Vorkosigan

I have to admit. I thought I'd seen completely irrelevant and obscurantist deployments of scholarly fuddly-duddly in my time, but compared to this passage that you've scribed, the others I have read over the years were mere dilettantes. This is HOF stuff. Orz Orz Orz.

Bernard Muller

to Spin,
This is a strong statement inviting readers to interpret any 'Lord' as meaning Jesus. A comma is implied between 'Lord' and 'Jesus Christ', because the uniqueness of Jesus Christ is not an issue. What Paul meant, for Christians, there is one God and there is one Lord, and that Lord is Jesus Christ.
Now I have a tendency to read all 'Lord' on its own as meaning Jesus (as Paul wanted it to be understood, but with a fall back position to God, for the ones (Judaized) who thought otherwise).
At first look, there is no clear indication that any 'Lord' on its own in 1Corinthians has to be understood as 'God'. I ask you, where in the Pauline epistles, 'Lord' on its own, absolutely need to be interpreted as God in order to make sense, or there is a clear indication that 'God' is meant?

No, wrongly put: Paul says that god did the revealing of Jesus. Correct according to Gal 1:15-16. And Paul has his gospel revealed by Jesus (Gal1:12).


It is not the same thing. In Ps 110:1, it is clear 2 different lord are featured. But not in 1Cor15:57 & 58. Do you expect the reader to interpret the Lord of v.58 differently than the one of v.57?

LegionOnomaMoi

What follows is a lengthy explanation. I'm doing this because when I tried to be terse, it didn't work.

The last several posts I wrote were in response to a statement. I've come across various arguments about what "brother of the lord" means (Doherty discusses it, as does Carrier, and I've found it all over blogs and forum posts). One of the fundamental flaws with so many analyses is an assumption which ignores modern linguistic theory: "Paul uses brother metaphorically all the time. Therefore, he's using it metaphoricaly here."

The problem with this analysis is that for decades now modern linguistic theories of grammar have shown that any approach to a language (written or spoken) which seperates lexemes and syntax is flawed. Metaphor, prefabs, and constructions larger than words but less schematic than traditional grammatical rules are fundamental to language.

When I started to point this out, I received the following response:
In order to demonstrate that I am "amiss with the linguistics" one would have to have some knowledge of linguistic theory as it is at play here, yet the next line clearly demonstrates a lack of such knowledge. This continued, with post after post about "structure" which completely misunderstands construction grammar as it has been incorporated into modern models of grammar and even such nonsense as:

The "simple transformation" part refers to an elementary and outdated knowledge of transformational linguistics, which Chomsky himself and his heirs "abandonded" in various was. Even within a simplistic transformational approach, the "lexicon" limits what transformations are "grammatical." And the reason even hardcore generative linguists like Jackendoff accept constructions against the early generative account is due to the work of construction grammarians.

So, how is all this relevant? Language is composed of constructions, from words to traditional rules of grammar. It's also filled with prefabs ("get real" "once again" "all of a sudden" "take a break" "lend a hand" "far be it from me" and on and on). A great many constructions (e.g., "what's X doing Y," "the X-er, the Y-er") are larger than words, but are schematic, while others are fixed. For example, "it takes one to know one" is idiomatic, but it is completely fixed (*it took one to know one"). Others are only marginally flexible ("you're pulling my leg" "he was pulling my leg" etc.). However, A construction like "the X-er, the Y-er" has a "grammar" of it's own. Thus, even though "The higher you climb, the harder you fall" and "the more I thought about it, taking into account all that I had read, the less inclined I was to accept a componential model of grammar" have (it appears) quite different structures, they are both instances of the schematic construction "the X-er, the Y-er."

Likewise, two sentences can have the same exact structure, but because they belong to different argument structures and inherit from different constructions, be completely different.

"You're driving me home."
"You're driving me crazy."

The same structure, completely different meanings.

Then there are constructions which are the same, but change slightly depending on things like the subject:
"Kids are kids"
"Boys will be boys"
"War is war."
"The law is the law"
"A party is a party."

compare
*the party is the party
*kid is kid

etc.

The point of all of the above is that while in traditional grammar we have words and we have grammar, and therefore saying "Paul uses brother metaphorically all the time, and thus there's no reason to think he isn't here," wouldn't be an issue, modern linguistic theory has shown it is flawed. It's not just a matter of context but of the grammatical constructions used.

In the greco-roman and judaic world, where so many people shared the same name, certain constructions were used to identify people. Kinship was a common one:
"Iatrocles, brother of Ergochares, and Eueratus, son of Strombich/Iatrokles ho Ergocharous adelphos kai Eueratos ho Strombichou huios Aeschines on the Embassy 2.15


"and seeing Euphemus, the brother of Callias, son of Telocles/idon de Euphemon ton Kalliou tou Telokleous adelphon" Andocides On the Mysteries 1.40

"Everybody knows that Euaeon, the brother of Leodamas, killed Boeotus../isasin Euaiona polloi ton Leodamantos adelphon, apokteinanta Boioton...
Demosthenes Against Midias 71

"Certainly Attalus, the brother of Eumenes,.../Attalon goun ton Eumenous...adelphon Plutarch An seni respublica gerenda sit chap.1

"Timotheus, the son of Conon/Τιμόθεος ὁ Κόνωνος" Aeschines on the Embassy 2.70



And on and on. In the last example, the word "son" is added. The actual text reads more literally "Timotheos of Conon."

