Solo

The point is that in a phrase like "brother(s) of the Lord" it takes evidence to claim it is meant as kinship.

....but Paul uses specifically "sister" when referring to female members of the church generically (Rom 16:1, 1 Cr 7:15). So what does your point prove or test ?


The Pentecost fulfills the risen Jesus' promise (1:7-8), and establishes the church (as a placeholder for "the kingdom"). The Acts 1:14 prayer group of the 11 + the women (presumably the empty tomb witnesses) + mother and brothers of Jesus, are not the complete congregation (which at the time was said to be 120), and are not yet a church which is inaugurated in Acts 2 when all members receive the Holy Spirit. Unless of course you wish to argue that the church was started with a promise of the mass baptism and not the consecration itself. So, as far as I am concerned, you have no basis on which to claim that the mother and Jesus' brothers were "participating" in the church, let alone that Luke was aware of a tradition that James the Just was a blood relative of Jesus. The man who was historically the undisputed leader of the Jerusalem church is first mentioned by Acts in chapter 12, only after apostle James (the Zebedee) suddenly departs the scene, being executed by Herod without explanation.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

I think you are mistaken.

Only that you were mistaken to suggest that the term brothers (in the plural, referring to a group) automatically means all males in the Greek language. Which is why I argued from the mention of the wives in 1 Corinthians 9.1, not merely from the masculinity of the term brothers.

Paul uses sister exactly when we would expect, that is, when there are no males included.


Oh, good heavens, Jiri.

All that my points require is that Acts 1.14 testifies that the brothers of Jesus were no longer hostile to him, that they were, as it were, believers or fellows with the apostles and company. You can leave your precise determination of when exactly, in Lucan salvation history, the church started for another thread.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

Likely? Why? Because you say so?

Can you please show me where Paul uses a genitive rather than a dative construction containing the words ἀδελφός and κύριος to speak of a group, let alone one coterminous with those he calls ἅγιοι -- which, BTW, does not seem to be in his usage a special group among Christians (see Ro 8:27; 12:13; 15:25; 1 Cor 6:1f; 2 Cor 1:1; Eph 2:19; 3:8; Phil 4:22; Col 1:4; 1 Ti 5:10). Nor is it used that way by any other NT writer.

You might want to take into account the data on this found in TDNT, to wit:

Quote:

