Vorkosigan

FUCKING HELL WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT!???!!!!

Thanks, Vivisector, you just put another nail in the coffin of that neat little piece of fiction, 6:3-4. The whole sequence is yet another Markan typology. Brilliant. Luckily you are far away, or I would certainly kiss you.

Michael

Vivisector

True enough, and I conclude that there was (the James referred to by Paul).

I agree with your first, but I'd have to ask, why make the point that Jesus was not honored by his own kin? I.e., what reality would the literary device be intended to explain?

Cheers,

V.

Vivisector

And here I was, just on the verge of not submitting it, thinking "Damn, I'm sure that others have thought of this before me ... after all, there's nothing new under the sun, or even on this forum."

I hope you don't take it personally if I pass on the kiss, but for the record, I'm an inveterate Guinness fan. I'll send you the address later

Cheers,

V.

post tenebras lux

If Paul is only using the phrase 'brethren of the lord' in much the same way as modern-day christians sometimes use the phrase 'our brothers in christ', then I can understand why he lists them seperately in 1 Cor 9:5. However, why list his actual siblings seperately (but not by name) if only James is a big cheese? What does whether they have a wife or not matter to his intended audience?But no actual verse in the bible that states that Jude was an actual sibling, right?Doesn't surprise me much.

When I clicked on adelfoi in Strong's, it lists rather a lot of places where adefov and company are used in the NT. Do you think the bible writers were refering to actual biological male siblings in each of these cases (as you contend they were when they used the term 'brothers of the lord')? If not, why not?

post tenebras lux

:huh: Why does it have to be trying to explain reality?

Question: how many other heros had to leave home before they could become famous/do their heroic stuff?
Answer: lots.

Or are you saying that you think that this common plot device is trying to explain 'common' reality? That you have to leave the safety of your mother's bosom if you are to seek (and find) your fortune and place in this world? :huh:

Vivisector

We agree, I think, that 6:4 is a literary device. I'm suggesting that the author chose to include this particular literary device because it explained a reality that his audience were aware of. (If the device explained nothing, one would have to ask, why include it in the first place? If the device contradicted a reality, then its inclusion would be problematic.)

I assume GMk was written somewhere around 70 CE, primarily for a "Markan Community" outside Judea (Syria?). We furthermore know of the contemporary existence of competing groups laying claim to the authority of Jesus, and we know that one of these groups was the "James group," based in Jerusalem itself, with possibly a very strong basis for its claim to the authentic traditions of Jesus. In this context, I read 6:4 as the author assuring his audience that they follow in the traditions of (and therefore honor) Jesus, whereas those of the James group - notwithstanding their being his countrymen or even relatives - do not. The answer that makes the most sense for me, then, is that 6:4 is a literary device that author uses to explain the difference between his group's beliefs and the James group's beliefs.

Cheers,

V.

RPS

I don't see the more general "brothers in Christ" analogy fitting because Paul is talking about the leadership. We don't know that only James was a big cheese, and if St. Jude was the Judas of Mark then we do have two, who could be the brothers mentioned. Oh the problems of interpreting other people's mail....

Context controls (not that it's always easy).

Doug Shaver

The only specific reference to Jesus in I Cor. 9 is in verse 1: "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"

Whoever, or whatever, Paul thought Jesus was, he never saw Jesus except in a vision. For purposes of interpreting "brother of the lord," one cannot argue except by assuming the conclusion that Paul's vision was of a recently executed Galilean preacher known as Jesus of Nazareth.

Doug Shaver

Hmmm. I wonder why

Vivisector

I don't know. Some possibilities (old stuff that we all know):

1. Paul didn't know that Jesus was from Nazareth.
2. Paul knew, but never had occasion (as far as we know) to make a point of it.
3. Paul knew, but in his mind, the particulars of the earthly Jesus were of almost no consequence relative to those of the resurrected Christ (hence "Jesus Christ" and "Christ Jesus" in preference to "Jesus of Nazareth."
4. There was never an earthly Jesus.

Maybe Paul assumed Jesus was a resident of Jerusalem - maybe there was reason for him to do so. Circling back to the beginning, though, I don't know :huh:

Cheers,

V.