post tenebras lux

Except that it's plural: brothers/brethren of the lord, not brother.He's already mentioned the Apostles but he wants to mention other (high ranking?) christians. Except the word christian doesn't exist so he had to use another phrase. Perhaps 'followers of the lord/christ' could have done, but as he uses 'brothers' elsewhere in his letters (or because a 'brother' is politer than 'follower') he tries to use it here as well, except feeling that an 'your brothers' would be a bit lost here he chooses to write it as 'brothers of the lord'.

Does that account for the distinctive usage?

Geetarmoore

Clearly?

Ben C Smith

It is plural in 1 Corinthians 9.5, where the brothers of the Lord are apparently to be distinguished both from the rest of the apostles and from Cephas. It is singular in Galatians 1.19, where Paul mentions James the brother of the Lord.

You think that Paul coined this phrase on the spot? Rather, in both cases he appears to think his readers will know to whom he is referring (that is, he thinks .

I guess I do not see how this scenario makes sense of the phrase. If he was referring to Christians in general, then either of the plain words brother(s) or saint(s) would do, as usual in his epistles. If he was referring to the apostles, then he has already covered the apostles in both passages. The phrase really makes sense only if he is referring to a particular, closed group of individuals.

Ben.

Vivisector

It seems that the above presumes that brother/brethren doesn't mean flesh-and-blood siblings; why would something like this be presumed?

Elsewhere, Paul refers to James, at least, as among the "pillars." Why wouldn't he have simply continued his own terminology (which perhaps included "super-apostles")?

I'm sorry, but not to me. In 129 uses of brother/brothers (that's in all 13 epistles), there are only two instances of brother/brothers of the Lord. If we conclude that, in these cases, Paul did not intend to use brother/brothers as he most commonly used the terms, why not simply infer that Paul used the terms as most would have understood them as opposed to hypothesizing a "Brothers of the Lord" group for which there is no evidence? Wouldn't this be simpler and less speculative?

If Jesus had brothers who included James, how would you have expected Paul to refer to them, if not as brother/brothers of the Lord?

Cheers,

V.

gstafleu

In the same way as "James the brother of the lord," or "James a brother of the lord" is distinguised from "James the brother of the lord." James was a very important figure, the head of the Jerusalem church. As such he was a primus inter pares, a brother of the lord who was more brother of the lord than other brethern of the lord. Given the ubiquitous use of Paul of adelphos/oi to mean fellow travellers, I don't think this is a very far fetched interpretation.

Amaleq13

With a qualifier of "according to the flesh"? It seems strange to me that Paul would break from his apparently standard practice of avoiding any reference to the potentially greater authority of the former disciples and strange that he would consider it theologically appropriate to refer to James as the brother of "the Lord" since that seems to me to have been a post-resurrection title.

That said, I think Ben has presented a compelling argument for taking the reference literally.

Ben C Smith

If James the pillar is called James the brother of the Lord in Galatians 1.19 because he is primus inter pares, then who are the brothers of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 9.5?

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I am humbled by this unexpected endorsement. Thanks, Doug.

Ben.

Vivisector

Good point. "According to the flesh" would have (presumably) made the reference clearer.

I get the impression that he did this only when necessary and found it somewhat galling when he had to.

If only we knew what Paul considered important about Jesus. It's almost as if, to Paul, very little about Jesus the man was important, only the crucified and resurrected Christ Jesus. All that aside, it still seems to me that if Paul wanted to make reference to James, a flesh and blood brother of Jesus, "the Lord's brother" seems more probable than "Jesus's brother," "Christ's brother" or "Christ Jesus's brother."

Agreed.

Cheers,

V.

Amaleq13

De nada (though I am in an exceptionally good mood with the end of the school year only a week away )