words, the issue was ALREADY contentious, at the time of the original interpolation or "Paul"'s text itself.

Second question:

Is "the lord" not "widely-used" in the writings of Paul? Since it sometimes refers to YHWH, and sometimes to YHWH's supposed son, and sometimes to David, and sometimes to any old lord of the manor, how does του κυριου offer "clarification" in this verse?

Paul is protesting here that he met no other apostles--supposed followers of Jesus--apart from James. Then, you wish to employ Dicky's study to attest to the "fact" that James was not a cousin, or a nephew, or a distant relation, but the actual demi-sibling of Jesus (sharing the same mother, presumably, and not the same ghostly paternal source of DNA).

Does Dicky's study of the ancient papyrus differentiate between "brothers", "cousins", "nephews", or "adopted sons"? Would they not all have been regarded as ἀδελφός ?

Third question:

and see similar quotes in posts 216, 217.

Brings to mind, my suggestion regarding the LXX, (where this term is prominent, e.g. in Deuteronomy, in conflict with the same text from Qumran, where one observes YHWH, contrarily,) that the confusion regarding kurios and theos is ultimately derived from Alexander of Macedonia, the original kurios--> theos--> messiah on the white horse overthrowing the oppressive Persians....

My question to you both, is whether or not you don't find it interesting that Mark writes theos, and Paul invariably writes κυριος instead? WHICH came first, based only on that observation? i.e. what do we learn, if anything, about "his era", by virtue of "Paul" writing κυριος. I interpret this usage as indicating widespread acceptance of LXX.

Was LXX more readily available in the first century when, I suppose, both of you imagine that "Paul" was writing? I think "Paul" wrote, if at all, in the mid second century, and I think this misuse of κυριος representing both Jesus and YHWH, indicates that John had already been written, else it makes no sense to equate the two characters of the novel.

Duvduv

Legion, I don't remember whether you commented on the reference in the Clementine Homilies referring to James as "KNOWN as the Brother of the Lord."

On the other hand, here you have the author of Galatians proclaiming the uniqueness of his relationship to Christ, who expresses no awe or reverence for those who ostensibly saw and walked with the physical Christ and in passing refers to the Christ's very own brother without even noticing how it could be thst his greatness surpassed even thst of the brother, who is mentioned merely in passing!

I vote for an interpolation after the Clementines

spin

THis is really a question for LOM. Look at these sentences in English:

1. LOM's argument is as elegant as a hat full of assholes.

2. LOM's conclusions are more thrilling than a colonoscopy.

3. Not only did tanya play with someone's name over at RS, but she also broke the forum rules.

4. If she does it again, then the moderators may suspend her.

In each case there is a combination of standard words necessary to convey the grammatical relationships between the parts of the sentence. as/as, more/than, not only/but also, if/then. We are dealing with a similar case in Gal 1:19. The combination is ουκ/ει μη:

[T2]ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου

other apostles not I saw except James the brother of the lord[/T2]

See also Jn 19:15,

[T2]ουκ εχομεν βασιλεα ει μη καισαρα

not we have kings except Caesar[/T2]

The ει μη functions in conjunction with ουκ. See also Jn 19:11, Lk 6:4, or Mk 8:14.

Not a theory that, it would seem, you can ever test.

I think the issue of κυριος is what guarantees the early nature of the Pauline corpus. With two exceptions I argue that the corpus reflects a strict titular/non-titular divide with κυριος. Those exceptions for other reasons seem to be interpolations.

The gospels of Mk & Mt are similar, but Lk has quite a few examples of the non-titular κυριος indicating Jesus (eg Lk 7:13, 10:1, 12:42, 13:15, 17:5,6, 18:6...). The blurring had begun and this is true with Jn as well (Jn 4:1, 6:23 11:2, 20:2,18,20,25, 21:7...). This may indicate two editions of Lk and Jn, but it's easiest to consider that Paul is not contemporary with, or later than, Lk or Jn.

(And while I think Mk was written after the Jewish War because of the parable of the bad tenants and because of the rending of the temple curtain, Paul's trip to Jerusalem certainly doesn't suggest anything but a tranquil enough time.)

aa5874

This thread is a perfect example of the inability of two posters to resolve a rather simple matter.

Both posters in attempt to show off their knowledge of Greek REFUSE to take into account that there are Apologetic sources of antiquity that have ALREADY resolved the matter hundreds of years ago.

All we see are continuous verbal abuses.

The matter under consideration is Galatians 1.19.

Galatians 1:19 KJV Is the Pauline writer claiming that an Apostle James was the blood brother of the Lord??

This matter should have been and can be resolved in MINUTES.

ALL that is necessary is to IDENTIFY the LORD and the LORD'S mother and father and do the very same for the Apostle James.

What does Galatians say about the LORD??

The LORD is the LORD Jesus Christ.

