Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 08-05-2008, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

I recall making a simple argument somewhere for the brother of the Lord in Paul being a literal brother. Let me see if I can do it again:

1. The first meaning to explore for this phrase in Paul is that of fellow believer, since Paul frequently uses brother to mean that.
2. However, the uses of this phrase in Galatians 1.19; 1 Corinthians 9.5 are unique in that they use the genitive of the Lord, whereas Paul elsewhere uses the prepositional phrase in the Lord to convey a spiritual relationship with the Lord Jesus.
3. 1 Corinthians 9.5 ensures that this term or title is not limited to James of Jerusalem only; IOW, it is not a personal moniker of his. It tells us that he belongs to a group called the brothers of the Lord.
4. 1 Corinthians 9.5 also seems to tell us that this group is not identical to the apostles in general, though there may be overlap, since James himself appears to be called an apostle in Galatians 1.19. Also, the group does not seem to be coterminous with all believers at large, since it is placed between a closed group (the apostles) and an individual (Cephas); this point rules out texts such as Romans 8.29 as parallels, since in such texts all believers appear to be called brothers.
5. 1 Corinthians 9.5 also seems to tell us that the brothers of the Lord are male, since their wives are the topic under discussion; that is, brothers is not used in the inclusive sense it has in some other Pauline texts.
6. So brother(s) of the Lord cannot mean believers at large, cannot be a personal title for James, and apparently designates a closed male group.
7. Either this is a special group of believers that adopted this title or the term brother is to be taken literally. I will be the first to admit that the former is possible; but I think we have the right to ask for clearer evidence that such a group existed. The latter requires no special evidence beyond ruling out the usual Pauline meaning(s) for brother (which we have done above), leaving the literal, primary definition almost by default.

Everything I have seen so far on this board that tries to make brother of the Lord mean something other than a literal brother fudges the evidence somewhere. I have seen brother of the Lord taken as brother in the Lord, as my brothers, and as a member of a special sect (for which little or no other evidence is generally produced).

Ben.

There may be at least one other possibility:

The brothers of the Lord might have been a cultic designation of dignitaries in James' church who achieved a standard of Nazarite asceticism. The term "brothers of the Lord" may have been originally an Aramaic terminus technicus for "brothers in the service of the Lord" which could have been rendered into Greek either as adelfoi en kyrio or adelfoi tou kyriou. In the original rendition "the Lord" need not have been Paul's Jesus Christ but the Jewish elohim and the brotherhood may have consisted in achieving election to a status of holiness in the Lord's service.

I think the Acts' incoherence with respect to James (if not his outright suppression) argues volumes against a blood relationship. This theory looks even even more grotesque in the Hegesippus' tale of James' martyrdom in which, he (James) is invited to denounce publicly the belief in Jesus as the Christ, making the temple priests unaware that the church was founded and led by Jesus' own brother to proclaim that very message. And then there is the gospel of Jesus' "twin" Thomas, in which Jesus' disciples are told to seek refuge with James the Righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being (gT 12). Now, why would Jesus refer to his own brother by a nickname bestowed on him in recognition of his public record ? And would such a saying be traditioned by a group which venerated Jesus and not James as the Messiah ?

Jiri

Ben C Smith · 08-05-2008, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There may be at least one other possibility:

The brothers of the Lord might have been a cultic designation of dignitaries in James' church who achieved a standard of Nazarite asceticism.

Is this not an instance of my first category, this is a special group of believers that adopted this title?

Quote:

The term "brothers of the Lord" may have been originally an Aramaic terminus technicus for "brothers in the service of the Lord" which could have been rendered into Greek either as adelfoi en kyrio or adelfoi tou kyriou.

What would the Aramaic have been?

Quote:

In the original rendition "the Lord" need not have been Paul's Jesus Christ but the Jewish elohim and the brotherhood may have consisted in achieving election to a status of holiness in the Lord's service.

Yes, all of this is possible. What is the evidence for the existence of such a group?

Quote:

I think the Acts' incoherence with respect to James (if not his outright suppression) argues volumes against a blood relationship.

If Acts is suppressing something about James, why can (one of) the thing(s) suppressed not be that James was the brother of Jesus? If this can be one of the things suppressed, then why does the suppression speak volumes against a blood relationship? If it cannot be, why not?

Quote:

this theory looks even even more grotesque in the Hegesippus' tale of James' martyrdom in which, he (James) is invited to denounce publicly the belief in Jesus as the Christ, making the temple priests unaware that the church was founded and led by Jesus' own brother to proclaim that very message.

