TedM

Hi Malachi,

I don't think what you claim is obvious based on other things is quite so obvious. Those later scriptures were only referencing rejection while Jesus was on earth. Other writings perhaps fill in the gaps--the creed in 1 Cor 15 mentions James seeing the resurrected Jesus, Acts 1:14 says that the Jesus' brothers gathered together with the early believers and mother Mary soon after the ascension, Hegessipus and others reference brother James rising to lead the early church in Jerusalem, Josephus possibly mentions brother James as an early influence, Hegessippus talks about Jesus' relatives rising to prominent church positions.

If you are claiming 1 Cor 9:5 is early and referring to metaphorical brothers, I'd like to know how you explain all the glaring silences about this special group that are metaphorical siblings to God himself, which in my mind would be quite unexpected. That, to me, is not obvious at all.

Gotta run,

ted

spin

Earlier in this thread I asked: "Why do people think that James the brother of the lord has anything to do with Jesus?", supplying this background information, that the physical relationship with Jesus "seems to rely heavily on an a priori understanding of the phrase "brother of the lord" that equates the lord with Jesus. Are the "brothers of the lord", 1 Cor 9:5, blood relatives of Jesus? What about the 500 brothers in similar circumstances in 1 Cor 15:6?"

No-one took me up on the issue, so it would seem that no-one had anything positive to contribute about the sibling connection Jesus and "James the brother of the lord". Plainly the issue of the significance of "the brother of the lord" cannot be assumed as tedm does in his last two posts.

The Matthean Jesus says, "tell my brothers to go to Galilee: there they will see me." Is the writer referring to Jesus's siblings or to the disciples?? (See also Jn 20:17.) I think it's obvious that Jesus is talking about the disciples, not about family.

There is no reason to assume from the earliest literature that "brother of the lord" referred to a member of Jesus's family, if his disciples and apostles are his brothers. We are put alert to be careful of the significance of "brothers". They are not family members in a literal sense, but believers who share a common belief, perhaps the belief in the lord god. Hence a "brother of the lord" may be either any christian or perhaps a group of christian believers.

It is futile to refer to much later writers before referring to the earliest writers, so writers such as Hegesipus are quite irrelevant to resolving the issue because they are too far separated in time from having useful material, without having a recognizable trajectory to bridge the gap.

As to Josephus and "the brother of Jesus, called christ, whose name was James", this has been analysed frequently on this forum and the position which I have argued is that, working from Origen's knowledge of the Josephus passage, one cannot support the originality of the reference to Jesus found there.

So, why would anyone think from the biblical sources that "James the brother of the lord" had anything to do with Jesus?


spin

yalla

It comes in handy when asserting that there was a historical Jesus [gotta exist if you have an existing real kin type brother].
Faith driving perception?
yalla

exile

It's all post-hoc stuff dreamed up once Christians had decided sex was evil and therefore Mary could never have indulged in it, even after giving birth to Jesus. Hence the unscriptural portrayal in art of Joseph as an old man who wouldn't have been able to .... errr... perform.

Doug Shaver

After reading Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, I'd say that always has to be considered a possibility. I don't think we need it in this case, but it can't be ruled out.

Seems to me we have no more evidence that he ever uses it in a clearly literal fashion.

I'm afraid I cannot consider that relevant to how it might have been used 2,000 years ago.

You mean, other than by Paul? Very well, if the phrase was unique to him, it is that much riskier to assume that any interpretation is the only possible one, absent any hints from the man himself.

Right. So, whatever a "brother of the lord" was, James was not the only one.

You mean, no evidence outside of Paul's writings.

I have no idea how special they had to be to merit that honorific. Maybe it wasn't such a big deal. Paul couldn't have been all that intimidated by it, considering some of things he said elsewhere about James. (Which, by the way, I find it hard to believe he would have said about a man he thought was a blood relative of God Incarnate.)

One hypothesis that looks very plausible to me: The group existed only in the Jerusalem church, which itself ceased to exist when Jerusalem was nearly destroyed during the Jewish War.

That would have depended on (a) how special it was and (b) its relevance to anything else he wrote about. All things considered, the interest he exhibits in who was who within the Jerusalem church is pretty scant.

Well, there are such references in the gospels, and yes, they're early. Outside of the gospels, though, explicit and unambiguous references don't show up until pretty late -- and they seem pretty clearly to have been driven by reading between the lines of Paul's remarks. Except for Galatians, there is nothing in the canonical writings to suggest that any sibling of Jesus had any involvement with the early church. Most notably, the James in the book of Acts is not so identified. That is a very odd omission within a historicist framework.

