judge

Thats 2 Corithians 2:13
. However X the Y of me, is not a construction that anyone can use in the way one can use X the Y of Z.
Only one person can use it.

LegionOnomaMoi

That's because none of them address what I said (probably because you don't actually have any background in modern linguistic theories of grammar and thus haven't a clue what I'm talking about).


I'm going to assume you meant 2 cor 2:13. But I'm glad at least you can clarify you aren't familiar with construction grammars or modern linguistic approaches to grammar (as you continue to follow your "isn't structurally different" reasoning you applied in your first post). You can read greek. I'm betting you know that (compared to latin) greek texts show a preference for the genitive rather than possessive pronouns. titon ton adelphon mou is NOT an identification construction. It means "my brother." It certainly could refer to a biological kinship, but
1) The line isn't an identification. Whereas every use of James in Paul specifies which James (James the brother, or james of the 12/the pillar) is being discussed, Paul simply names Titus in galations along with Barnabas. There's no need to identify
2) The only reason for using a brother as the Y in "X the Y of Z" kinship identification is that for some reason (the brother is quite well known compared to the father, or the father isn't known at all) the father isn't an appropriate identifier. Hence Josephus identifies James, the brother of Jesus, the one called christ, but then identifies Jesus the son of Damneus.
3) The purpose of an identification formula is to identify. Here's where Paul's use of "brother" actually becomes important. He speaks of brothers in christ all the time. Stating "my brother" here would not sufficiently identify Titus. Paul calls all fellow followers his "brothers."
4) He does not likewise identify all followers as "brothers of the lord" or Jesus or Christ. In fact, the only other use of "brothers of the lord" (as was pointed out earlier) is in a place where it doesn't make sense either as an identification construction or as referring to followers rather than actual kin.




I don't have to say so, because "structurally equivalent" isn't relevent (which you would know, had you actually any idea what construction grammars entail). Hence, the X-er, the Y-er applies equally to "the higher you climb, the harder you fall" and the completely structurally different "the more time you spend studying linguistics now, the less you will make yourself appear ignorant to those who actually have when you are trying to claim a linguistic argument is "amiss." That's what "schematic" means. The "structure" is provided by a general schema instantiated in varying ways within parameters. With something like "subject" or "patient" the schema is increadibly broad. Here, it is much less so.

Language makes use of multiple constructions at the same time inheriting from a network in a non-heirarchical manner. We know that Greek speakers used multiple different constructions to identify those of the same names: adjectival, kinship, titular, geographic, etc. Kinship identification then inherits from this broader and more schematic identification construction. But the purpose is still the same: identifying this person named James or Titus from any number of others of the same name.

The prototypical use of "my brother" would be "an actual brother." The reason we have for rejecting this interpretation is that Paul identifies all followers as his "brothers." He does not do this with his Lord. So even apart from Mark, matthew, and Josephus (all sources which identify James as Jesus' brother), Paul's formulaic usage of X the Y of Z in Galatians is quite clear. To argue that this is an identification through title, rather than kinship (as is typical) we'd need evidence that such a title existed. Paul identifies no one else by "the brother of the Lord" nor do we find this elsewhere in christian literature. We do find references to a James, Jesus' brother (and brothers of Jesus) both inside of an outside of christian literature.

Brilliant. First you state: Prototypically, brother means brother. Why do we reject this usage in Paul? Because he calls all followers of Jesus brothers. He does not call all followers of Jesus "brother of the lord." He uses a specific identification formula we find all over the place in greek texts. The only reason for rejecting this interpretation would be a similar use of "brother of the lord" which clearly did not refer to "brothers." The use of the word "brother" in Paul in general is in no way enough to say that anytime we see the word brother, we need extra evidence to understand that it means "not an actual brother." Quite the opposite. Each incidence of brother must be evaluated according to the construction we find it in, and then the context of Paul. If both provide evidence that "actual brother" is implausible, only then do we reject it. In Galatians, we find no constructions to support rejecting the typical understanding, nor do we find a context in which Paul uses brothers of the lord to clearly refer to a metaphorical or non-kin relationship.