Not following you here. Please clarify.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo, emphasis added

And then there is the gospel of Jesus' "twin" Thomas, in which Jesus' disciples are told to seek refuge with James the Righteous, for whose sake heaven and earth came into being (gT 12). Now, why would Jesus refer to his own brother by a nickname bestowed on him in recognition of his public record ?

I think the gospel of Thomas is the one bestowing this nickname, not necessarily Jesus (that is, I am not inclined to see this dominical saying as genuine). But who is the him that I boldfaced above?

Quote:

And would such a saying be traditioned by a group which venerated Jesus and not James as the Messiah ?

I am thinking that some group thought of James in superlative terms that other groups would have reserved for Jesus. Maybe that is one of the things being suppressed.

Ben.

Solo · 08-06-2008, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

There may be at least one other possibility:

The brothers of the Lord might have been a cultic designation of dignitaries in James' church who achieved a standard of Nazarite asceticism.

Is this not an instance of my first category, this is a special group of believers that adopted this title?

Perhaps, it was not a question of them "adopting" the title. Perhaps, as I said, it was a designation of a rank.

Quote:

What would the Aramaic have been?

Don't know Aramaic, but you will graciously concede that such a construct would have been accomodated by Aramaic, will you not ?

Quote:

Yes, all of this is possible. What is the evidence for the existence of such a group?

Paul's letters, as you have pointed out. We are to interpret a seemingly self-contradictory term "brothers of the Lord", which Paul points to, in addition to "other apostles" and Cephas, in order to contrast his celibacy. The cognitive context of the single mention of this group does not in any way suggest blood relation to Jesus of Nazareth. Further, as I say, the genitive construct appears self-contradicting, in that it equates "brotherhood" with "Lord", i.e. a commonly used word denoting group loyalty to a cause and equality, with one of rule and dominance. Therefore I tend to read it as cultic speak for "brothers"/"in (the service of)" or "before", "the Lord".

Quote:

If Acts is suppressing something about James, why can (one of) the thing(s) suppressed not be that James was the brother of Jesus? If this can be one of the things suppressed, then why does the suppression speak volumes against a blood relationship? If it cannot be, why not?

I take it you are refering to Acts 12:17, in which you interpret "brethern" as blood brothers of Jesus. Did you look at "the conference" in Acts 15 ? "The apostles and elders were gathered together" (6). Peter addresses them: "brethern"....(7) James addresses them : "brethern (andres adelfoi), listen to me (13)".

I do not see Acts supoorting the notion of James blood relationship with Jesus at all. So, I don't understand your comment.

Quote:

this theory looks even even more grotesque in the Hegesippus' tale of James' martyrdom in which, he (James) is invited to denounce publicly the belief in Jesus as the Christ, making the temple priests unaware that the church was founded and led by Jesus' own brother to proclaim that very message.

Not following you here. Please clarify.

Hegesippus says that the priests tried to convince James to renounce the worpship of Jesus as Messiah. How probable is it that the priests would have done that if they had known James was Jesus' sibling, and that he operated a church for nearly thirty years proclaiming Jesus as messiah ? If the answer is negative, what is the probability they did not know ?

Quote:

I think the gospel of Thomas is the one bestowing this nickname, not necessarily Jesus (that is, I am not inclined to see this dominical saying as genuine). But who is the him that I boldfaced above?

James

Quote:

And would such a saying be traditioned by a group which venerated Jesus and not James as the Messiah ?

I am thinking that some group thought of James in superlative terms that other groups would have reserved for Jesus. Maybe that is one of the things being suppressed.

Ben.

I think you got it, Ben

. I believe, it was for this reason that Jesus made Peter the founder of the church and the later church chroniclers danced around James and his role as best as they could.

Jiri

Ben C Smith · 08-06-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Perhaps, it was not a question of them "adopting" the title. Perhaps, as I said, it was a designation of a rank.

A rank that somebody had to assign a name, right? A rank whose title, then, was adopted?

Quote:

Don't know Aramaic, but you will graciously concede that such a construct would have been accomodated by Aramaic, will you not?

Your scenario requires an Aramaic phrase that can be translated either as brother in the Lord or as brother of the Lord. This is not the case in Greek or in English, where there is a clear difference of sense between the two; why should there have to be such a phrase in Aramaic? (Again, there may be one; I do not know.)

Quote:

Paul's letters, as you have pointed out. We are to interpret a seemingly self-contradictory term "brothers of the Lord", which Paul points to, in addition to "other apostles" and Cephas, in order to contrast his celibacy.

What is the interpretive dilemma here? If brothers of the Lord means brothers of the Lord in a literal sense, then the brothers of Jesus were simply ministers and were married.

Quote:

The cognitive context of the single mention of this group does not in any way suggest blood relation to Jesus of Nazareth.

