Freethought & Rationalism Archive

EarlDoherty · 02-20-2011, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Steve

I would not advocate assuming, but I would also not assume that James was a member of the Jerusalem club known as brothers of the Lord and that he was referred in this way with a definite article, instead of as one of the brothers of the Lord.

From Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (p.61-2):

Quote:

First of all, historicist apologists tend to place an astonishing reliance on this particular phrase, Iakōbon ton adelphon tou kuriou, as virtually ‘proving’ the existence of an historical Jesus....

But the third and most important consideration involves this word “ton.” Even if we were to assume that the present text reflects the original, the significance of the article’s inclusion is virtually nil. Greek had no indefinite article. There was no way to specify “a brother of the Lord” (in the sense of “one of the brothers of the Lord”) except by simply leaving out the definite article. But in the case of the Galatians phrase, the inclusion of the definite article does not mean that Paul is intending a stress or special status on “the brother.” In a phrase like “James the brother of the Lord”—“Iakōbon ton adelphon tou kuriou”—“James” and “brother” are in grammatical apposition. In such a structure, Greek linguistic practice generally inserts a definite article between them, even if all that was meant was “a brother of the Lord.” Thus, the phrase need not have been singling out James as any special member of the group, even if he were the leader, but may simply designate him as belonging to that group known as “brethren of/in the Lord.”

Now, it is true that, especially in Koine, the article could be left out, but its inclusion does not signify emphasis or unique status. We can see this principle illustrated in other epistolary passages. Romans 16:21: “Greetings from Timothy, my fellow worker” (Timotheos ho sunergos mou). The presence of the article (ho)—which is not used in the translation—does not mean that Timothy was Paul’s only fellow-worker, or that he was the head of those workers. We know he was neither. In the same verse we find: “Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen” (hoi suggeneis mou). They are not the only kinsmen Paul has, nor are they special. He is simply identifying them as his kinsmen, yet he uses the definite article (hoi), where we do not need one in English. In 1 Corinthians 16:12 Paul refers to “Apollos (the) brother” (Apollō tou adelphou). Apollos is not being singled out as some kind of unique or special brother (and certainly not a sibling). Most translations render it “our brother Apollos.”

As to why Paul felt he needed to identify James as one of the brethren of the Lord, one can only speculate. Earlier he has referred to Peter without identifying him in the same way. Perhaps Paul’s readers were more familiar with Peter than with James. Perhaps there was another James attached to the Jerusalem circle who was not a member of the original sect known by the name.28

Note 28: [page 62] By way of analogy, if I was involved in the Teamsters Union and had contacts with its Head Office, and I wrote a letter to someone detailing my visit to that group, I might refer at one point to the Teamsters members in general, and at another point mention I had lunch with Joe, and also met Frank, a Teamsters member, later that day. The person I’m writing to knows Joe and that he is a member, but needs to have it pointed out that Frank is also a Teamsters member. Paul’s language would not have had the luxury of an indefinite article, and if he were writing such a letter he could, following a common grammatical practice, have inserted the definite article between “Frank” and “Teamsters member” no matter what he was or was not implying.

So Galatians 1:19 could simply mean "a brother of the Lord."

Earl Doherty

Doug Shaver · 02-21-2011, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Regardless of whether anything I beleive about jesus is true, it is non-sensical to read this and not find the simplest solution to be that he had a brother named James.

Simplest solution to what?

If Galatians were the only extant pre-Nicean Christian document, then it might indeed make sense to read this passage as telling us that Paul believed that somebody he knew as "the lord" had a brother named James. But it is not the only such document. Any theory about the origins of Christianity have to account for what is written in all extant documents from the period in question. The most parsimonious construal of one verse in one document is not necessarily the best explanation for how all of the surviving documents came into existence as we find them.

sschlichter · 02-21-2011, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

You may as well start citing from the Gospel of Peanuts. You are (like everyone is) clueless as to when the gospel of John was written and how it relates to the synoptic literature. Haphazard citation from undated literature will not help you make sense of anything. It's as though you seem to assume that it is an independent witness, when you haven't got any way demonstrating that it is. You may as well cite the gospel according to J.P. Holding for a similar level of relevance.

