Ted Hoffman

Ben, I think the tenor of my argument is sufficiently clear. If you want to split it to pieces and compare and contrast, be my guest. At this point I am not persuaded that it is worth my while laboring on why it is important to differentiate the third person singular and third person plural when discussiong ancient historiographical conventions.
The idea behind the convention(s) is the same. Robbins of course goes further to argue about sea voyage narratives as a narrative device.

TedM

I would interpret these additional verses to be referring to Jesus as Lord. Others here apparantly don't, so I guess there is no need to consider them to be interpolations then .

1 Thessalonians 3.13:
...so that he may establish your hearts without blame in holiness before our God and father at the advent of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.

1 Thessalonians 4.15-16:
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the advent of the Lord will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trump of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.

1 Cor 6:17
15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be!
16Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, "THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH."
17But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

1 Cor 7:22
20Each man must remain in that condition in which he was called.
21Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
22For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord's freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ's slave.

Eph 5:29 (Young’s Literal)
29for no one ever his own flesh did hate, but doth nourish and cherish it, as also the Lord -- the assembly,
30because members we are of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones;
31`for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they shall be -- the two -- for one flesh;'
32this secret is great, and I speak in regard to Christ and to the assembly;


ted

Ben C Smith

This is not about third person singular against third person plural.

Bauckham is talking about the third person singular that, for example, Josephus uses when describing his own actions in the war (Josephus answered... then he said...).

The we passages in Acts are in the first person plural (we went... we stayed...).

These are opposites; had the author of Acts followed the convention of which Bauckham is writing, he would have written he or they went, not we went.

How does the one illuminate the other?

Ben.

spin

I have already pointed out three examples where the absolute kurios is used for Jesus and they are in clearly disturbed circumstances, ie there is a good case that Paul did not write them.

You have to deal with the significance of this name, if you want to plead that "brother of the lord" must be understood in a particular naturalistic way, for it cannot be read that way.

This might come as a shock to you, TedM, but a writer needs to cue less frequent meanings of words with more than one meaning, ie they have to supply the reader some help.

No, just because you desire.

I don't believe you.

Rubbish.

Where in Mark? I mentioned Mark specifically in my previous post because the absolute use of the term is not used for Jesus.

Three interpolations.

The only thing that is confusing are the interpolations.

If a term can arbitrarily mean two different things, then obviously it will confuse. A reader needs to have cues to gather meaning from a bivalent term.

You're projecting.

I said that there was clearly a group at Jerusalem who were distinct from the apostles, who were known as brothers. There were at least 500 of them and Paul claims that Jesus, in an "apocryphal" event appeared to them. They may not be brothers of Jesus, but they could be brothers of the lord, couldn't they? You have sisters of mercy and children of Hitler. You certainly have brothers of the lord in some context.

(I should have commented here, that I do not agree with the Pauline tradition "support[ing] the other-literal meaning." That's just you and later tradition projecting on to Paul.)

I'm trying to get sense out of this. Paul has clearly used kurios to refer to god. There are three passages which I think are clear interpolations. That leaves no clear cases for Paul using it to mean Jesus.

As this all seems dependent on the statement that doesn't make sense, I'll pass for now.

You have clear context in which "brother" is not used biologically. In fact in Paul, have you got any instances of the biological use? (I haven't checked.)

It is a prime example of how context dictates the meaning, because it contrasts the two usages of kurios in a succinct way for you. All you need is a little context. "Our lord Jesus" and "my lord" are such contexts.

An argument purely from silence has no validity.

If you're not in the club, you mostly avoid talking about.

I don't agree. Dealing with the group as the Jerusalem church would be sufficient.

Perhaps I don't get your point. Is the James mentioned in 1 Cor 15:7 the same James as James the brother of the lord?

You want a tradition to be clear, when sadly there is no necessity for such clarity.

I understand.

In order to see kurios in "brother of the lord" as Jesus, I'd have to get over my linguistic presupposition that writers to audiences want to communicate when they use language. I find it simpler to believe that someone later in the tradition, who was at least binitarian, could have inserted the references to Jesus as "the lord" (unqualified, as in the first instance in "the lord said to my lord"). They would be more interested in their own agendas than that of the text they are improving.


spin

spin

No.

Read them in context. The first, dealing with god's wisdom, nonchalantly takes the opportunity to talk about the crucifixion. The second again, nonchalantly takes the opportunity to talk about the crucifixion -- nothing to do with the discourse. The third, we have talked about at length, is a lengthy inclusion from Luke, which misunderstands the context, while the fourth is a later interpolation on manuscript grounds, which doesn't understand the discourse and was influenced by the earlier insertion.

All you need to understand is the difference between the two references in "the lord said to my lord".

You can note that "lord" is titular here, can't you?

Remember "the lord said to my lord". That should help you get the idea.

One should understand what one is talking about before one speaks.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Ted..

Sure .. interpretation is rather a fine field .. however the 'interpolation game' is cute, but a total disaster, whether done by a skeptic or a Unitarian (Matthew 28:19) or any one of a dozen interpolation-types.

Verses don't match up with my theories ... even with overwhelming textual and historical evidence ... zap .. they are interpolations ! It is simply another methodology of manipulation and discussing an issue against that type of 'logic' is rather a waste of time and energy. Error begets error.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

What's that got to do with the price of fish in an egg market?

I have no problem with someone liking the name Christopher. Or that they were sad enough to give it to someone. Or even that it has a meaning -- which is based on an apparently spurious tradition. But the meaning is relatively transparent. Ahiyah is supplied as a name which is not transparent and which cannot be explained away by people who do not know enough about the traditions involved. I think in this case all of us. It would be translated to mean "the lord (is) my brother" or "brother of the lord". My problem with it is that people who have had the weight of nearly two millennia of apologetic tradition on their minds think unreasonably that they know how Paul is using the Greek equivalent.

This is meant in some way to have Paul using kurios (as in the first use in "the lord said to my lord") incoherently? ie think that its content at one moment means god and at another means Jesus?


spin

spin

The lord said to my lord.

This is the day of the lord, when god comes.

As "I and the father are one."

As Christ is the lord's agent, his "slaves" are those of the lord.

I don't consider that Ephesians is Pauline at all, as it would seem that much of the scholarly world doesn't. It does use the Pauline imagery already cited.


spin

TedM

For, now I will respond to this one. I must be missing something here because I know you are careful, but I'm not sure why these don't qualify. (I only looked up one (11:3) and it used the term kurios):

Mark 1:3
"a voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.' "

Mark 11:3
If anyone asks you, 'Why are you doing this?' tell him, 'The Lord needs it and will send it back here shortly.' "

Mark 12:11
the Lord has done this, and it is marvelous in our eyes' ?"

Mark 16:20
Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

ted

spin

Ie god. (Citation from the Hebrew bible)

Ie god.

Ie god. (Citation from the Hebrew bible)

Not part of Mark.


spin