Nor does it rule against it. In fact, it is silent on the matter. For all we know, from this verse alone, all the apostles could be cousins of the Lord and Cephas his nephew.

Quote:

Further, as I say, the genitive construct appears self-contradicting, in that it equates "brotherhood" with "Lord", i.e. a commonly used word denoting group loyalty to a cause and equality, with one of rule and dominance.

If brother means brother literally, then there is no tension between these meanings.

Quote:

I take it you are refering to Acts 12:17, in which you interpret "brethern" as blood brothers of Jesus.

I do not take the term brethren in Acts 12.17 as referring to blood brothers of Jesus. The term brethren in this verse stands on its own (no genitive attached); compare 2 Corinthians 9.5, for example. It simply means fellow believers.

Ben.

Ben C Smith · 08-06-2008, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hegesippus says that the priests tried to convince James to renounce the worpship of Jesus as Messiah. How probable is it that the priests would have done that if they had known James was Jesus' sibling, and that he operated a church for nearly thirty years proclaiming Jesus as messiah ?

I think most of what Hegesippus wrote about the death of James is legendary. I do not think the priests ever did ask James such a question.

Quote:

I think you got it, Ben

. I believe, it was for this reason that Jesus made Peter the founder of the church and the later church chroniclers danced around James and his role the best they could.

I am not sure Jesus made Peter the founder of anything. But the rest we might well agree on.

Ben.

MortalWombat · 08-06-2008, 07:56 AM

Luke never mentions any brothers of Jesus by name, and when the notion of brothers of Jesus are mentioned in Luke, he seems to downplay it:

Quote:

Luke 8:
19Now Jesus' mother and brothers came to see him, but they were not able to get near him because of the crowd. 20Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to see you."

21He replied, "My mother and brothers are those who hear God's word and put it into practice."

In addition, growing up in the Greek Orthodox church, we were always told that the word "brother" in the New Testament could mean either physical brother, or close cousin. I don't know if this is actually true or not, or just the Orthodox Church's way of dealing the "brothers of Jesus" problem, since like the Catholics, they also stress Mary's virginity.

Luke also stresses Mary's virginity several times in the first chapter of Luke. Perhaps Luke's Christology heavily emphasized Jesus needing to be born of a virgin, which is why he seems to downplay any mention of brothers in his gospel.

andrewcriddle · 08-06-2008, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

I take it you are refering to Acts 12:17, in which you interpret "brethern" as blood brothers of Jesus.

I do not take the term brethren in Acts 12.17 as referring to blood brothers of Jesus. The term brethren in this verse stands on its own (no genitive attached); compare 2 Corinthians 9.5, for example. It simply means fellow believers.

Ben.

Hi Ben

I'm putting forward the following very gingerly.
However a number of commentators do take brethren in Acts 12:17 as referring not to fellow believers in general but to a specific group close to James.

In the light of Acts 1:14 is it possible that 12:17 should be read as

Quote:

Tell this to James and the [other] brothers of Jesus

?

Andrew Criddle

Solo · 08-06-2008, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Perhaps, it was not a question of them "adopting" the title. Perhaps, as I said, it was a designation of a rank.

A rank that somebody had to assign a name, right? A rank whose title, then, was adopted?

Not sure what you are after here, Ben. I take it that the Jerusalem "inner circle" were Nazarite ascetics; they may have called themselves, or would have been called by the outsiders in the church informally, "brothers of the Lord". I assume like with other hierarchies they would have been admitting new "brothers". My suspicion that Paul's "revelation" to go to Jerusalem had to do with being admitted to this inner sanctum of James' church.

Quote:

Your scenario requires an Aramaic phrase that can be translated either as brother in the Lord or as brother of the Lord. This is not the case in Greek or in English, where there is a clear difference of sense between the two; why should there have to be such a phrase in Aramaic? (Again, there may be one; I do not know.)

In English (and other languages that I know well) the genitive constructs are often ambivalent. I can't speak for Greek, but I suspect it's the same thing (pistis Iesou e.g.). The Czech Protestant Bible Kralicka (16. century) translates 1 Cr 9:5 as "bratri Pane", in which "Pan" is in a specific form of a possessive genitive, used to denote devotional or service relationship, in preference to a straightforward kinship descriptor of "bratri Pana".
So what I am imagining as a possibility is a construct in Aramaic that would have brothers who are devoted to "the Lord" (in the traditional meaning of elohim) rendered in Greek as "brothers of the Lord".

Quote:

What is the interpretive dilemma here? If brothers of the Lord means brothers of the Lord in a literal sense, then the brothers of Jesus were simply ministers and were married.

How does brotherhood (in the kinship sense) relate to the titular "Lord" ?