The prototypical kin identification construction used the father, and thus although "son of" was often included, it was often implied by the identification construction itself.

However, from Herodotus to Plutarch and beyond we see this same kin indentification construction all over the place. It is schematic, in that word order is flexible, parts can be removed (such as the word "son"), things can be inserted in between the indentified and the indentifier (from asides to other adjectives and so on), but the basic schema remains: X the Y of Z.

Each time we see Paul use the word brother or brothers, we must not only understand this usage within the context of Paul but the construction he uses in every instantiation. For example, we frequently see "brothers" as a general address to those he is writing to. We see "brothers in christ." And so on. In other words, we frequently find the word in metaphorical constructions in which Paul conceptualizes the "body of christ" or the ekklesia as composed of brothers and sisters in christ. And thus when "brother(s)" is used in this way, we have reason to reject the notion that Paul is referring to a literal brother.

This is quite different from the construction we find in Galations. Here we find an identification construction: James, the brother of the lord/Iakobon ton adelphon tou Kurio. It is a typical kinship identification construction: X the Y of Z.

This construction differs from the metaphorical constructions we find elsewhere. We don't have any reason to think it is not an identification construction, nor is it comparable to other uses of brother (paul distinguishes between brothers in christ and of the lord).

Applying the generalization of metaphorical usage is fallacious because it seperates instantiation of a lexeme from the construction in which it is used. Linguistic models of grammar demonstrate how wrong this is.

So the first "evidence" is simply an argument against the fallacious conclusion that as Paul uses a word metaphorically many times, we can conclude metaphorical usage when we see it.

By "positive" evidence, I mean not just arguments which show the flaws in how we should read this line (such as applying the metaphorical usage ignoring the construction, or reading the line as a title), but evidence that the usage does mean actual brother.

The first is the identification construction it self. It's the same construction we see all over greek texts to identify individuals by kin.

The second is the sources that also identify a James, the brother of Jesus, including Mark/Matthew and Josephus.

Matt 13:55, most likely dependent on Mark 6:3, identify a brother of Jesus named James. This James is distinct from the James of the 12. In Galatians, Paul distinguishes/identifies James, the brother of Jesus, and has to because he could be talking about James, the pillar (of the 12). Every gospel, however, describes actual brothers of Jesus.


This:
Simplistic transformation analysis like is appropriate for a intro course on linguistics, as it was the beginning of modern linguistics and chomsky's early model (he's been through several). It is completely inadequate here. The work on frames/roles/cases/etc. and idioms came together in the late 1980s early 1990s, and has since dominated linguistic models of grammar. The idea that one can simply "replace" του Ραυλου with μου simply isn't accurate, and the reason transformational linguistics was abandoned (and even generative linguists use roles & constructions) was because outside of textbook examples, such analyses failed when it came to actual language. I cannot replace "bucket" in "He's about to kick the bucket" with "soccer ball" without fundamentally changing the meaning. I can replace crazy in "He's driving me crazy" with "mad/insane/up the wall/out of my mind/etc.," but not with "home" or "there" or "up the hill".




I said "virtually." There is another instance (if memory serves, from Justin) of a christian using this construction. However, it is not a typical christian construction. We see it in Matthew in 27:22 on the lips of Pilate meaning "this is what you know him as." Same with Josephus. Christians almost always simply said "Jesus Christ." One of the reasons Josephus' longer reference to Jesus is at least altered and possibly entirely interpolated is because here Josephus says "he was christ." That's something a Christian would say.

maryhelena

Great! I can't claim to understand all the Greek that was involved here. I like your conclusion however - 'Paul' knows the gospel story that James is a brother of JC. Another way of viewing this - 'Paul', for all his intellectual flights of theological or philosophical speculation - would not let go of flesh and blood - would not let go of physical reality.

tanya

Good. Nice. Great work, but....

What if "Paul" had written this epistle, as a work of fiction, not a history....What if "Paul" deliberately sought obscurity in his writing, knowing that those hearing the text as it was spoken to the congregation, would fail to distinguish the precise meaning? The question then, is simply this (not Chomsky this, or Chomsky that, but: ) Did "Paul" have available to him a method of communicating "the brother of Jesus", in such a way that the distinction between kinship and friendship could have been made crystal clear?

In other words, if "brother" was commonly used in koine Greek, to indicate NOT JUST kinship, but also fellowship, or even more broadly, fellow citizen of planet earth...(Strong lists how many different meanings, all derived, ultimately from "uterus"...?), then, all the "linguistic" analysis, by an MIT guy, chomsky, or anyone else, is useless.

