Duvduv

That's true, but if some redactor just want to make "a gotcha point" all he had to do was throw in those words and say "Gotcha!" The fact is it is never followed up in any way anywhere. If this James WERE the brother of the HJ, then certainly he would deserve a heck of a lot more coverage than he gets in Galatians. My goodness, here is this "Paul" telling everyone how great he is, and then he simply mentions in passing having met the BROTHER of the alleged HJ with virtually nothing to say about him. In context it is absurd. However, the expression "who is called the brother of the Lord" is significant because it is even possible that the author of Galatians used this term, and the "who is called" in Greek were later deleted, eliminating the fact that WHO IS CALLED refers to an HONORIFIC TITLE which even recalls the Hebrew name ACHIYA.

aa5874

Again ,it is really irrelevant what may have been, what if, maybe this and maybe that!!!

The event may not have happened as stated in Galatians.

Apologetic sources have stated that the mother of James the Apostles was NOT the mother of Jesus and that Jesus was FATHERED by a Ghost.

Duvduv

It is not irrelevant to discuss the overall context within which the item is being discussed. The overall context is:

a) Paul has claimed a unique revelation of the gospel from the risen Christ himself, who most people believe had been the historical Jesus;

b) the man named James was therefore the brother of the risen Christ when he was still in this world;

c) Interpolations and changes are clearly abound in the NT texts;

d) Although Paul claims the greatest revelation, he has virtually nothing to say about the alleged BROTHER of his risen Christ, and offers no praise, awe or reverance for this man;

e) He never even blessed and praises the alleged mother of both people;

f) There is evidence that "Brother of the Lord" was an honorific title;

g) Thus, whether the words were interpolated or not, additional words "who is called" suggesting the honorific title in Galatians could have been deleted. But either way, such an insignificant mention of the alleged historical brother of the Savior himself provides reason to assume that the author of Galatians himself did not intend this as a reference to an earthly brother as described in GMark and GMatt.

LegionOnomaMoi

If you close your eyes very, very tightly, research and scholarship disappears and turns into snake oil. It has been fun. Particularly your new defense of the term personal idiom.


Your second link there doesn't contain linguistic jargon, that's for sure. It's social psychology jargon. That was my other undergraduate major. So what you meant by "personal idiom" was "the equivalent to Winnicott's [1971] "true self", but with the accent on the self's implicit "theory of form"? Or did you just google it and link to a source you didn't have?

From Object Relations and Social Relations: The Implications of the Relational Turn in Psychoanalysis
"The perception of one's personal idiom by the other is a condition of recognition in that it accounts for the sensing of what is irreducibly unique about the self as the centre of subjective experience."

So all this time you were using the term to refer to psycho-social jargon. But wait! You have other googled sources. Take the third. It's Denton's summary of Meyer's use of the term in his Aims of Jesus and Critical Realism and the New Testament. Now I own the first and have read the second, and I'm sure you've read ithem too. Meyer's use (Aims of Jesus p. 86) refers an "index of historicity" through "irreducibly personal idiom[s]" (italics in original). We can know what came from Jesus because of, for example, his personal idiomatic use of abba. The reason Meyer calls it a personal idiom is because we don't find this use anywhere else. Only that isn't true with Paul.
We find the metaphorical use of brother, even among christians (as Dickey specifically points out) all over the place. Your first source is more of the same: using "personal idiom" as a criterion for historicity. So which is it? Does personal idiom refer to social psychology jargon or a criterion for historicity? Neither one fits your use.

Well that certainly seems to have worked out better. Your google search turned up two distinct uses of the term, neither of which are applicable.


At least now I understand why you keep using "formula." It's like your use of "personal idiom." You can't distinguish between technical usage and terms you make up. So when I use a term from syntactical theory, you think you can replace it with "formula," ignore any and all research on constructions, and conclude what you will. Likewise, when you use "personal idiom" you think you can support this use by referring to social psychology jargon about the "true self."

aa5874

Who are these people that believed Jesus was historical???? You don't even understand the term "historical Jesus".

The historical Jesus refers to a human Jesus with a human father that could NOT have physically resurrected and could NOT have visited over 500 people after his death.

The Pauline writer claimed he was NOT the apostle of a human being so I don't who believed Jesus was historical.