You have this ass-up. The only reason to assume your conclusion is because you can't use the evidence to get there. Perhapses will get you talking uncontrolledly, unable to say anything meaningful, because it's one perhaps built on another and another.

I am not assuming anything. perhaps is an important word. the only thing more dangerous than a perhaps is a missing one where it is due.

I quoted John, not as authority but as a perfectly acceptable alternate to your stated view (which is missing it's perhaps).

Mary's real sister or even John's wild-ass speculation that Jesus had an aunt named Mary makes it un-fitting to assume that James did not become Jesus' adelphos at his or jesus' birth.

Quote:

Start with Mk 15:40, 47 and 16:1, "Mary, the mother of James and Joses". There is no mention of Jesus where it should be expected. So, if this were Mary, mother of Jesus, the lack of mention of Jesus as the son is totally unaccountable. James and Joses would be inconsequential, if one only mentioned Jesus. Not doing so tells the real story. This Mary was not mother of Jesus, but has been absorbed into the family with Mk 6:3.

This Mary is not the mother of Jesus and this Mary was only absorbed into the immediate family by Protestants. Is that your point? You are defending Catholic dogma?

Why is a development post-Mark to be assumed and an aunt named Mary (as is supported by John) with sons named James and Joseph discarded?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If that is the case then it appears from the gospels that the mythical Jesus had a mythical brother named James.

Here we go to the knee-jerk rubbish about mythicism. When argument fails say something about mythicism/communism/gays/(add shibboleth here).

I think it is dishonest to suggest that mythicism is not related to this subject.

sschlichter · 02-21-2011, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EarlDoherty

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~Steve

I would not advocate assuming, but I would also not assume that James was a member of the Jerusalem club known as brothers of the Lord and that he was referred in this way with a definite article, instead of as one of the brothers of the Lord.

From Jesus: Neither God Nor Man (p.61-2):

Quote:

First of all, historicist apologists tend to place an astonishing reliance on this particular phrase, Iakōbon ton adelphon tou kuriou, as virtually ‘proving’ the existence of an historical Jesus....

But the third and most important consideration involves this word “ton.” Even if we were to assume that the present text reflects the original, the significance of the article’s inclusion is virtually nil. Greek had no indefinite article. There was no way to specify “a brother of the Lord” (in the sense of “one of the brothers of the Lord”) except by simply leaving out the definite article. But in the case of the Galatians phrase, the inclusion of the definite article does not mean that Paul is intending a stress or special status on “the brother.” In a phrase like “James the brother of the Lord”—“Iakōbon ton adelphon tou kuriou”—“James” and “brother” are in grammatical apposition. In such a structure, Greek linguistic practice generally inserts a definite article between them, even if all that was meant was “a brother of the Lord.” Thus, the phrase need not have been singling out James as any special member of the group, even if he were the leader, but may simply designate him as belonging to that group known as “brethren of/in the Lord.”

Now, it is true that, especially in Koine, the article could be left out, but its inclusion does not signify emphasis or unique status. We can see this principle illustrated in other epistolary passages. Romans 16:21: “Greetings from Timothy, my fellow worker” (Timotheos ho sunergos mou). The presence of the article (ho)—which is not used in the translation—does not mean that Timothy was Paul’s only fellow-worker, or that he was the head of those workers. We know he was neither. In the same verse we find: “Lucius and Jason and Sosipater, my kinsmen” (hoi suggeneis mou). They are not the only kinsmen Paul has, nor are they special. He is simply identifying them as his kinsmen, yet he uses the definite article (hoi), where we do not need one in English. In 1 Corinthians 16:12 Paul refers to “Apollos (the) brother” (Apollō tou adelphou). Apollos is not being singled out as some kind of unique or special brother (and certainly not a sibling). Most translations render it “our brother Apollos.”

As to why Paul felt he needed to identify James as one of the brethren of the Lord, one can only speculate. Earlier he has referred to Peter without identifying him in the same way. Perhaps Paul’s readers were more familiar with Peter than with James. Perhaps there was another James attached to the Jerusalem circle who was not a member of the original sect known by the name.28

Note 28: [page 62] By way of analogy, if I was involved in the Teamsters Union and had contacts with its Head Office, and I wrote a letter to someone detailing my visit to that group, I might refer at one point to the Teamsters members in general, and at another point mention I had lunch with Joe, and also met Frank, a Teamsters member, later that day. The person I’m writing to knows Joe and that he is a member, but needs to have it pointed out that Frank is also a Teamsters member. Paul’s language would not have had the luxury of an indefinite article, and if he were writing such a letter he could, following a common grammatical practice, have inserted the definite article between “Frank” and “Teamsters member” no matter what he was or was not implying.