Additionally, we find the same brother identified by Josephus (using this formula) and in Mark/matthew.

spin

Actually, it translates to "my brother" in English. You have to translate it that way because there is no way of rendering the original in any more meaningful way. You shouldn't fall over your own hurdles: you just look lame doing so.

It is structure that we are dealing with here, not the way you translate it. The Greek as I've already indicated is:

Τιτον τον αδελφον μου

However, as I said, the μου is a pronoun replacing του Ραυλου, yielding

Τιτον τον αδελφον του Ραυλου

which, as I said, is structurally no different from

Ιακοβον τον αδελφον του κυριου

You can plead all you like that it means "my brother Titus", but that is irrelevant to the construction of the sentence in Greek.

Or so you assert. Paul doesn't simply say "Titus" as he does elsewhere. Is "Titus the brother of mine" not an identification?

The example is in 2 Cor, not Galatians. Talking about the latter is wasting everyone's time.

Your mathematical formula approach needs to be justified, not asserted.

So is Paul identifying Titus in 2 Cor 2:13 or not?

This "identification construction" of yours is your albatross. There are certain religionists who are generically referred to as "brothers of the lord", just as James the major pillar of the Jerusalem congregation is referred to as "the brother of the lord". Whether you read Gal 1:19 as a biological connection or as an honorific it is still--to use your phrase--an "identification construction" in the context. It's thus irrelevant.

Given that it is a simple transformation you can turn your back on Chomsky and his heirs if you like, but that is you being perverse. Just imagine what you would be yabbering about if you'd studied Halliday or say Dik, and strained everything through their language models.

Other people trying to read your sophistry would raise a smile at this.

If you ignore Apollos in 1 Cor 16:12.

We are dealing with the only phrase that relates "lord" this way. You are assuming you know what it means without demonstrating it.

Not useful comparisons. All were written after Paul. The example in Josephus is an interpolation based on knowledge of Origen's use of Hegesippus and using an inappropriate syntax that reflects a christian scribe rather than the original writer.

The repetition of your fallacious claim about the formulaic structure is merely noise by now. You have utterly failed to show that Paul necessarily had what you have in mind that he needed to when he wrote Ιακοβον τον αδελφον του κυριου. It has become a personal dogma of yours.

Nice retortion of my argument. Only problem is that you've assumed what you need to show, ie that Paul's use of Ιακοβον τον αδελφον του κυριου must be as you claim. It requires you to go against Paul's general non-biological use of αδελφος demonstrating why--which you have assiduously refused to do--, rather than simply asserting that he must be identifying a kinship relationship given your identification construction.

And warning bells don't start sounding in your mind about making your assertions? Naaa. You've assumed your conclusion.

Umm, has anyone suggested that he should call all followers of Jesus "brother of the lord"? In fact, I specifically indicated that that was not the case.

The fact that you have not found any suitable index to gauge your claim by indicates that you are now merely rambling. You needed to find an example of someone who uses "Brother" for non-biological purposes as routinely as Paul, someone who also uses it to identify biological kin. You've come up empty-handed. So now you just assert over and over again that you can be formulaic about the matter.

This is a fun contortion. Paul has established a track record of using a term in a particular way and can be easily enough understood that way in Gal 1:19, but you don't like what that does to the text, so you've made assertions as to what he should mean because other writers, who do not use the term "brother" generally as he does, use the structure found in Gal 1:19 for biological kinship. This is not dealing with the language in use: it's prescriptive grammar.

Repeating in conclusion what you've already said. Good brief essay. B+

Oh, and you've already used all the bullets in your gun, so, so long and thanks for all the fish.

Bernard Muller

to spin,
And you expect the reader (a Christian) to remember Isa 40:13 and instantly understand the Lord here means God?
No, but the significance is not important considering v.27 covers the issue:
For 1Cor14:37, again, Paul got his gospel from Heavenly Jesus, not God. For 1Co15:58, that comes right after 15:57, where Jesus is declared Lord Jesus Christ.