4. The Holiness of the ἐκκλησία. The connection of the holy with the cultic may be clearly perceived in the NT, as we have already seen, not merely in the name of God but also in fellowship in divine service. Here, too, the OT origin is obvious. Jerusalem is ἡ ἁγία πόλις (Mt. 4:5: 27:53; Rev. 11:2) where the great King dwells (Mt. 5:35). Like Sinai (Ac. 7:33) and the Mount of Transfiguration (2 Pt. 1:18), the Jerusalem temple is a τόπος ἅγιος (Mt. 24:15; Ac. 6:13); even Paul, if in a higher sense, calls the temple holy (1 C. 3:17; Eph. 2:21). As ἅγιος, it lends holiness even to the gold (Mt. 23:17), just as the altar does to the offering (Mt. 23:19: ἁγιάζον, cf. 7:6: ἅγιον). Along with the cultus, Scripture as the constitutional foundation of the people of God is reckoned holy (R. 1:2: ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις); the Law of Moses is the basic Scripture as developed in the commandments (ἐντολή) on the basis of the divine testament (Lk. 1:72; R. 7:12: ὁ μὲν νόμος ἅγιος καὶ ἡ ἐντολὴ ἁγία καὶ δικαία). At this point the doctrine of the priests and scribes is taken over in the NT In the καινὴ κτίσις, however, the OT cult which is the starting-point is only ὑπόδειγμα καὶ σκιὰ τῶν ἐπουρανίων (Hb. 8:5), so that the Ἅγιον in the NT takes on a pneumatic sense. Christ as ὁ ἅγιος παῖς (→ 102) becomes the centre of a new sanctuary in which He Himself is the Priest, Sacrifice and Temple of God. His priestly character is especially emphasised in Hebrews (→ 102 f.). The NT view as a whole corresponds to the brilliant sketch of Hebrews. Already the early Jerusalem community is constituted by the ἅγιος παῖς (Ac. 4:27, 30) a temple of the Holy Spirit (4:31: ἐπλήσθησαν ἅπαντες τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος).58 There thus arises a new people of God within the old (cf. Hb. 13:12 ff.), which with reference to Ex. 19:6 is described as βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον (1 Pt. 2:9), and to which the old saying applies: Ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος (1 Pt. 1:16).59 In the powerful historical sweep of Paul the concept of the people of God has burst its national limits and come to be equated with the Church of Christ. On the holy stump of the OT people of God the new branches from the Gentile world have been engrafted (R. 11:17), and they are sanctified by the stump. The stump is obviously Christ as ἡ ῥίζα τοῦ Ἰεσσαί (R. 15:12) ordained to rule over the Gentiles. He has given Himself for the ἐκκλησία, ἵνα αὐτὴν ἁγιάσῃ … ἵνα ᾖ ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος (Eph. 5:26). By Him it is sanctified not merely in the Jewish Christian trunk but also in the Gentile Christian grafts; these are ἡγιασμ�*νοι ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1 C. 1:2; cf. 6:11), a προσφορά … ἡγιασμ�*νη ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ (R. 15:16). The πολιτεία τοῦ Ἰσραήλ together with the διαθῆκαι τῆς ἐπαγγελίας (Eph. 2:12) is extended by Christ to the whole Christian world, so that now Gentile Christians are no longer ξ�*νοι καὶ πάροικοι (= גֵּרִים וְתוֹשָׁבִים) but συμπολῖται τῶν ἁγίων καὶ οἰκεῖοι τοῦ θεοῦ (2:19), built on the corner-stone Christ over the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Here the ἅγιοι are to be sought in the πολιτεία τοῦ Ἰσραήλ, except that we are now dealing with an Ἰσραὴλ κατὰ πνεῦμα. Originally contained in Jewish Christianity, with which the ἅγιοι are often equated even in Acts (9:13, 32, 41; 26:10), the holy people of God now extends to the Gentile world. We may thus understand quite simply Paul’s frequent application of the term both to the mother community in Jerusalem (R. 15:25 f.; 1 C. 16:1, 15; 2 C. 8:4 etc.) and also to Gentile Christianity (R. 1:7; 1 C. 1:2). As members of the ἐκκλησία ἁγία καὶ ἄμωμος (Eph. 5:27), individual ἐκκλησίαι are holy together with their members. Basically there is no distinction in Paul between the ἅγιοι of the mother community and those of the missionary Church, for in each case the holiness derives from Christ even though the πρῶτον Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ Ἕλληνες remains as a historical relationship. The same order obtains for all ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἁγίων (1 C. 14:33), since they are all partial organisms in the organism of the ἐκκλησία. A distinctive phrase is κλητοὶ ἅγιοι in the address to the communities (R. 1:7; 1 C. 1:2), an apposition to ἐκκλησία in which we may seek the individualisation of κλητὴ ἁγία == מִקְרָא קֹדֶשׁ60 Yet while in the OT expression the stress falls on קֹדֶשׁ, in Paul it falls on κλητοί (R. 1:6: καὶ ἡμεῖς κλητοί; 1 C. 1:24: αὐτοῖς δὲ τοῖς κλητοῖς, Ἰουδαίοις τε καὶ Ἕλλησι; cf. Jd. 1). For it is not by nature but by divine calling that Christians are ἅγιοι; they owe their membership of the holy cultic community to the call of divine grace in Christ (Phil. 1:1: τοῖς ἁγίοις ἐν Χριστῷ). As ἅγιοι they are members of a cultic circle grounded in the sacrifice of Christ; as ἐκλεκτοὶ τοῦ θεοῦ ἅγιοι καὶ �*γαπημ�*νοι (Col. 3:12), a phrase in which the parallel terms ἅγιοι and �*γαπημ�*νοι belong to the ἐκλεκτοί as attributes, they are selected by God for this circle. If Acts 20:32 speaks of the κληρονομία ἐν τοῖς ἡγιασμ�*νοις πᾶσιν, it refers to the inheritance of God (κληρονομία == �*ַחֲלָה, Dt. 9:26; 12:9; 19:14; 32:9) which is distributed among the saints so that each receives his portion.61 Similarly Eph. 1:18 speaks of the κληρονομία αὐτοῦ ἐν τοῖς ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις whose glorious riches are to be known by Christians. Inseparably related is the verse in Colossians in which the Father enables Christians εἰς τὴν μερίδα τοῦ κλήρου τῶν ἁγίων ἐν τῷ φωτί (Col. 1:12); for κλῆρος like κληρονομία is the usual rendering of �*ַחֲלָה, and חֵלֶק “share” is the Hebrew equivalent of μερίς. The defining ἐν τῷ φωτί is set in opposition to ἐξουσία τοῦ σκότους and thus refers to the light of grace (cf. Eph. 5:7) rather than to that of heavenly glory;62 for the translation into the βασιλεία τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, the heavenly inheritance, is already achieved (μετ�*στησεν). Everywhere in the relation of the ἅγιοι to the κληρονομία we are concerned with the birthright of the people of God on the Deuteronomic pattern.63