Galatians 1:3 KJV Galatians is an Apologetic source in the Canon so what do other apologetic sources say of the mother and father of Jesus Christ???

The mother of Jesus was a Virgin called Mary and the Father of Jesus was a Holy Ghost.

Matthew 1:18 KJV Apologetic sources of antiquity have IDENTIFIED the parents of the Lord Jesus--the Holy Ghost and a Virgin Mary.

Now Apologetic sources that mentioned the Parents of the Apostle James are Non-Canonical.

There are FOUR women called Mary according to an Apologetic source under the names of Papias--one was the Mother of Jesus and another was the mother of James the Apostle.

Fragments of PapiasExamine an Apologetic source De Viris Illustribus 2 From Apologetic sources--Galatians, Matthew, Papias and Jerome it has been SHOWN in a matter of MINUTES that the Apostle James was NOT the blood brother of the LORD Jesus.

The FATHER of LORD Jesus was the Holy Ghost.

The Father of James the Apostle was either Joseph or Alphaeus.

The Mother of Jesus was Mary.

The Mother of James the Apostle was Mary, the SISTER of the mother of the Lord Jesus.

The relationship of James the Apostle to the LORD Jesus in Galatians 1.19 was RESOLVED hundreds of years ago by Apologetic sources.

Apologetic sources did NOT state anywhere that James the Apostle was the blood brother of the LORD Jesus by father or by mother.

Apologetic sources made sure to state and Publicly circulate that the LORD Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost.

It is time people here UNDERSTAND that it is EVIDENCE from Apologetic sources that is MOST significant.

We cannot continue to have two posters show their inability to resolve a most SIMPLE matter. Their approach achieve NOTHING but constant verbal abuse without end.

tanya

Thanks for the references, and the explanation. Well done.

I hope this does not elicit your favorite symbol of tanya beating the dead horse, but, may I request additional clarification on this point?
Galatians 1:19 literal:
rewrite to more contemporary word order, without changing the words themselves:
Then to the question: Could "Paul" have expressed this same sentiment:

without using ouk ei mei?

Perhaps because of my lack of familiarity, I associate "none...if not", in a different context from "none,...except for", though, the two phrases may be regarded by some native speakers as absolutely synonymous, identical in meaning.

For me, the "none...if not" expression, in English, represents a more forceful, more defensive reply, as if one is responding to (possibly unwritten) criticism, whereas, the former, "none...except for", strikes me as simple information, as one might explain in a travelogue.

Looking at your other examples, the citation from John 19:11 seems in accord with my suggestion, of an argumentative tone to "ouk...ei mei", as does the passage in Luke 6.4.

Can you suggest an alternate sentence in Greek, that "Paul" could have employed, had he sought to convince the congregation in Galatia, simply as a point of fact (nothing argumentative) that he had encountered on his journey, James alone, and no one else.

Duvduv

The historicists want to link Galatians back to GMark 6 andGMatt 13.
That would be the intention of an interpolater.
But the overall context in Galatians still makes it lacking in logic whereby Paul cannot even explain how the so-called brother is still nothing like Paul whose revelation was so unique!
And why would yet another source simply refer to James as "who is CALLED the brother of the Lord" if it was meant literally?!

I just thought that the original Galatians had "who is called" and this was later deleted!

aa5874

Again, the mother and father of the Apostle James is NOT the mother and father of the Lord Jesus based on Apologetic sources.

The Pauline writings like All apologetic sources cannot be PRESUMED to be written early or be PRESUMED to be credible.

It is certain that that we have writings that DENY that James the Apostle had a human brother called the Lord Jesus whether or NOT they are credible.

In other words it cannot ever be shown that Galatians 1.19 refers to a biological brother or that the statement itself is credible and historically accurate.

Duvduv

AA, whoever this James is, the historicists are arguing that he was the brother mentioned in Mark and Matthew. That's the point they are trying to make. You don't agree with it, and neither do I. Scholars have already suggested it was interpolation in Galatians, and I was just thinking that the words for "called the" [brother of the Lord] in Greek were deleted from Galatians whether it was an interpolation or not.

aa5874

Galatians 1.19 on its own cannot resolve the issue as shown by the USELESS arguments put forward by Spin and LOM.

The Pauline writings, gMark, gMatthew, Papias, and Jerome are ALL APOLOGETIC sources and they do NOT show that an Apostle James was the human brother of a character called the Lord Jesus.

The matter has been RESOLVED.

If anyone wanted to find out if I had a brother named James the Apostle or the Lord Jesus then they would SIMPLY Identify my mother and father, and the parents of the LORD and James the Apostle.

My mother is NOT the mother of the Lord Jesus or James the Apostle.

My father is NOT the father of the Lord Jesus or James the Apostle.

Galatians 1.19 should have been resolved in a MATTER of MINUTES.