Vivisector

I've seen some coverage of Gal 1:19 in the archives:

And a very limited amount regarding 1 Cor 9:5:

Mark agrees with Paul that Jesus had brothers (3:31-32) and that one of them was named James (6:3). A brother named James would furthermore be consistent with the preserved text of a certain Jewish historian who shall remain unnamed for the moment.

Is the plain reading wrong in every case?

V.

Diogenes the Cynic

I think it's significant that 1 Cor. makes a distinction between "the Lord's brothers" and Cephas (and the "other apostles," for that matter). It would seem to contraindicate a figurative reading of adelphoi as denoting something other than a literal sibling relationship (else what would exclude Cepahas and the other apostles as being "brothers?")

To me, this shows that there was either a very early tradition for Jesus having biological brothers (a point in the favor of HJ) or it's an interpolation. If it were only the mention in Galatians the possibilities might be more ambigious.

The Josephus passage is disputed and I don't have a firm opinion on it myself but I do think that, collectively, these references point to an authentic HJ unless at least two of them are interpolations.

Chris Weimer

Do I hear Geoff speaking in the distance?

spin

Despite the fact that Paul has been touched up in places, what makes you think Paul refers to Jesus by the absolute form "the Lord" (ie not as a title like "my lord" or as a qualifier as in "the lord Jesus" or "Jesus, the lord", but as a stand alone reference, "the Lord")?


spin

Diogenes the Cynic

Are you suggesting that Paul's phrase "adelphos/adelphoi tou kuriou" could mean "brother[s] of the lord" in a more generic sense of "lord" as "God?"

If so, why does he distinguish between the brothers and the other apostles? Paul uses phrases like "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Christ the lord," or "Christ is Lord" dozens of times throughout his epistles yet off the top of my head, I'm not aware of instance where he uses the word kurion to refer to God generically rather than Jesus (I am willing to be corrected on that).

I'm also not aware of any use of the phrase "brother of the lord" as any sort of title or figurative designation. 'Brothers in Christ," maybe but not "brothers of the lord."

I think the possibility of Paul not meaning "lord" to mean Jesus in those passages is rather lower than either interpolation or authentic tradition.

spin

What do you think the Hebrew name Ahijah means? ()X is "brother".)

I wasn't around at the time.

How about all those HB quotes? How would Paul reconcile them with a use of "the Lord" for Jesus?

How would Paul reconcile the intrusive 1 Cor 2:8b with his HB Lord?

Or what about the intrusive passage 1 Cor 11:23-28 with its talk of "the Lord's death"? This passage, which is one of the few supposedly Pauline passages which shows knowledge of gospel material, deliberately coalesces the Lord's meal (a good Jewish idea) with the last supper, when the passage in which it is inserted and it interrupts

Paul writes, "there is one god, the Father... and one lord, Jesus Christ", 1 Cor 8:6, and "such is the confidence we have through Christ towards God", 2 Cor 3:4, etc., so Paul has a clear idea of the separation of these two entities.

I think such a position would render Paul a little schizophrenic, maintaining two conflicting stances at the same time.


spin

Vivisector

The opposing view might be that, there was a group in Jerusalem who referred to themselves as the "Brothers of the Lord." James, as the leader of the group, was the Brother of the Lord. The reasons I don't presently find this view persuasive are (1) in the 125 or so instances of Paul's use of "brother" or "brothers," in only two does he refer to brother/brothers of the Lord (implying something out of the ordinary in the term), (2) there would seem to be no documentation of a Brothers of the Lord group outside these two passages (unless one wanted to regard Josephus as authentic, and Mark as referring to charter members of the group), and (3) the Jerusalem group headed by James seems to have come to be known by a different name or names.

The point about Cephas is interesting; it makes me wonder what Paul really considered to be Cephas's credentials.

Exactly. And I don't understand why someone would want to interpolate Paul in this direction.

Regards,

V.

Vivisector

You mentioned 1 Cor 2:8 and 11:23 ff previously. Putting aside 1 Cor 9:5 and Gal 1:19, the following additional instances of "the Lord" appear to apply to Jesus (all from NIV):

There are a few other "maybe" instances, but your point is obviously valid: in the vast majority of instances, Paul does not used the unqualified "the Lord" to refer to Jesus, preferring - as you pointed out - to expand the term to differentiate between Jesus and God.

If, however, in 1 Cor 9:5 and Gal 1:19, Paul were referring to flesh and blood brothers of Jesus, would he have considered it necessary to clarify his use of "Lord" to differentiate between Jesus and God? And would it make any difference if Paul was a convert to Judaism (as suggested by Maccoby, e.g.) rather than born and raised in the faith?

Regards,

V.

spin

This isn't an instance, as it is not an absolute, but an ordinary noun qualified.

This one though is. And it's just as intrusive as the earlier examples I gave. Here suddenly talking about raising bodies, when the context is abusing bodies.

It would have been confusing to his readers if he actually sometimes did use "kurios" for both God and Jesus, don't you think? We have been trained to live with the confusion through the doctrine of the trinity.

I don't know how we could answer.

Sadly, although now in possession of Maccoby's Mythmaker, I haven't read it, as I have too much unread works with a higher priority. I can't really comment on this either.


spin

Vivisector

Yes, I think it would have been confusing, but the author of 2 Pet seems to indicate that others found Paul confusing (in a more general sense). Perhaps my standards are too low, but in the present context, I don't find a measure of confusing - but authentic - passages surprising.

To a certainty, I don't either. At a first consideration, though, I would guess that no clarification would have been deemed necessary if Paul were referring to flesh and blood, biological brothers of a flesh and blood Jesus.

Interesting material, from my initial pass through it. Thanks to Amaleq13 for recommending it so highly.

Regards,

V.