jjramsey

The link below the quote doesn't work for you? That's odd.:huh: I'm not subscribed to XTalk and I can access the archives just fine. Maybe it's a glitch and it will work for you later?

It was not explained in the post to which I linked, only mentioned. From what I can tell, there is a real difference between "brother of," as in "brother of the Lord," and "brothers into" as in "brothers into the Lord" in Philippians 1:14. Also, Paul is using "brother of the Lord" to single out James, a usage inconsistent with using "brother" as a synonym for Christian.

Amaleq13

Why would he need to do so only for this particular reference? Given how much effort he puts into arguing that he has just as much authority as every other apostle, shouldn't Paul have a very good reason to feel compelled to acknowledge such a unique claim that rather obviously suggests James to have greater authority? What is different about this reference to James as opposed to the other three times he is mentioned?

Also, given Paul's expressed views on the significant difference between flesh and spirt, how does it make sense for him to combine a reference to the merely fleshly relationship James had with the Incarnated Son and the exalted title associated with the victory of the Risen Christ?

How does it make sense for Paul to continue to think their former and entirely flesh-bound relationship was at all relevant once the Incarnated Form had been completely transformed into the form of the Risen Savior?

jjramsey

Simple. It's the first reference to James in the letter to the Galatians. Calling him "brother of the Lord" identifies him as a particular James. Once he has done this, he can and does dispense with "brother of the Lord," since which James he is referring to has already been established.

The "former and entirely flesh-bound relationship" in question isn't relevant to Paul's theology, only to the very mundane purpose of distinguishing this James from other possible Jameses.

Chris Weimer

I wouldn't put too much faith in XTalk. Heck, I'm a member there.

But it makes even more sense if it were a title, and not literal.

Amaleq13

He is the only James Paul ever mentions so why the need to add the identifier?

And why not use it in the letter to the Corinthians?

But Paul mentions no other men by that name which might confuse the reader and appears to have no such concern when writing to the Corinthians.

Yes but it also entails the problem of an appearance of greater authority as I've already mentioned. You didn't address that point in my previous post. Indicating that this was the James who was "esteemed to be a pillar", as he does later, would have avoided potential problem of this rather unique indicator of a particularly close relationship with Christ. What could have compelled Paul to choose to use this particular identifier this one time?

I certainly agree that Paul would have considered such a relationship to be irrelevant and that is precisely why I question the interpretation. All the more reason to avoid it and all the more reason to question the reason for his use of it.

So there was no other available identifier that would have served this mundane purpose while avoiding an unnecessary suggestion of greater authority and a reference to a relationship Paul would have considered irrelevant.

Simple answers, perhaps, but that isn't the same as credible.

johno

Please provide evidence in support of your arguments.

johno

yalla

jj
I got the link working..ta.
As you say the point is only mentioned, not explained.
I have no Greek but I wonder:
- How would it be expected to be grammatically constructed IF it were NOT
a kin reference?
-I Cor 9.5 refers to "..the brothers of the lord..."
Is the grammar in that instance consisent with either interpretation or is it ambiguous?
- As this reference [Gal 1.19] is unique how does the grammar being unique suggest one interpretation rather than another?

Basically what I am wondering is, if , in fact, the grammar IS different to that which would be expected if the reference were not a kin reference, and, secondly, if it is different, how does that specifically suggest that the reference is/must be to a kin relationship?
cheers
yalla

Spincracker

Why is it naive?

It seems gaining a better understanding of the HJ can be very helpful in discerning statements credited to him.

johno

I should be grateful if you would demonstrate for me the fallacy.

johno

Spincracker

I know this was not directed at me, but one way it is fallacious may be found in the implicit denial of subjectivity.