That's different. Here god reveals his son, but Paul's gospel is from jesus christ

But I do not see the connection. There is no god in v.1 and v.8. If Paul wanted his audience to think he communicated with god, he would have say it in v.8.
Why bring James into that? Do you think Paul expected the reader to consult James' letter to understand the passage? Furthermore, it is likely the James' letter did not exist yet and "James" might not have had the same idea as Paul about who would come during the big day.
I also want to add up on my earlier comment:
4:17b says "to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever" (right after the resurrections and raptures). The Lord with whom the Christians will be with forever is the same Lord they will meet in the air and then 5:9b-10 says; "our Lord Jesus Christ. He died for us so that ... we may live together with him". Again it looks the Lord of 4:15-17 is Christ.

Yes there are ambivalence, but these letters were addressed to Christians. Those who were Gentiles would have a tendency to interpret Lord as meaning Jesus most often. The more Judaized Christians would understand Lord to be God more often. I think that ambivalence by using Lord instead of either God or Christ was planned by Paul to please (or not provoke) various kind of Christians. The same for 'James' with its Lord's coming. Gentile Christians would heard it as Jesus, even, through careful analysis, it is God's coming (which would be agreeable for Jews and James!).

judge

Spin youre getting you ass kicked Better to just admit it.

Thats the problem with having a little knowledge. Hanging around here you get your back slapped by your "fan club" , but it doesn't help you when you have to engage someone with real knowledge of linguistics.

spin

It's sufficient that Paul understands, as he makes his argument. To conclude differently requires the assumption that Paul has raised Jesus to god status which is certainly not the case.

You're doing just what the scribe who interpolated v.29 did and it's wrong. The body in v.29 is the body of each individual who goes into the Paul's lordly supper and gluttonizes. See here.

Then you are saying that Paul in Gal 1:15-16, where he says that god did the revealing and Jesus is what was revealed, is wrong.

So as "my lord" comes right after "the lord" in Ps 110:1, "the lord said to my lord", they must be the same thing?? The first is non-titular, the second titular, just as 1 Cor 15:58 is non-titular, while 15:57 is titular. I tried to be clear about the matter from the very beginning. There is a clear distinction between the titular and non-titular uses of κυριος. The non-titular you should think of as if it were a name. Obviously this is not the case with 15:57.

The gospel revealed to Paul was Jesus and it was god who did the revealing. The revelation of Jesus in Gal 1:12 is further explained in 1:15-16 as god revealing his son. And throughout Galatians the central argument is that while other messianists followed the law, Paul taught the belief in Jesus, stemming from this revelation.

Rubbish. In Jewish literature of the time there is no distinction between god and the lord. They are interchangeable. Paul is a Jew of his time. Why do you think--like later christians--that he has to use his terms like later christians did? This is the sort of anachronous thinking that must be eliminated in order to try to understand what Paul himself wrote.

Obviously because he was using the concept of the coming of the lord and shows that that was how the writer of James understood "lord" in the context of that phrase used explicitly in 1 Thes 4:15. It is reflective of the earliest ideas of christianity, rather than using the retrojected christian doctrine of the coming of the lord referring to Jesus.

They would be called christians, but we are at the start of christianity and you cannot make assumptions based on later doctrines. There were no trendsetters for the language of Paul in his new religion. He used what was available, ie Jewish and pagan ideas.

I believe that it would have been the tendency, due to the various lords of the mysteries, and that tendency helps to explain how the non-titular κυριος shifted from referring to god in Paul's cultural milieu to referring to Jesus.

So you are conjecturing this stuff to explain why someone would deliberately write in a confusing manner when he is trying to counsel people.

Now that's just pure unsupportable conjecturing.

The use of the non-titular κυριος is analogous to the way the Brits use "the queen". You get lots of other queens, the queen of the Netherlands, the queen of the ball, the prom queen, but there is no doubt when they talk of "the queen" it refers to Lizzy 2, she who prefers corgis to charlies. You can start a conversation using the formal "Elizabeth II" or simply "the queen" and there would be no problem understanding: they are interchangeable, just as "god" and the non-titular κυριος are.

judge

The scribe who interpolated? Do you have any scholars who agree with you...or has your theory now become fact because you posted it on the internet?

