spamandham

"brother", and then he would clarify that he meant a kin relationship in this instance since it's an unusual sense for him, just like he made such a distinction in:

Romans 9:3.

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own race,

ApostateAbe

Remember, Paul said "...apostles... James, brother of the Lord" in Galatians 1:19, not just "brother." Is that not a distinction? I know it isn't a distinction for you, but... do you not think it would be a distinction to people who knew that Jesus had a brother named James, supposing that was the way it was?

spamandham

Without the distinction made in Romans, "my brothers" would play the same role you are saying "brother of the lord" plays, and would properly be understood as spiritual brothers rather than blood brothers of Paul. The distinction tells us Paul is not using 'brothers' in his usual sense, which is why he made such distinction.

If it could be shown that Paul's audience knew James was a blood brother of Jesus, then the lack of clarification would make sense. But Paul is primary and never tells us that, so the best interpretation remains to posit that Paul is using brother the same way he does dozens of other times.

ApostateAbe

If it could be shown that Paul's audience knew James was a blood brother of Jesus...

So, I take it that you think that neither Josephus nor the gospels of Matthew and Mark carry significant weight--perhaps no weight?--in estimating what early Christians at the time of Paul may have believed about James and Jesus. I personally think that is preposterous, but I wouldn't labor under the delusion that either of us is going to change our minds. Do you at least acknowledge that your objection would be undercut? If it is a problem in your model, then it matters only if it is a problem in my model (or the "mainline" model).

judge

You don't know what is usual or unusual for Paul. You are reading too much into the small tidbits of data we have.

This is what you and other here fail to grasp.
To make the sort of definite conclusions you want to, you need lots of data.

Think about it. Stop for a moment and think.
Paul is writing to communities of believers. Of course he is going to use brother in the non literal sense quite a bit.
You cant conclude from that, that, that Paul would need to clarify if he used brother in the primary sense, in the primary meaning of the word.

The primary meaning of the word is a blood brother.

Both you and Spin wish to turn a few letters written to communities into some sort of absolute treasury of knowledge about Paul. Its ludicrous.

Yes its all we have to go on to know about Paul, but merely because its all we have doesnt mean we can make the sort of conclusions you wish to make.

judge

Yes this is exactly the game being played.

When we look at BC&H we come to tentative conclusions about a whole range of subjects.
But tentative conclusions are no help if one has an axe to grind.
Consensus is that Paul predates Mark.
So in order to grind our axe, we turn this into an absolute, that is not to be doubted.

So since we know for fact that this is true, it becomes possible that later references are derived from it.
So we turn this possibility intoa probablility and then into a certainty.

Hey Presto!

The we look to the fact that paul uses brother in a non literal sense when writing to communities of believers...well der :Cheeky:
So we cocnclude that therefore any time he used the word brother in its primary meaning he'd have to explain tnat he didnt mean "brother".

And so on top of all this nonsense we can forget about the immediate context and its uses of theos and kurios. After all thats just the immediate context, how could that possibly help when we have so many certainities to rely on.:Cheeky:

ApostateAbe

Being condescending and insulting is fun in the moment, but I wouldn't suggest it, because humility is much better received. I have already learned plenty from these people. The belief that the gospels were derived from the letters of Paul with a complete makeover on the religious theme is part of the models that they established, and it is not just an ad hoc explanation. I am not sure exactly how they established that, but I would love to learn.

judge

Im not sure anyone is saying the gospels were derived from the letters of paul, just that the idea that Jesus had a brother named james, and or was called "lord" was/were derived from a misunderstanding of one verse of paul.

show_no_mercy

Philipians 1:14

Κυριου is Genetive (the noun that possesses another noun) while κυριω is Dative (the noun to which something is given).

ApostateAbe

OK, cool. The main text of the NAS says simply "brethren," and a footnote marking it says "Or brethren in the Lord..." which indicates that there were two or more early texts each with their own rendering, but the document judged to be earlier was used for the main text and the later version was relegated to a footnote. It looks to be the sort of thing where a scribe wanted the writing to be clearer.

Regardless of who wrote it, then I do not imagine that the two phrases are interchangeable. When Paul wrote "brother(s) of the Lord" twice, both times he implied that they are either apostles or have a high status like the apostles. In Galatians 1:19, he counted James as an apostle. In 1 Corinthians 9:5, he counts the "brothers of the Lord" as having a special privilege much like the apostles and Cephas. On the other hand, the word "most" (πολύς) in Philippians 1:14 is a word more likely used for normal evangelists, a large group of people, not the few higher-ups. And, of course, he elsewhere often uses the word "brother" for normal Christians.