So Galatians 1:19 could simply mean "a brother of the Lord."

Earl Doherty

Earl,

thanks for the post. true enough. However, Paul is referring to

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apostle Paul

the other apostles except James the Lord's brother.

If Paul is referring to the Lord's spiritual brotherhood, would it be fitting to use this phrase as a distinction that is not distinctive from the others (the apostles).

If I have two friends that are both teamsters named james, I would not refer to one of them as my union friends and James the Teamster.

Paul refers to the Lord 2 other times in Galatians, both in connection with Jesus Christ. A strange thing to refer to the Lord's adelphos only eight verses later when not referencing the same especially when trying to make a distinction from all the other spiritual brothers of the Lord.

~Steve

judge · 02-21-2011, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If Paul is referring to the Lord's spiritual brotherhood, would it be fitting to use this phrase as a distinction that is not distinctive from the others (the apostles).

If I have two friends that are both teamsters named james, I would not refer to one of them as my union friends and James the Teamster.

Paul refers to the Lord 2 other times in Galatians, both in connection with Jesus Christ. A strange thing to refer to the Lord's adelphos only eight verses later when not referencing the same especially when trying to make a distinction from all the other spiritual brothers of the Lord.

~Steve

What you say here makes perfect sense. The problem for Earl is that he is selling books and this interpretation doesn't suit the content of his books.

What can he do?

He is forced to invent another special clique of belivers called "the brothers of the lord". Even thouigh he has no evidence to help him. :boohoo:

Of course if a religious fundamentallst tried that, he'd be roundly criticised here. But we must use kid gloves on the "darlings " of this forum.

sschlichter · 02-21-2011, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

If Paul is referring to the Lord's spiritual brotherhood, would it be fitting to use this phrase as a distinction that is not distinctive from the others (the apostles).

If I have two friends that are both teamsters named james, I would not refer to one of them as my union friends and James the Teamster.

Paul refers to the Lord 2 other times in Galatians, both in connection with Jesus Christ. A strange thing to refer to the Lord's adelphos only eight verses later when not referencing the same especially when trying to make a distinction from all the other spiritual brothers of the Lord.

~Steve

What you say here makes perfect sense. The problem for Earl is that he is selling books and this interpretation doesn't suit the content of his books.

What can he do?

He is forced to invent another special clique of belivers called "the brothers of the lord". Even thouigh he has no evidence to help him. :boohoo:

Of course if a religious fundamentallst tried that, he'd be roundly criticised here. But we must use kid gloves on the "darlings " of this forum.

yes, well I guess we all bring our own meaning to the text for all sorts of reasons. I see no evidence for this one.

sschlichter · 02-21-2011, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Regardless of whether anything I beleive about jesus is true, it is non-sensical to read this and not find the simplest solution to be that he had a brother named James.

Simplest solution to what?

If Galatians were the only extant pre-Nicean Christian document, then it might indeed make sense to read this passage as telling us that Paul believed that somebody he knew as "the lord" had a brother named James. But it is not the only such document. Any theory about the origins of Christianity have to account for what is written in all extant documents from the period in question. The most parsimonious construal of one verse in one document is not necessarily the best explanation for how all of the surviving documents came into existence as we find them.

of course, but that is certainly not the case.

spin · 02-21-2011, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You have this ass-up. The only reason to assume your conclusion is because you can't use the evidence to get there. Perhapses will get you talking uncontrolledly, unable to say anything meaningful, because it's one perhaps built on another and another.

I am not assuming anything.

Oh, yes, you are. You assume you know what "lord" in Gal 1:19 refers to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

perhaps is an important word. the only thing more dangerous than a perhaps is a missing one where it is due.

It only takes one "perhaps" to put you in bullshit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

I quoted John, not as authority but as a perfectly acceptable alternate to your stated view (which is missing it's perhaps).