Jeffrey

Solo

(Well, at least you did not beseech me in the bowels of Christ to think it possible that I was mistaken. But then again you may know the Scots' response to Cromwell on that.)

Just in case you are interested: Geza Vermes has a neat summary on "Jesus as kyrios" in the NT, in Jesus the Jew. He has this lovely, cryptic way to summarize the problem. Commenting on Acts 1:14, he writes, The family may, of course, have changed its mind at a later stage and made a common cause with the disciples; it is in fact a historically reliable tradition that James, 'the brother of the lord', became the head of the Jerusalem Church. (p.34)

I did a quick parsing of "lord" in Paul. In nearly all the instances term is used in professions of faith, in oaths, salutations, exhortations or speaking of his own authority (via the agency). Only three verses stick out like a sore thumb: Romans 1:3, Galatians 1:19 and 1 Cr 9:5. Go figure ! :huh:


Good day to you too, Ben !

Not so fast: Toto made a good point, i.e. that the mention of Mary and Jesus family in the disciple's circle prior to the jump starting of the church does not in any way "explain" why James (and not Peter or the Zebedees) would become its leader. His appearance in ch. 12 is as much a mystery as the family tree of Cain's wife in Genesis. Most of the Catholic tradition after Jerome sees relationship beween James and Jesus through Clopas (Mary of Jn 19:25). The problem is that James the Just was named "apostle" by Paul so in the Catholic version he had to be one of the twelve, and that James was not on the list, so an ingenious argument had to be made that James the Just is not just James Clopas but also James the son of Alpheus. With respect to Luke 1:14, this "triple identity" however does not work because James the son of Alpheus is mentioned in 1:13 as separate to Mary and Jesus' brothers.

So the chances are good, and I would say at least 50:50, that the idea of James the Just being a family member originated later and Paul's dissemination of his cultic title was read as a proof that there was kinship between the two men. Now, one powerful reason for the church making James an honorary sibling or cousin was because the church would have wanted to find some acceptable root of his authority in Jerusalem (which was historically undeniable), and make it derive from Jesus. He was not a disciple, but what if.....? Evidently, the dynastic idea was not first sold by Michael Baigent and Dan Brown. But in reality, James' church was would have been founded independently (GThomas 12 is the best argument) and adpoted the Jesus movement without being beholden to it for its existence.

Jiri

Ben C Smith

You can siphon references off into vague pools like speaking of his own authority, but in verses such as 1 Corinthians 6.14 the Lord is used to refer to Jesus, plain and simple. Substitute Jesus for the Lord in that verse and you basically have Romans 8.11. Substitute the Lord Jesus and you have 2 Corinthians 4.14. And so on.

That is a good point, but it does not save your implied assertion:

You can quibble all you want about whether a church as such exists in Acts 1, but Acts 1.14 still answers your (rhetorical) question. Obviously, Luke thought of the brothers of Jesus as part of the early Christian movement, call it what you will.

