aa5874

And it is known that non-Jews used Isaiah 7.14.

maryhelena

I think perhaps the problem is that the pre-Paul communities, groups, are assumed to be Jewish. Consider the possibility that they were not Jewish. Consider the possibility that nothing much in the way of Jewish involvement took place until post 70 ce. Once the temple is destroyed a context arises in which new ideas could be investigated. The history of the years prior to 70 ce would be examined for possible insights. Whatever other spiritual ideas, non Jewish ideas, that were in evidence during the pre-70 years would all be in the mix. That Paul found some earlier 'movement' relevant, although he at first does 'persecute' it, ie he finds the ideas of that group unacceptable to his Jewish mindset - he does eventually associate with it - but with his own, new message, his own new Jewish take on things. A merger, a fusing, of non-Jewish and Jewish ideas. Paul's original 'good news' is not to the Gentiles - it is to his fellow Jews. Paul's original message is apocalyptic.


Obviously, once the origin story of early christianity was being written, an origin story placed within a Jewish context - then the role of Paul has to be changed to become the apostle to the Gentiles instead of the apocalyptic prophet to the Jews. (which would indicate that Paul was active during the years leading up to the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of its temple......as was Josephus).

But if one considers the possibility that the pre-Paul communities, groupings, were not Jewish - then their use of 'lord' does not fall within a Jewish perspective. The term, Lord, is just an honorary title and does not always mean that such a Lord is somehow divine, godlike.

From my earlier post. no#259. I don't see anything there that would indicate that Philip the Tetrarch was considered a god of some sort.

show_no_mercy

There's still some confusion about what it means when someone uses a non-titular lord. The quote you posted is not an example of a non-titular lord.

maryhelena

Quite - I was using it to suggest that the idea of 'divine' or 'godlike' is not a necessary component of the term 'lord' - re your mention of 'deification'.

The 'deification' as being a later element in the Jesus storyline is the position of historicists. Mythicists would see 'deification' there from the get go, from the start - as in the gospel of John. Obviously, with wanting a developing christology, a later deification, those historicists are not keen to have the gospel of John dated early. A mythological creation is 'godlike' from its creation, having no physical reality. The synoptic storyline has simply undone the original deification to create the illusion of physicality, the veneer of historicity. Historicists have got the story back to front!

spin

Tendentious translations lead to tendentious analyses. Whereas "brother of the lord" is accurate though wider in range of meaning, "the lord's brother" is more specific and reflective of a commitment by the translators. Use it at your own peril.

The distinction I have made exceptionally frequently requires people to understand the difference between the two uses of "lord" in Ps 110:1, "the lord says to my lord". If you will not deal with that, that's up to you.

Why? Isn't Paul clearly dealing with a Jewish group who is interfering with his Galatians? If not, why is he so interested in arguing against Jewish positions, the need for circumcision, etc.?

I actually don't have to argue the point. It is sufficient that the possibility is realistic, that requires those who want to assume the persecuted assembly to have been christian to justify the position. There is a perfectly good alternative, so why does the persecuted assembly have to be pre-Pauline christians. Any Jewish messianists would be sufficient for the then zealous conservative Jew, Paul.

Instead of the shields-up-Scotty routine all you needed to do was think about what I wrote and look up the specific text. That is what was asked of you. Here we have a Hebrew bible assembly of the lord. Would you buy into any tendentious translation there? Could it have been the "church of the lord"? If it had been used in Paul people would have chafed at the leash to say so.


spin

Calling him Jesus here should be sufficient, despite the pedants of the forum who insist that there were a lot of Jesuses. Talking about David is sufficient as a reference to the reputed Jewish king, despite there having been loads of Davids in history. Jesus does have a monopoly in the use of the name unsupported by surname or cognomen or epithet.

GakuseiDon

The word "Lord" (kyrios) was also used in the sense of having authority over someone, e.g. "master of a servant":

Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters (kyrios): for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Mat 10:24 The disciple is not above [his] master, nor the servant above his lord (kyrios).

Rom 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master (kyrios) he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.

Col 3:22 Servants, obey in all things [your] masters (kyrios) according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God

It might be better to translate "kyrios" as something like "head honcho", to remove our modern familiarity with "Lord"'s association with divinity, e.g.

1Cr 2:8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known [it], they would not have crucified the Head Honcho of glory.

IIRC Paul declares himself both a servant of Christ and of God, so both are "Lords" from his perspective. It doesn't mean Paul regarded Jesus as divine, as far as I can see, just that he had that kind of relationship to him. And James was "the brother of the Head Honcho."

spin

These are all examples of the titular usage. The non-titular usage of κυριος is a substitute for a name (usually Yahweh). The titular usage is reference to power, my/our/his/your lord. The difference is always there, plain to understand, in Ps 110:1.

The usage of κυριος in Gal 1:19 is--must I say it again?--non-titular. None of the examples that the Gak dredged up are relevant. :huh:

He's still looking at the second part of Ps 110:1, not the first. "The lord says to my lord..."


spin

show_no_mercy

nm

GakuseiDon

I don't see the relevance of Psalm, I'm afraid. Jehovah gets called kyrios in the Greek NT: so? It was a form of address. Jesus was Paul's Lord, not because Paul thought that Jesus was God, but because he regarded himself as Jesus' servant.

In Gal 1:10 Paul sees himself as a servant of Christ:

Gal 1:10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

See the examples I gave above where servants and "kyrios" are matched as pairs.

Addressing people as "kyrios" in those situations seems obvious. In one NT parable, the son calls his father "Lord":

Mat 21:28 A [certain] man had two sons; and he came to the first, and said, Son, go work to day in my vineyard.
Mat 21:29 He answered and said, I will not: but afterward he repented, and went.
Mat 21:30 And he came to the second, and said likewise. And he answered and said, I go, sir (kyrios): and went not.

No doubt I'm missing something, but I don't understand your point.

maryhelena

Fine, which is a point I acknowledged in an earlier post. And seeing that the preferred translation is‘ brother of the lord’ (which I don’t have any problem with) is a translation that allows for ambiguity anyway - and can thus be interpreted both ways - blood brother and spiritual brother. In point of fact I’m quite happy with both. Perhaps Paul was also! Because the spiritual brother interpretation is the one that is controversial (no consensus....) I am concentrating on the other possibility - and find that it’s a possibility that is not so easily negated.
But that quote is referencing two lords - whereas Gal.1:19 is only referencing one lord - so no need to make any differentiation.
Josephus also argued with his fellow Jews over non-Jews re the circumcision issue.
No pre-Pauline Christians to my way of thinking. Christianity was a consequence of Paul’s ideas. The pre-Paul communities were non-Jews, or primarily non-Jews. That Paul persecuted the ‘church’ mid to late 30s is simply to go along with the gospel story timeline - an illogical story re an assumed historical Jesus movement in Jewish territory prior to 70 ce. (a movement that even today would be unable to get a foothold, let alone a hearing, in Israel).

I thought about what you wrote - minus the Greek. (and by the way, this is not a school room - you can suggest things to me but don’t ask me to do your bidding...)
Spin, at the end of the day, the text in question is ambiguous - I am quite able to concede your point re spiritual brothers - and at the same time hold up the possibility that, because of the ambiguity, another interpretation is possible - that of James being a blood brother of the lord. For me, its not either or - both interpretations are viable.
The point is that Paul does not identify the ‘lord’ in question as Jesus. And, as I wrote, the term ‘Jesus’ could just be handle anyway, a term designating a role played rather than a name that could significantly identify a historical figure.