When was John written? Your answer: "I don't know." You don't know where and how John fits into the developing christian tradition. You don't know how it relates to the synoptics. In fact, you don't know what sort of composition it is. You could be doing the equivalent of citing Exodus as a meaningful picture of Egypt in the mid 2nd millennium BCE.

You need some controls to help you have meaningful data. Otherwise you could end up citing "Prince of Egypt".

It should be simple enough to understand that we can develop some kind of relative chronology which starts with Paul (eg Galatians) moves on to Mark and onto Matthew and Luke. It is complicated by later scribal intervention, but at least we have a start. We know Matt and Luke came after Mark for obvious reasons. John cannot be placed into this relative chronology. The information you cite from it cannot be related. Is it independent? Is it derivative? Is it derivative of the same traditions?

Given that, how do you relate the apparently apologetic work in John to the issue at hand?....

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Mary's real sister or even John's wild-ass speculation that Jesus had an aunt named Mary makes it un-fitting to assume that James did not become Jesus' adelphos at his or jesus' birth.

We haven't dealt with the Marcan evidence. You cannot gaily abandon it and try to meaningfully go on to talk about something else, something whose value cannot be assessed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

This Mary is not the mother of Jesus and this Mary was only absorbed into the immediate family by Protestants. Is that your point? You are defending Catholic dogma?

Try to keep up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Why is a development post-Mark to be assumed and an aunt named Mary (as is supported by John) with sons named James and Joseph discarded?

We are trying to do philological research, not build a web of supposition. I have been asking for people to look at the evidence within Mark, that there was a Mary, "mother of James and Joses", of whom one cannot eke out relationship with Jesus (unless one assumes inerrancy), then this combination of "James and Joses" appears again with a Mary, but this time with Jesus. Had the first Mary been the mother of Jesus, it would have been perfectly simple to indicate which Mary we were dealing with by calling her "Mary, mother of Jesus", but the writer indicated differently. She wasn't the mother of Jesus, but of "James and Joses". And Matthew, using Mark, relegates her to "the other Mary" (27:61, 28:1), apparently also not realizing she was actually the mother of Jesus -- if your view were sustainable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sschlichter

Quote:

Here we go to the knee-jerk rubbish about mythicism. When argument fails say something about mythicism/communism/gays/(add shibboleth here).

I think it is dishonest to suggest that mythicism is not related to this subject.

I think all you need to do here is apologize. You may not understand what's going on, but that doesn't give you the grounds to impute dishonesty.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

spin · 02-21-2011, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

He is forced to invent another special clique of belivers called "the brothers of the lord". Even thouigh he has no evidence to help him.

Actually, it is Paul who seems to have first put forward the notion of a group of believers he refers to as the "brothers of the lord". You may want to assume that that talks about brothers of Jesus, but Paul simply doesn't say that. Had he wanted to refer to the brothers of Jesus, why not transparently say "brothers of Jesus"?

I have pointed out many times here that there are two uses of κυριος at the time when the early christian literature was written, as evinced in the LXX translation of Ps 110:1, "the lord says to my lord", the first being "non-titular" and refers to god, the second being titular. The "lord Jesus Christ" is titular. The "brother of the lord" is non-titular.

Here is a challenge to you. As a preamble, Paul uses the words brother/brothers 96 times in his letters, find three examples where one of them refers to a physical brother; and find three examples where he conclusively uses the non-titular κυριος for Jesus. How do you derive your assumed meaning of "James the brother/sibling of Jesus" from Gal 1:19?

Given the consistent use of "brother" in Paul's letters, isn't it more reasonable to conclude that the "brothers of the lord" refers to a group of believers than to go through the speculation that Paul is being inconsistent with his terminology to provide your desired meaning?

judge · 02-21-2011, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

It should be simple enough to understand that we can develop some kind of relative chronology which starts with Paul (eg Galatians) moves on to Mark and onto Matthew and Luke. It is complicated by later scribal intervention, but at least we have a start.

Hmm, relative is the important word for you here though, because you want to be able to shift the goalposts when it suits you.

Mark 6:3 torpedoes your case, so you insist, eneqivocally (as you did in the OP), that it is a later intervention into the text.

All you can reasonably say is that maybe it is an interpolation, and that you dont have any hard evidence at all for this just some speculation.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.