Quote:

Nor does it rule against it. In fact, it is silent on the matter.

No, it does not rule against it. But I do not think it is reasonable to hold that "brothers" is used in both senses, i.e. as relatives and church dignitaries.

Quote:

For all we know, from this verse alone, all the apostles could be cousins of the Lord and Cephas his nephew.

Sure...no problem,....though it kind of reminds me of a last-ditch legal defence of an improbable theory.

Quote:

If brother means brother literally, then there is no tension between these meanings.

...or so you believe.

Jiri

Solo · 08-06-2008, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hegesippus says that the priests tried to convince James to renounce the worpship of Jesus as Messiah. How probable is it that the priests would have done that if they had known James was Jesus' sibling, and that he operated a church for nearly thirty years proclaiming Jesus as messiah ?

I think most of what Hegesippus wrote about the death of James is legendary. I do not think the priests ever did ask James such a question.

That of course is one way out. It is however possible that the report is in substance genuine. If it is, it all but rules out the possibility that Jesus was the central messianic figure in James church and that James was related to Jesus by blood line. Then Jesus would have been an idol to a faction in James' congregation, useful perhaps for political purposes, (and as we know actively supporting the church through missions (Gal 2:10)). This faction - roughly the 'Hellenists' of Acts - may in fact have been driven out of Jerusalem and started its own, somewhat independent, missions in the Diaspora.

James, may have kept patronage over the groups, but likely would not have tolerated any nonsense from them. Nor would he have been friendly to Paul's Jesus Christ mongering which forced Paul to accept dealing with the sectaries (Cephas, John and the other James). So the final dispute with the temple hierarchy may not have been specifically over preaching Jesus as the Christ, but it may have to do with apocalyptic militancy in his church in general (I kind of read James as the protector of the poor, oppressed, zealots and last-days malcontents). As Joe would say, it seems kind of oblias.

Quote:

I think you got it, Ben

. I believe, it was for this reason that Jesus made Peter the founder of the church and the later church chroniclers danced around James and his role the best they could.

I am not sure Jesus made Peter the founder of anything. But the rest we might well agree on.

Ben.

Hey, I put Jesus in italics ! It was my mom who was the Catholic in the family.

Jiri

Ben C Smith · 08-07-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

A rank that somebody had to assign a name, right? A rank whose title, then, was adopted?

Not sure what you are after here, Ben.

You were distinguishing your option from mine, yet both your option and mine had somebody using a special title or rank in the form of brother of the Lord. What I am after, then, is the surety of your option being, not another option that I did not think of, but rather an instance of the option that I explicitly gave.

Quote:

In English (and other languages that I know well) the genitive constructs are often ambivalent.

Sure, there are plenty of shades of meaning for the genitive, even in Greek.

Quote:

So what I am imagining as a possibility is a construct in Aramaic that would have brothers who are devoted to "the Lord" (in the traditional meaning of elohim) rendered in Greek as "brothers of the Lord".

You would have to consult an Aramaic expert for that, and I am not it.

What I can say is that, in Greek, the phrase in the Lord (like in Christ) is used frequently by Paul to signal a spiritual reality or relationship; the phrase of the Lord is not, unless the very phrase in question is an instance. One cannot presume, IOW, that brother in the Lord, brother in the service of the Lord, and brother of the Lord are all equivalent; they are different constructions in the Greek, and therefore probably have different meanings.

Quote:

How does brotherhood (in the kinship sense) relate to the titular "Lord" ?

It does not intrinsically relate at all, just as brotherhood (in the kinship sense) does not relate to the name Ben in the phrase brother of Ben. Brother just means brother, and Ben is just my name. Likewise, if these are kin, then brother just means brother, and Lord is just how Paul refers to Jesus (early and often).

Quote:

But I do not think it is reasonable to hold that "brothers" is used in both senses, i.e. as relatives and church dignitaries.

Not in the same phrase. But, at different times, why not? I have been in a lot of churches where the people call each other brother and sister in a purely spiritual way; not one of those people avoided the term brother or sister when talking about their physical siblings.

And where do you see brothers used in Paul to mean, specifically, church dignitaries?

Quote:

Sure...no problem,....though it kind of reminds me of a last-ditch legal defence of an improbable theory.

The fact remains that, unlike cousin and nephew, the term brother does appear in our texts, and it does appear with the genitive, which is not the usual way for Paul to express the concept of spiritual brotherhood.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

If brother means brother literally, then there is no tension between these meanings.

...or so you believe.

Belief has nothing to do with it; if brother means brother literally (physically), then there is no tension between brother and Lord. How could there be? They relate to totally different conceptual ranges. Lords can have brothers, too, just like peasants can.

Ben.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.