LegionOnomaMoi

What's irrelevent is your use "structure" when it comes to a construction schema. Despite your assertions:
You are wrong on pretty much every point. For one thing, have you even read recent work in Functional linguistics? For example, Halliday's paper "Methods -techniques-problems" in Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics? The incorporation of system networks into functional linguistics (or rather, into lexicogrammar, a fundamental component of Halliday's theory of grammar) is a form of construction grammar. There's a reason Luraghi's work One the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases adopts a functional linguistic approach to ancient greek, while her contributing paper to The Oxford Handbook of Case switches to a cogntive linguistic approach. It's the same reason Croft's 1991 monograph Syntactic Categories and Grammatical Relations begins by distinguishing functional and formal linguistics. Cognitive linguistics, a framework within which models of grammar are (or are based on) construction grammar, is intricately tied to theories from functional linguistics and generative semantics. As for "abandoning Chomsky and his heirs," most of his "heirs" abandoned Chomsky when he adopted/developed his latest approach (minimalism). Hence (for example) Jackendoff and Pinker's rejoinder (published in Cognition) to Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch's article in Science. This was before Hauser (whose office used to be not far from the lab I work in) was fired for basically faking his results. And as I've already said, Jackendoff and other "heirs" of Chomsky have also abandoned Chomsky's rejection of constructions and incorporated work from construction grammar into their theories of grammar.

So you can stop bringing up the names of grammarians whose highly influential work is nonetheless dated and/or now incorrporates construction grammar research and approaches. The fact that ancient greek linguistics is still anchored in classics and indo-european linguistics, and thus even when it comes to functional grammar works like Wakker's analysis of the conditional or Luraghi's work mentioned above are comparatively few and far between doesn't mean that modern linguistic theory is suddenly inapplicable to greek. It just means that, like you, most greek specialists are classicists, and those that have a background in linguistics tend to have a background in indo-european linguistics.


The construction "the X-er, the Y-er" (made famous, again, by Fillmore, Kay, & O'Connor's 1988 paper "Regularity and Idiomaticity in Grammatical Constructions") is just one of many (the paper itself actually focuses on "let alone.") Lakoff's There's study is the same.

Your statement of "structural equivalence" is meaningless because what matters are the constructional schemas (schemata) instantiated in any given clause, utterance, sentence, etc. I've already mentioned "drive":

"You're driving me home" and "you're driving me crazy" have the same structure. However, they are clearly not equivalent. Or take the "What's X doing Y" or WXDY construction (analyzed in Kay & Fillmore's 1999 paper in Language).

"Wait a minute, what are you doing with my tools?" is structually equivalent "Wait a minute, what are you doing with my investments?" However, the most natural reading of the former is a rhetorical question, while the latter is an actual question. In context, we could imagine the first question addressed from a father to a son whose just tried to sneak by with his father's toolbelt. The second could be addressed to a dodgy broker who is trying to get off the phone to avoid actually explaining how he's lost all of his client's money.

The point, however, is that structural equivalency is meaningless here (at least as far as your analysis goes), and you can continue to make disparaging comments and then referencing grammatical theory from several decades ago as if it matters, or you can acknowledge that your comment was based on an ignorance of modern linguistic models of grammar.


No. You pointed out earlier with "drive" that unless one has a reason to think drive is being used in a metaphorical manner, there's no reason to think so. Apart from the fact that words cannot be so easily seperated from the constructions they are used in, this was at least on the right track. We assume Paul uses brother metaphorically much of the time because he addresses followers as brothers, and applies a "brotherhood" metaphor to followers. So when we see a construction that would typically be taken as indicative of kin, like "my brother/the brother of me" in Paul, we have to weigh the construction (e.g., it lacks the kin-indentifier construction formula's use of identification by name of kin, but it certainly can refer to a biological brother) against the context and usage of Paul. Paul thinks of his "fellows" as brother. Brothers "in christ." Which means
1) The entire purpose of the many constructions used for identification would fall apart here, as it would not be clear given Paul's metaphorical use of brother to connect followers and
2) This usage is entirely within the context of the brother metaphor Paul applies. He calls other followers brothers. Here he states one is his brother.