People like Paul, Justin martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome, all wrote about a non-historical Jesus--a Jesus without a human father-- born of a Ghost.

Logical Fallacy--you are incapable of verifying the veracity and historical accuracy of Galatians 1.19 and even worse you are also claiming Galatians 1.19 may be manipulated.

Logical Fallacy--you are incapable of demonstrating that Galatians 1.19 was interpolated.

LegionOnomaMoi

Because it means "except."


For the same reason Diodorus Siculus can say Κύρῳ τῷ τοῦ βασιλέως ἀδελφῷ/Cyrus, the brother of the King. when "king" is also widely used. This is why construction grammars and previous syntactic models replaced the original transformational approach. There where just too many selectional restrictions for synactic theory. The next series of attempts to improve on this were through an increasing reliance on selectional restrictions in the lexicon. That didn't work either, however, because there were too many "idiomatic" word combinations which were transformational syntactic theory couldn't "generate" and which couldn't be relegated to the lexicon.

Greek uses the term kyrios to mean many things and refer to many people. So does Paul. However, we know that when Paul says "our lord christ" or "Jesus the Lord" he's referring to Jesus. Likewise, "brother of YHWH" wouldn't make any sense. Paul metaphorically relates the body, composed of many parts yet having a unity, to the followers of Jesus. This "brotherhood" is the "body of Christ." They are brothers/sisters in Christ, but not of Christ or of God or of the Lord. We see this "of the Lord" only twice. If we had only the "brothers of the Lord" then we would not have much to go on. However, "James the brother of the Lord" is much clearer. It is a specific construction used to identify people through kinship throughout greek. "Brothers of God" would indeed be a personal idiom, if we found it throughout Paul, because it isn't something the Jesus sect or christians used. However, neither does Paul, except for these two instances. The only way the usage makes sense is as a way to identify this James.

And to support this reading, we have at least two other early independent sources which refer to a James identified as the brother of Jesus.


This question was addressed by J. P. Meier (among others). I use Meier, however, because he is a catholic priest, and the catholic church maintains that adelphos means "cousin" a similar relation to maintain the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity. So when Meier concludes that there is no support for reading "brothers of Jesus" as "cousin" or "nephew" or "stepbrother" (two of which were solutions proposed by Jerome and Epiphanius) becaus there is simply no basis for such an interpretation, it is a finding that contradicts his actual belief/faith.

Duvduv

Acccording to church doctrine there was a historical Jesus who had a historical brother whose name is mentioned in Mark and Matthew. Is it hard to imagine that the doctrine of a historical Jesus based on the gospels existed in the 4th or 5th centuries? This is what I am suggesting from their perspective, that's all. The doctrine also claims that the author of the epistles believed in a historical Jesus of the gospels, so it is not hard to believe that a redactor wanted to "clarify" who James was.
What's the big deal??

spin

And almost nothing that deals with the topic. Just bleating about terminology. What can one expect from this one trick pony snake oil formula traveling medicine show?

:wave:

aa5874

You do not understand the term "historical Jesus".

In gMatthew Jesus was the Son of a Ghost without a human father and in gMark Jesus was walking on water.

gMatthew's and gMark's Jesus are non-historical characters.

People who are LOOKING for an historical Jesus are NOT looking for the Son of a Ghost or one that WALKED on sea water.

The Canon is NOT a source for an historical Jesus.

LegionOnomaMoi

I would like nothing more than to deal with the topic. Apart from Dickey and traditional greek grammararian accounts of the "kinship genitive," my main argument uses a constructionalist analysis. Rather than read through papers or sources I referenced or provided to find out what this entails, you call it a "mathematical formula," ignore the extensive research it (construction grammar) is based on. That way, you don't actually have to address anything I've said, because rhetoric allows you an easy out. As long as you equate a technical term used in a specific way with anything you like, you can say anything you want about it, because you've already thrown accuracy and intellectual integrity out the window. I've seen creationist use the same tactic. They bring up the scientific method, define it the way they want, and then explain how evolution can't "science." You state:
That's certainly easier than actually learning what "construction" is as used in syntactical theory. Ignore the research, equate a technical term from it with a definition of your choosing, and voila! You get the same type of argument used to prove how god exists because of infinity or evolution doesn't. As long as act like the research doesn't exist, whether it's linguistics, biology, or mathematics, you can "safely" ignore it.