Yes, there are gaps. Before I pointed Acts 1.14 out to you there was apparently an even bigger gap in your view, between unbelieving brothers in the gospels and a full-fledged senior pastor-type brother later on. This is starting to feel like the creation-evolution debate, where the creationist is shown a link between species A and species B, and promptly asks for another link between the link itself and species A (and yet another between the link itself and species B!) before it counts as evidence.

The gap between unbelieving brothers and one of the brothers as church leader is not quite as wide as it was before Acts 1.14 came onto your radar, right?

That was one of my points on this thread. James is introduced in chapter 12 as if the reader is supposed to know who he is already.

How you can follow a discussion of patristic views postdating Jerome (!) with any consequence (so) for our present purposes is quite beyond me. Surely, surely the living voice had died out long before the time of Jerome!

Ben.

Solo

No, it was Hegesippus first who pointed to a tradition of extreme asceticism of James. I believe the cultic designation of "brothers (in the service) of the Lord" would have been constructed for holy men like James.

There is no dative construct in Paul for this group. My hypothesis is that Paul used the phrase in the form he heard it and probably avoided it as "the lord" (referencing the traditional adonai, not JC) in 1 Cr 9:5 and Gal 1:19 did not match his own idiosyncratic use of the term. Incidentally, I am indebted to Wells for a lead in this: He mentions Strabo and Cerfaux (in The Jesus of the Early Christians, Pemberton, 1971, p 142) and J.M Robertson (in The Historical Evidence for Jesus, Prometheus, 1988, p. 168) as providing examples of the titular use of brother. One example cited is αδελφος Βασιλεως, the title of the vizier to the Nabatean kings. Wells believes that the "brothers of the lord" designated a group of messianists zealous in the service of the risen one. I believe he is right about the titular use. But after reading number of Jewish scholars, Maccoby and Vermes especially, it seems improbable that the term 'lord' would have been used to refer to Christ in Jerusalem in Paul's time.

Thanks, Jeffrey.

Jiri

Jeffrey Gibson

[QUOTE=Solo;5497691]Nice belief. Any evidence to back it up or to show that the genitive construction was ever taken to have that meaning?

And yet those expressions involving the words ἀδελφός and κύριος that are equivalent to "saints" are dative constructs.

.

Speculation based on speculation, and certainly not checked against critical commentaries on Galatians and (I take it) I Cor.

You would have seen the same thing if you'd have consulted BDAG and LSJ (why don't you ever seem to do this when you are discoursing on Greek terms, I wonder?) But as the data (including yours) show, it only has that titular sense when it is used by a king of another person of high rank. (See OGI138.3 (Philae), J.AJ1;, Dit., Or. 138, 3; 168, 26; 36 [both II bc]; Jos., Ant. 13.2.2 13; 45; 126), and then the word is usually in the vocative (see JO’Callaghan, El vocativo sing. de ἀδελφός, Biblica 52, ’71, 217-25 and the discussion in Moulton and Milligan and CDBuck, A Dictionary of Selected Synonyms in the Principal Indo-European Languages: A Contribution to the History of Ideas 1949. 107.

Is this the case any of the Paulines?

Wells believes that the "brothers of the lord" designated a group of messianists zealous in the service of the risen one.

How nice. If so, shouldn't we expect an instance somewhere of this full designation?

That there was a titular use, yes. That Paul is using it in this sense -- well, interesting that Wells apparently left out the bit about how it has this sense only in a very narrow set of circumstances (none of which involve genitive constructions) to which none of the Pauline instances conform.

Why not? It's by Jews in Jesus time of David. It is not synonymous with God for Paul. May I suggest you read Larry Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk)?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Is such haphazardness more characteristic of a history or a fiction?


Best wishes,



Pete

Ben C Smith

Neither.

Ben.

mountainman

I am presuming the OP is depicting or alluding to some form of consistent haphazardness in general, of which the case of Luke not mentioning this James relationship is simply an instance, although I could be wrong here. (Hello Jeffrey!). If a treatise is consistently haphazard on the fundamentals (and this is just one instance of many) is such a treatise regarded as any form of historical exposition?

Here is the OP again:
There is one exception - this issue itself. But this issue rests in a web of other issues, each of which represent some form of haphazardness.


Best wishes,


Pete