spamandham

If we applied that same principle to the NT as a whole, then we would be surprised to find that it does not maintain the beliefs and interpretations of the OT upon which it depends.

To say that a text is primary in no way implies that subsequent authors used it slavishly, or even that they agreed with it at all. It just means that subsequent texts are even further removed from whatever reality can be gleened from the primary source(s).

The "true meaning" is simply whatever Paul meant by it, since he is the author who recorded it. A straightforward read of it, unbiased by later writings, gives us a rather unambiguous "brother of god" per Solo's argument.

It's possible that James is known as "brother of god" and also is the biological brother of Jesus, but we don't get that from a straightforward reading of Paul, which means that the idea that James is a blood brother of Jesus is first recorded either in Mark or in Josephus depending on a dozen assumptions.

yalla

Apostate Abe

Hmm.
Not an apologist eh?
OK.

Are you a believing christian?
A man of faith?

I ask because I have just finished glancing at and taking some notes from Galatians.
I reckon you need to look at Galatians.

Try these:

1. Galatians 3.7
"..it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham."
Now, according to Paul if you Abe are a man of faith, if anyone is a man of faith, then they are sons of Abraham.
And if they are 'sons of Abraham' then what are they to each other? Brethren?
Really truly in a blood kin sense? Of course not.

The kin term used here does not indicate a kin relationship.

2. Gal. 3.26
"For in Christ Jesus you are all sons of god through faith".
And if you are all sons of god then you would therefore be brothers to each wouldn't you?
Come to think of it Jesus Christ/Christ Jesus allegedly was/is a son of god therefore all mentioned here would be brothers to each other and all belong to a brotherhood of people who are sons of god...brotherhood of the lord [aka 'god'].
In the 21st century thats a billion or more persons who, through faith in CJ/JC, belong to the brotherhood of the lord [even the women].

The kin term used here does not indicate a kin relationship

Presuming you, Apostate Abe, have faith in JC, then you Apostate Abe belong to "the brotherhood of the lord".

3. Gal. 4.5
In fact, through faith even those " who were under the law" [presumably Jews] could "receive adoption as sons ...and heirs".

The kin term used here does not indicate a kin relationship

4. Gal. 4.19
"My little children..."
I don't think the persons Paul is addressing here are actually 'little children' or 'his'.
I reckon its an affectionate term for people who share his faith.
To repeat:
"The kin term used here does not indicate a kin relationship".

5.A quick count found more than a dozen other examples in Galatians alone [ignoring all his other epistles], in addition to the above, where Paul uses the kin term "brethren or brother'.
Its ubiquitous.

Abe its bleeding obvious from a reading of Paul that he does not use kin terms as kin terms but in a collegiate communal sense of a 'brotherhood' who through faith in JC have commonality.

As such you cannot point to one single example out of the dozens that fit into the common context and, just because it suits the apologist [whether you are one such or not] purpose of trying to get it to mean an historical JC who had kin, ignore completely the Pauline context that trtansparently contradicts that interpretation.
cheers
yalla

judge

Mark, our earliest account of the life of Jesus tells us Jesus had a brother called james.

Mark 6:3Paul in Galatians appears to say the very same thing.

The most parsimonious explanation is that the earliest gospel tradtion tells us Jesus had a sibling called James, and that Paul also thought this to be so.

Of course we can come up with all manner of complicated excuses to think this isnt so, but the simplest explnation is the the earliest tradition about Jesus was that he had a brother called james and that Paul agreed with this tradition.

spamandham

Except that that isn't the right translation of what Paul writes. The best translation is "brother of god", according to spin's argument.

The most parsimonious explanation is that there was no attempt whatsoever on the part of the gospel writers to accurately record history. They were making crap up that suited their agenda and provided canned answers to questions of origins of their religion. Read the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke and tell me you think they are historical in any way, in spite of their inclusion of a few real men of history.

judge

You dont know that. That is merely a best guess.



You dont know which is earlier. You make an educated guess, thats all.

Problem is, you have shown you are not willing to even suggest that paul meant god in Galatians. Try putting it in and see how it reads. You are just dancing around the edges. Get in and propose a clear alternate reading for Galatians 1.

How convenient.



No but it allows it to read that way. So we look to other early clues.

So you agree that you have no evidence for Pauls aother uses of Lord as referring to Jesus being interpolations?
Do you see how rickety your case is?

Speak for yourself. You know why you do things but dont know why others do.
Pauls use in other places of Lord to ferer to Jesus is enough (and thats not all there is of course)...but you wish these were not there. But they are.

judge

And you say that according to what authority? An anonymous internet poster who just happens to give an explanation you like?

spamandham

Yes. Do you have a source that refutes the argument or provides a better one? If not, then what is your basis for rejecting it?

ApostateAbe

Cool. I was a bit surprised when you said, "If you can't justify your perspective with recognized criteria..." in light of how much contempt you seemed to show in the past for criteria of all sorts, but I don't object, because this is how I like to play ball. If you would prefer some other set of criteria, just say so.
Sounds good. Do you think "high-status" is a good way to express this group of brothers? That is the assumption I made about Proposition #2. Maybe it is an unwarranted assumption. If you like, I can choose an alternative explanation, such as maybe "brothers of the Lord" were just normal Christians, and I can go through ABE again using that.
Yes, that would cover item #2 (explanatory scope). However, it would be at the expense of #5 (less ad hoc). It would introduce yet another new supposition. It may also be expense of #4 (more plausible). Do we really expect that the almost-contemporary readers of Paul would misread the phrase, as if they had no idea who the "brothers of the Lord" actually were?
What sort of deference would you expect? I take the title, "brother of the Lord," as deference enough. If this is a problem, then I don't think Proposition #2 is any better at solving it, because a high-status Christian also deserves deference.
There were two men named James. It was a common name.
Jesus was also a common name. "Brother of the Lord" was apparently his title, which would be more respectful than, "Brother of Jesus," and it would be more clear to the readers. It may also be shorter than "Brother of Jesus Christ." Paul almost always uses the name "Jesus" as part of the phrase "Jesus Christ."
I have four siblings and two parents, but I haven't mentioned them at all in the BC&H forum, because I have never needed to. Paul does seem to make a passing allusion to Mary in Galatians 4:4, "...God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law," and again with 1 Corinthians 9:5, "...brothers of the Lord..." which undercuts the objection, though I know Proposition #2 has a different interpretation.
Since, the items in ABE are about relative evaluations, then we most certainly can make such evaluations. If they are both plausible, then we can still make a judgment about which is more plausible than the other. If they are both implausible, then we can still make a judgment about which is more plausible than the other. Or else maybe this method is not for you. Are you telling me that Proposition #1 is practically just as ad hoc as Proposition #2? The ad hoc item of ABE is a big one to me.

Darn. :P

judge

:-) Well you havent presented or even linked to the argument, so its a little impossible to refute it.

spin

Once again not having logged in, I saw this:
What is the relationship between the material in Mark and the information found in Paul? We know that Paul wrote well before the time of the Marcan material. Why do you persist in a process akin to reading Prince of Egypt back into Exodus??

That's because you are looking at it backwards. In fact, you have slightly better grounds to claim that Mark appears to say the same thing as what Paul earlier said. Your problem is to show the relationship between the two statements. You are here appealing to appearances.

Parsimony, pulled out of a hat like this, is useless. The Pauline text must be dealt with for what it says in its own linguistic context, before comparing it with other writings. You must understand what you can from the original text before polluting it with ideas from ealsewhere. Your approach refuses to do this, so prevents you from reading the text.

You can always rewrite Paul because you prefer what later people say.


spin