What one needs is to read "Paul's" mind, assuming that his epistles are honestly reflecting his thoughts.

judge

delete

aa5874

At least 1600 years after Galatians 1.19 was written people today are trying to figure out if the Apostle James had a human brother called Jesus and refuse to take into consideration what apologetic sources wrote about the Apostle James.

The matter has been resolved over 1600 years ago if we would only read the written statements provided by the apologetic sources.

No other source, except apologetic sources, has Identified or named an Apostle called James and claimed his father was Alphaeus and his mother was the sister of the mother of Jesus.

Except for forgeries in Josephus, only apologetic sources mentioned a character called Jesus and claimed he was the Child of a Ghost and God the Creator.

Even If we assume that the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles were written AFTER Galatians we still see that when Jesus selected his Apostles that none of the Apostles was called the brother of Jesus--NONE was called the brother of the Lord.

Again, not even apologetic sources in the Canon corroborated Galatians 1.19.

Unless some credible evidence surfaces then Jesus of the NT cannot be regarded as a human or that he had a human called James the Apostle.

judge

aa thank you for that post with no capitals, it was much easier to read.

(ok almost no capitals)

aa5874

It is most fascinating that you would make such a laughable statement.

Solo

Oh, I see !

I am sure that whatever separating 'instantiation of a lexeme from the construction in which it is used' means, it cannot mean that 'brother(s) of the Lord' excludes by a rule of semantics the possibility this is a terminus technicus of some messianic cult which denotes a rank or function. Get reasonable !.

I was being sarcastic, LOM. Do you understand 'sarcasm' ? It is a way to attack a point that someone makes by circumlocution. I was commenting on the superfluous adjective "positive" slapped before "evidence" in your statement. There is no "positive", or for that matter "negative", evidence but plain-Jane "evidence" (and "evidence to the contrary"), that is if you want to make yourself understood among rational people writing English.

Again you missed the point I was making: "Jesus, (him) called Christ" is attested to as a Christian-scribe term in all the known early instances that we know of except Josephus ( 3-times in Matthew, once in John). That twice the term used in Matthew is ascribed as a quote of Pilate, does not make it originate outside Christian community, especially not since Matthew considers the name "Jesus" in the beginning of the gospel in its salvific connotation.

If then ho legomenos Christos is attested to as one having a titular function in Christian circles, and if the term appears in writing of a non-Christian author in place of a family name, then a dispassionate interpreter would have to admit a certain high probability the phrase in the non-Christian script was supplied by a Christian interpolator, who naively believed that form to have been a common family name accepted by outsiders, on the evidence that Pilate was said to use it in the scripture.


You also completely misapprehend the argument. Mark and Matthew testifying of a Jesus' brother called James, does not in any way address my query :

Paul does not say "brother of Jesus". You interpret Paul using some pseudo-linguistic abacadabra. Won't fly ! You were asked to assess the likelihood that James or Jacob (known as Just or Righteous) that Paul is said to have met in Jerusalem really was the James Mark and Matt wrote about.

So what do we have other than the probable interpolation in Ant 20 in Josephus ? There is nothing TMK, no evidence from inside the early believer communities that James the Just was thought to have been Jesus' sibling. This holds not only for Paul's time but even in the times of Acts of the Apostles. Clement says that the inner trio of Jesus disciples, Peter, James and John "did not contend for the leadership of the church, but chose James the Just". Not a word about James' the Just kinship claim to the "bishop's office" before the 3rd century, AFAIK. Is there any evidence against this ? Bring it ! I have not found it.

There are other issues with what Ehrman perceives as the extent of Paul's historical witness. Paul says plainly that even though he once considered Christ "kata sarka" he does so no longer. To him "the Lord" means "Jesus risen from the dead". Brothers of the Lord that Paul talks about in 1 Cr 9:5 are mentioned alongside "other apostles" and "Cephas" which of course suggests the term was used to denote some kind of function in the Jerusalem assembly. And how probable is it that worshipping Jesus as "the Lord" would have been tolerated among temple-going Jews ? Not very probable, I would say if, according to Hegesippus, when James publicly proclaimed his alleged brother as the Saviour in the city after cca 30 years of operating a church that worshipped and proclaimed him Messiah not just there but over much of the Mediterranean, he was promptly thrown down the parapet and stoned to death.

So where does the term come from ? I think Acts 6:4 provide a clue in this with the 'service of the word' formula (diakonia tou logou). As 'the word' was originally shorthand for 'the word of the cross' (1 Cr 1:18), it is highly unlikely that the messianic brothers in Jerusalem were devoting themselves to preaching Pauline cross. It is much more likely that their service was to the Lord (the Jewish one), hence 'hoi adelphoi (en th diakonia) tou kuriou'. Of course we don't know the aramaic version but the original deacons of James' assembly were probably known by that name among the Greek-speaking Jewish diaspora. Shorthand of this sort are commonplace in religious cults.

Best,
Jiri