TedM

I'm not assuming, spin. I'm concluding based on the arguments I have given. Below, I'll address your argument:


That's easy. First, Paul refers to Jesus as "the Lord" many times, so it is not an unreasonable assumption to make. Second, James is clearly stated to be the biological brother of Jesus in Mark, which was written before Matthew (the source you quote from to support your theory). Let's look at that quote:


I agree with you. I also repeat that this is generally considered to have been written AFTER the Mark passage which provides the names of Jesus' biological brothers. You have to be able to show that the metaphorical usage you are suggesting existed at the time Paul wrote Galations or 1 Corinthians. The quote from Matthew doesn't do that. Based on chronology alone, the 'biological' usage came before the 'metaphorical' usage, so any use by Paul is closer in time to a later use which is clearly biological as opposed to clearly metaphorical.


I argued above against the idea that the "brothers of the Lord" were a special group known within the community of believers. You are suggesting that "brother of the Lord" is not some special group WITHIN the believers, but can be applied to ANY believer, are you not? I will agree that the usage in Mathew is supportive of that interpretation. We are still are left with some strange things though:

1. Assuming a mythical Jesus beginning, you are suggesting that there was an early belief that Christians were brothers of God himself, and that those that historicized Jesus put such belief in the words of the living Jesus himself. This isn't evidence. It's an assumption.

2. IF it was believed that Jesus DID say that, even if he didn't, it doesn't necessarily follow that believers would ALSO think of themselves as GOD'S brothers. Nor as the dead and resurrected Jesus' brothers. Neither belief necessarily follow the first. They too are both assumptions that cannot be proven.

3. The utter lack of use of this phrase would be unexpected. If ALL believers were "brothers of the Lord" and not just brothers of each other within the Lord's family, I would expect to see lots of references to being the Lord's brother throughout ALL of the early Christian literature. We don't see that. Where do any of the earliest writings (or later ones, for that matter) say "We are all the Lord's brothers" or "I, the Lord's brother", or "greet Luke, a fellow brother of the Lord"? NONE of them do. Anywhere.

4. I also think that in 1 Cor 9:5 Paul is contrasting his rights with those considered to be "special" (apostles, Cephas). As such, "brothers of the Lord" doesn't fit this criteria if it simply refers to anyone who believes. It makes more sense that it is a distinct and honored group within the believers.

5. In Galations, if we assume for the moment that Paul wrote the phrase, it is unnecessary for Paul to have tacked on "the Lord's brother" when mentioning James. Rather this appears to me to be a way to distinguish between different James', since he doesn't use the term for Cephas, just mentioned in the same verse, or for John or anyone else mentioned in the entire epistle. As such, again this doesn't seem to mesh with your interpretation, since the term "the Lord's brother" doesn't distinguish anything. It's singular application to James seems oddly out of place if it is a generic term used to apply to ANY believer.


Taking these thing as a whole, I think the idea that this term was in generic usage for all believers is poorly supported, and therefore is unlikely. The more likely idea is the one that has early support (Jesus had a family with a mother, brothers and sisters), fits the contexts better, and doesn't create a large number of unexpected silences.


ted

exile

Weren't there apocryphal gospels with stories about Jesus' family?

Malachi151

Yeah, later ones from the late 2nd century and after...

TedM

Originally Posted by TedM
we have no evidence that Paul EVER uses "brother of the Lord" in a clearly metaphorical fashion.

Hi Doug. I agree. I do think though that the default understanding should be the literal interpretation IF the metaphorical one can be shown to be without expected support, and not the other way around since the word originally had a literal meaning.

Originally Posted by TedM
"brother of X" is NOT used that way nowadays.

you:I'm afraid I cannot consider that relevant to how it might have been used 2,000 years ago.

Why not? What do you think has changed? The way people express themselves with regard to this particular metaphor certainly might have changed, but where is the evidence that it has?


Originally Posted by TedM
To my knowledge, there is no evidence that the term "brother of the Lord" was ever used.

you:You mean, other than by Paul? Very well, if the phrase was unique to him, it is that much riskier to assume that any interpretation is the only possible one, absent any hints from the man himself.

It's not a matter of what is possible and what isn't. I'm talking about the reality of the prevalence of this kind of phrase, Doug. Simply: there is no evidence that I know of that at any time in human history, past or present, anyone has ever used the phrase "brother of the Lord" to refer to a person's relationship to God. Yes, there is a name that means something like that, but I'm referring to the phrase. There, or course, are millions of examples of people saying something like "brother of Bob", which is what "brother of the Lord" could be equivalent to.



