spamandham

The gospels? Definitely not. They are creative works, not histories. In regard to Josephus, I would not expect Josephus to directly know whether or not James was the brother of Jesus. He surely got his information about Jame's relationship with Jesus from Christians of his day. This implies then that Christians of his day commonly referred to James as the brother of Jesus, which is the same thing we see Paul doing (or more precisely, 'the lord').

The difference is, we know how Paul used brother/sister consistently to refer to those of common faith rather than blood relationships. I would not expect Josephus or any other non-Christian to be in the know on that, and so would expect any nonChristian of the time to presume that someone commonly referred to as 'the brother of the lord', actually was a blood relationship.

spamandham

I know that Paul uses variants of 'brother/sister' nearly 100 times to refer to spiritual kinship rather than blood relationships. All you've summoned up is 'yah, but if he *did* mean blood brother, what word would he use?. I don't think we have anything more to discuss on the topic.

judge

What would you expect?
He was writing to communities of believers. Of course he is going to use brother and sister a lot in that sense. :banghead:

judge

It is just that he had the need to refer to those of common faith much more than he had the need to refer to those of a blood relationship.

Think about it!
If paul had been writing a family tree, he would have had the need to use brother in the usual sense quite a lot. So and so was the brother of such and such..etc..etc....

But...wait for it.....he wasn't writing a family tree.
:banghead:

spamandham

Keep banging your head. Maybe in the process you'll come up with a good reason to interpret 'brother' differently in this case than in all the other cases.

judge

Uh huh.

maryhelena

But does it really matter how many times Paul used brother/sister to refer to spiritual kinship rather than blood relationships? There are always exceptions - is it not a case that its the exception that proves the rule...

At best the text in question is ambiguous - so rather than being adamant that it could not refer to a blood kinship - is it not much better to just admit to its ambiguity. Paul's meaning is an open question.

Mythicists don't hold to a historical Jesus - therefore, no brothers of said Jesus; that is just the gospel storyline. Paul does not write that he has met a brother of Jesus. He writes of meeting the Lord's brother. Paul says there were others before him. Thus, since the gospel storyline is a pseudo-history, Paul could well be referencing the actual, historical, people who made up the early, or pre-christian movement. To assume that there was no historical individual to whom the early movement looked to as 'Lord' is to assume just too much.

Perhaps its good to keep in mind that Paul does not head straight away to Jerusalem after his conversion on the road to Damascus (a road that would take him close by Caesarea Philippi) - he heads for Arabia. For Paul, Jerusalem is not of primary interest. Others areas were of as much, perhaps more, relevance to his new conversion experience.

Sure, Paul says he got his good news/message from no man. No one converted Paul, he arrived at his own insights. However, that does not mean that Paul's insights were not related to what had transpired prior to his time. Nothing new under the sun - everything new is dependent upon earlier insights. Paul's perspective was his own, thats all. Even if, for the sake of argument, the whole Jesus storyline is a product of Paul's intellectual creativity, that still does not negate whatever were the insights of those who preceded him. The foundation had been laid (how one can debate) Paul build upon it.

So, back to Gal.1:19 - perhaps it is an exception to Paul's other uses of brother - but that very fact - an exception - should caution against any contrived attempts to make it fit the rule. Particularly so when the whole debate over early christian history is itself standing upon a NT dating system that is subject to shifting sand...

Doug Shaver

I do not offhand recall any ahistoricist ever claiming that it could not refer to a blood relationship. What we're claiming is that historicists have no grounds for their adamant insistence that it could not refer to anything else.

Obviously, if Jesus did exist, then it is most reasonable to suppose that "the lord's brother" meant "Jesus' brother." And if Jesus did not exist, then it is most reasonable to suppose that "the lord's brother" did not mean "Jesus' brother." But the interpretation has to follow the hypothesis, not the other way around. Given the prima facie ambiguity, it is silly to argue either "Paul meant 'Jesus' brother,' therefore Jesus existed" or "Paul meant something else, therefore Jesus never existed." No ahistoricist, so far as I know, makes the latter argument, but nearly all historicists do make the former argument.

And that, I humbly suggest, ought to tell us all something about which side is bringing fewer presuppositions to this debate.

maryhelena

I'm not making any argument re "Paul meant something else, therefore Jesus never existed". My argument, my suggestion is, "Paul meant something else". If Paul, as mythicist view things, knows fully well that Jesus is not historical - he has not, obviously, met any blood brothers of Jesus. Thus, the fact that his wording is ambiguous raises more possibilities than that he is still writing within his 'rule' re use of the term 'brother'. Its neither Jesus's brother, nor brother in the spiritual faith. Neither of these two possibilities do justice to the ambiguity. i.e. Paul could have said 'brother of Jesus' or he could have said 'brother in the Lord'. Paul did neither. Paul said 'James, the Lord's brother".

So, if Paul is not referencing Jesus, if Paul is not referencing a spiritual brother, then an alternative brother is a blood brother, a blood relative of - a historical person.

And here is one such historical person to consider - keeping in mind Paul's interest in spending some time, seemingly considerable time, in Arabia.

The 33rd year of Philip the Tetrarch was about 29/30 ce - a date stamp that gLuke found to be important re his gospel i.e. the 15th year of Tiberius. Philip re-built the village of Bethsaida - and re-named it in 29/30 as Bethsaida Julius (Josephus) - and it was from this village that the gospel of John says that some of the disciples of Jesus came. If Paul is doing some historical examination, doing some exploration re areas from which pre-christians came - then Bethsaida Julius - and Arabia - would be part of that endeavor. Likewise, since the lord Philippos did have association with these areas - then this person's influence re early or pre-christian understand, ideas etc, would warrant Paul's attention. The ambiguity in Ga.1:19 does require that we give Paul some room for expressing, for showing interest in, a blood relationship that was important to those who had come prior to him.

spin

Just on the linguistic issue, no Paul doesn't write that. It is one idiomatic translation of the Greek, but a more neutral translation is "brother of the lord", which is more generic and reflective of the Greek possibilities. Whereas "she is 'a sister of the sacred heart'" makes sense in English, "she is 'the sacred heart's sister'" doesn't. "He is 'a brother of god'" will function in English, while "he is 'god's brother'" won't. What has consistently happened in this topic is the view that adelfos tou kuriou should be read as "the lord's brother", forcing the interpretation "Jesus's brother", rather than the neutral "the brother of the lord", which is more accurate to the Greek. So to reiterate, Paul doesn't write what you claim he does and what you claim implies a subtle manipulation of the meaning, which is unwarranted in its exclusion of meaning.

There are three problems with the popular reading of James in Gal 1:19:

1. Paul consistently uses "brother" in a theological sense and one would therefore expect him to mark a naturalistic usage of the word;
2. the use of the non-titular kurios for Jesus needs to be argued as Pauline and not simply assumed; and
3. the grammatical structure of the phrase should be read neutrally rather than in a linguistically deceptive manner.

spin