judge

It is you who made the claim about people believing what the text means. You claimed that there was only one reason that people believed it should be read as "brother", that being that some unknown person or persons got confused.
You still, have no case for anyone being confused. If someone got confused and misread it as brother then it must have been intended to read as something else.

The big problem for you is that you dont have any alternative reading. If you do then what is it?

(added in edit: )
Look here in post 24 you post an explantion, a trajectory, for how you imagine one text came into its present form.

Why not try to do the same for Galatians 1:19 ?
Surely you can see how much that would help you and how much negelcting to do so damages your whole idea?

spin

Rubbish.

So? Paul talks about Christ, but does that mean the reference is different from Jesus?

The obvious thing that you don't seem to get is that one has to establish acceptable meanings of the terms we are dealing with. If you cannot allow that to happen then you are wasting everyone's time.

Paul's usage of the non-titular κυριος suggests that in "James the brother of the lord" it is in fact Paul's god. The difficulty is the significance of the expression. What does it mean? It is, as I have said, opaque. That's why I have suggested from 1 Cor 9:5 that "brothers of the lord" may mean a specific group of believers, as related to "brothers in the lord" (των αδελφων εν κυριω) in Phil 1:14.

Rubbish. You just want nice clear easy to digest statements, when the material we are dealing with isn't nice, clear, or easy to digest.


spin

spin

And I have pointed you to the reason why. The common usage Paul has for the non-titular κυριος, but you refuse to look at it.

What are you talking about?? You seem totally confused.

Here is what Paul wrote:

ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου

James the brother of the lord.

Somehow Origen or his source has pulled Jesus out of this phrase when Paul's letters help us understand that the non-titular κυριος is a Greek reference to god.

What is Origen then if not confused?

Paul usually uses the non-titular κυριος to refer to god as I have already indicated.

Obviously because they are different situations. There is nothing suspicious in the form of Gal 1:19 that I can see, while there are a number of linguistic issues in the examples you refer to.

Once again, rubbish.


spin

judge

Who are you trying to impress with the eye rolling?
Why do you think I specifically wrote..."and no help to you if you want to argue for "god" being the correct translation here."

Galatians is no help to you, if you want to argue for "god" being the correct translation.

judge

Or is it that you cant posit an original form of Galatians 1:19 that helps you, that doesn't even make you laugh! :devil1:

How do you imagine Galtians 1:19 originally read?

Come on..stick your neck out for a change!

judge

If you say so.

Who cares what the Jesus historicist says anyway. Why not forget about reacting against her, and just look at what we have.
Mark, our earliest clue here tells us that Jesus had a brother called James.
What are you going to do with that fact?

spin

I'm letting you know that you made a lame comment and the analogy I provided should have made it obvious, but it seems it didn't. Don't worry about it.

Because you were kidding yourself.

What else is there, given that Paul frequently uses the non-titular κυριος for god?

I'm impressed that you bothered to spend time thinking of this line of mindnumbingness. You want me to suggest an original form to a verse that, I've already said, I can't see evidence for it having been elaborated on. Perhaps you can help me out here: what evidence do you see that it has been worked on?

Yup.

Many of the people on this forum. The OP was written for historicists who try to eke something out of Gal 1:19.

I've already done it. I pointed any interested party to the fact that the book of Acts knows nothing about such a James as the brother of Jesus in the early church. We are left to wait for Origen in the 3rd c. (or his reputed source Hegesippus) to come up with the connection, like Origen knows better than Acts.

I think you've run your course, judge, with this going back to the OP reheat. And your previous two posts which seem to have dissipated your original gripe.

I note once again your refusal to attempt to make sense out of the non-titular use of κυριος in Pauline writings in general. It's better not to look than to see something you don't like.


spin

judge

No I want you to say exactly how you think it read. Here we are 150 or so posts into the thread and you still wont do it.

Just write down how you think the original form was intended to be read.

Lets see if it makes any sense.


So what?

This does not excuse you dealing with the clear message in Mark.

Mark, our eariest clue, tells us that Jesus had a brother called James.

Your boats just not going to float, sorry.

spamandham

I'd be interested in 'hearing' your thinking on that.

spin

I'm, sorry, you seem to have totally lost the thread. You were crapping on about the significance of part of the verse for umpteen posts and now you've jumped ship onto this silliness. I won't be reconstructing the verse for you judge. You want something that doesn't make sense. In fact I've had great difficulties trying to get any sense out of you in this thread.

Good reaction. Show what you can do: nothing.

We are talking about Paul. We were discussing what Paul meant by "James the brother of the lord"? Now you are off talking about Mark and the fact that Jesus had a brother named James (who showed no interest in Jesus), a brother that the book of Acts has no knowledge of, though it knows about the James mentioned in Galatians. Please try to stay on the beaten track.

So you live in the world influenced by Origen. What's new?

Now that you have failed to show any substantial gripe regarding my OP, you've changed the subject.

You're the only one at sea.


spin