Originally Posted by TedM
It was applied to more than one person: 1 Cor 9:5 "Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a sister as wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?"

You: Right. So, whatever a "brother of the lord" was, James was not the only one.

That's right. Some people like to argue that it was a term given to James and only James because he was the pious leader of the early Christian Jews.


Originally Posted by TedM
There is no evidence that such a group of individuals with an honored title/designation of 'brothers of the Lord" existed among early Christians or in the Jewish culture.

you: You mean, no evidence outside of Paul's writings.

By "such a group" I mean a group who weren't literally brothers. We don't have evidence of such a group inside Paul's writings either.



Originally Posted by TedM
Why did no one write about what would have been such a special group and what happened to this privileged "brothers of the Lord" group, if it really existed?

you:I have no idea how special they had to be to merit that honorific. Maybe it wasn't such a big deal.

I doubt it. To be called the brother of God sounds to be about the highest possible honor one could have bestowed on them. To borrow from Dr. Phil--get real.



Who says you have to be 'intimidated' in order to write about it? In any case, I don't find Paul to have been particulary sour toward James as others do. If Paul did have some sour grapes for James, as you imply, it seems more likely to me that he would have written, "except for James, the so-called "brother of the Lord". But, Paul didn't write that at all. There is no hint of the expected offense at James taking on such a honorable title.


you: (Which, by the way, I find it hard to believe he would have said about a man he thought was a blood relative of God Incarnate.)

I never get this argument. The authors of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Josephus, and various others refer to brothers of Jesus. You seem to be reading something special into his use of the term "the Lord" instead of Jesus. That is unnecessary. Paul, in the Lord's Supper account, refers to "the Lord" breaking bread and talking. It's simply a way he refers to Jesus. Do you think he would have felt compelled to say "brother of Jesus" instead? I don't.



Originally Posted by TedM
And, why did it die out?

you: One hypothesis that looks very plausible to me: The group existed only in the Jerusalem church, which itself ceased to exist when Jerusalem was nearly destroyed during the Jewish War.

Maybe. From what little I've read, the early Jerusalem Christians fled to Pella, and wrote the Gospel of the Nazerenes (sp?), and continued to exist for hundreds of years. If THEY didn't die out, it seems to me that some tradition of the elite "brothers of the Lord" would not have either. I gotta pick up Eisenman's book again....


Originally Posted by TedM
I would expect Paul to have talked about this group further if it was a special metaphorical group.

you: That would have depended on (a) how special it was and (b) its relevance to anything else he wrote about. All things considered, the interest he exhibits in who was who within the Jerusalem church is pretty scant.

I think he was very impacted by the Jewish Christians, and James. He was interested in them. He went to Jerusalem on 3-5 different occasions! Some of those Jewish Christians were hurting Paul's message. As I said above, I think such a title likely was extremely special. As to how relevant it would have been to Paul, I think it would have been relevant enough or interesting enough to him to have at least commented on the title when he mentioned it 2 times, instead of it being a matter-of-fact phrase as would be entirely expected if the reference was to known biological brothers of Jesus, as seems to be pretty clearly the case in Acts 1.


Originally Posted by TedM
The references to Jesus having brothers are fairly early in the tradition.

you: Well, there are such references in the gospels, and yes, they're early.

That's a significant point.


you:Outside of the gospels, though, explicit and unambiguous references don't show up until pretty late -- and they seem pretty clearly to have been driven by reading between the lines of Paul's remarks. Except for Galatians, there is nothing in the canonical writings to suggest that any sibling of Jesus had any involvement with the early church.

I disagree. Other than the gospel, the reference in Acts 1 seems to be pretty unambiguous to me, and the context of 1 Cor 9:5 suggests a special group with honor, though they don't mention that James was the brother of Jesus.

you: Most notably, the James in the book of Acts is not so identified. That is a very odd omission within a historicist framework.

I agree. In fact, we know nothing about how James rose to power at all from Acts. I agree that the relative few early references to Jesus' family and brothers, and specifically to James leaves this open to various interpretations, but I think weight should be given to the fact that such references DO exist, and early. Considering both the positive evidence and the lack of expected evidence for the phrase referring to a non-biological group, I don't find your interpretation to be nearly as supported as mine.

jakejonesiv

Ahijah, brother of Yahweh. The Old Testament is full of them. Have you ever checked to see if one of them is a "pillar"?

Jake Jones IV