GakuseiDon

Perhaps James' primacy was because he was the first to have personal revelations of the mythical Jesus? And that somehow was related to his title "Brother of the Lord". Thus, his standing meant that when Paul had his own revelation, he had to have it confirmed by James and his group.

spamandham

I certainly agree, but I think we have a perfectly good explanation for his significance already - he was the leader of the Jerusalem church. Should that not have been worthy of some distinguished title?

Paul, in his loose usage of the word 'brother', propagates an idea we find in the Gospels, which is that blood kinship is not what is relevant, but rather, spiritual kinship is what matters. That being the case, it seems odd that James' blood kinship would be emphasized by Paul. IMHO, "brother of the lord" is a title for James as the head of the Jerusalem church.

According to Talbert ("What is a Gospel...around page 68), it was commonplace at the time to refer to individuals as sons of various gods. We even see that directly in the Gospels with James and John the "sons of thunder (zeus)". But Jesus was depicted as an ascetic god. He could not have sons, and it would be blasphemous to call someone his father. Was the title 'brother' substituted instead in such instances where 'son' might have otherwise been appropriate?

Perhaps the odd gospel story about Jesus rejecting his blood family and calling all who follow him his mother and his brothers was a justification on the part of the author for practices the early Christian community had already engaged. "...and that's why we call James 'brother of the lord' even though we all know there was no blood relationship"

Ben C Smith

I think what Neil was referring to is the fact that James is not the only brother of the Lord in Paul. If that is his special title, as head of the Jerusalem church, why do others also bear the title?

Ben.

spamandham

Who else in the epistles is referred to in such terms? :huh: Are you referring to 1 Cor. 9:5? If so, I don't see any inconsistency in calling James 'the brother of the lord' and also referring to others as 'brothers of the lord' from the perspective of titles. It seems to me to be problematic to say these are *not* titles.

For what it's worth (not much IMHO), church tradition records 'brother of the lord' as a special title for James, as recorded in the 6th century by Theophilact, the Archbishop of Bulgaria:

Ben C Smith

I think Neil was referring to 1 Corinthians 9.5.

Are the brothers of the Lord in this verse also heads of the Jerusalem church? Was it a co-chair position? (Just asking.)

Ben.

Ben C Smith

My position is outlined on another thread. In short, brother in the Lord would mean a fellow believer for Paul; brother of the Lord means either literal kin or is a special title for a group. If it is a special title for a group, where is the evidence for this group? OTOH, we need no special evidence for literal kin, since that is the principal definition of the term brother.

I appreciate the text you provided. Thanks.

We see this sort of thing already in Origen, who knows that James is the brother of Jesus, but also says that he was called brother of the Lord more for his moral code than for that biological fact.

All such fudging is patristic fancy of the most usual sort, IMO.

Ben.

spamandham

Possibly.

I don't think it necessary to determine who exactly they were to conclude it was probably a title, and one of lesser importance than the one given to James.

'brothers of the lord' is inferior to 'the brother of the lord' in the same way that 'sons of god' is inferior to 'the son of god'. No?

For a more contemporary treatment of the idea of exalting someone to 'brother' status, I suppose we could look at Heb. 2:

10In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. 11Both the one who makes men holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers. 12He says,
"I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises." 13And again,
"I will put my trust in him." And again he says,
"Here am I, and the children God has given me."

gstafleu

If James and the Apostles are the original church, cult, sect, and Paul the newcomer is not just, as you say, a self-appointed charismatic follower, but also someone with a new idea: "Bring the gospel to the gentiles," wouldn't that result in a very similar situation?

Gerard Stafleu

Toto

What is the basis for this claim?

There is a standard Hebrew name "Ahijah" which means "Brother of God" or "brother of YHWH."

spamandham

As long as brother can have both meanings, then neither meaning is preferred a priori, even if one is more common. It's up to us to discern from the context which fits better. If the context doesn't make it clear, then we just have to accept ambiguity.

...searching through the epistles on biblegateway for 'brother', and there are several pages of hits, I can't find a single case where Paul uses the word 'brother' to refer to a blood relationship, unless it's the two cases were discussing.

What then is the justification for presuming he means a blood relationship in one or both of these cases? All we can say for sure, is that's there's something unique about James, and there's something unique about the group in 1 Cor. 9:5. In the case of James, we know he was the leader of the Jerusalem church. In the case of 'the brothers', they also seem to play some special unspecified role. Can this realistically just be coincidence if these are Jesus blood brothers? I don't think that would be a reasonable inference.

So, you would have to argue that the early church was nepotistic, which although not unrealistic, is also not supported anywhere in Paul, elsewhere in the NT, or even in noncanonical sources as far as I'm aware, and seems to be inconsistent with the NT message.

So for either of these two options, whether we opt for blood relations, or whether we opt for a special position of somekind, we are drawing a conclusion not directly supported by the text, and for which there is little basis for preference.