This is NOT the same as "brother of the lord."

Actually, I'm using the logic behind your analysis of drive, only I'm applying grammatical theory which makes it necessary to analyze constructions, not words. We reject the literal notion of brotherhood in Paul frequently because he uses it in constructions to apply to followers of Jesus. This construction does not fit that use. There is, therefore, no reason to reject the typical use of "brother." In addition, there is positive evidence to accept it. The first is the use of kin to identify individuals. If you are at all familiar with greek texts, then you are well aware that individuals shared the same name and were identified through various means, including the most typical kin identification formula "X the son of Y." However, identification through other relations is seen as well, from greek oratory to Plato's dialogues to letters.



It isn't a mathematical formula (the combinatorial analysis of linguistic structure failed even in computational linguistics, and artificial language processing now relies on neural network theory and similar architectures which employ learning algorithms). It's a common way of representing constructions within linguistic research.

As you haven't read this research, you wouldn't know.



Most of the rest of your post is just hammering on the same mistaken misuse of linguistics ("paul uses brother to mean X most of the time, so we should ignore grammatical theory which specifically shows that each use most be examined within the construction it is used, because then I can apply Paul's metaphorical usage where it doesn't apply"). However:

Virtually the only time we find "christian" texts" using legomenou Christou or the nominative/accusative/etc equivalent is when in places where Christians are reporting the speech of non-christians. "Called christ" does not reflect a christian scribe. I suppose your expertise in Josephan vocabulary and syntax has surpassed that of Vermes and other Jewish scholars, but unless you have some published work you could refer me to which demonstrates why they are wrong, a link to something would be helpful.

spin

OK, so LOM, the facts seem to be:

1) You have only an assertion to justify your fluff about your mathematical formula indicating kinship. That is your one and only attempt at justifying your subservience to the usual apologetic reading of the text.

2) You throw up a smokescreen about all the linguistics you've studied so diligently to hide the fundamental inadequacy of your approach. Pure ad hominem.

3) You worked so hard to misrepresent what I have said on the "drive" issue.

4) You went into simple denial to avoid the grammatical similarities between "Titus the brother of mine" and "James the brother of the lord".

5) And last but just as least, a sad argument regarding λεγομενου Χριστου: "Virtually the only time we find "christian" texts" using legomenou Christou or the nominative/accusative/etc equivalent is when in places where Christians are reporting the speech of non-christians." That's the apologetics alright. A non-christian source indeed. No-one was a christian at the time attributed to Jesus so this is is a purely ridiculous appeal. Besides, the writer of Mt 1:16, a christian, has no trouble using λεγομενος Χριστος to refer to Jesus. Then again, you are being a naive literalist when you approach texts such as Matthew which contains the doctrinaire story of Pilate dealing with the evil crowd that want to crucify Jesus. The writer is responsible for the text, not the characters he has speak the lines. We end up with four examples in the gospels, two from the same mouth (Pilate's) in the same speech and the last from the Samaritan woman. The gospels are happy to use the structure, 4:18 λεγομενον Πετρον, Mt 9:10, Ματθαιον λεγομενον, Jn 11:16, λεγομενος Διδγμος. So not only do the gospel writers use the particular structure in their narrative, there is a plain example of one using λεγομενος Χριστος. You can pass that one in four off as "virtually" no. Another gutless waste of time to be consigned to the waste bin of internet.

You seem to have been taking Bill O'Reilly lessons.

Solo

I would very much like to know what that "positive evidence" is and how that term differs from plain "evidence" ?

The only actual witness to James' the Just kinship to Jesus in the first two centuries is Josephus' Ant 20.9. which, if genuine, would be the earliest witness. The notion is not supported by the Epistle to James, Gospel of Thomas(12), or Acts of the Apostles, or TMK, by Clement of Alexandria. The term desposyni, "those belonging to the Lord" was coined by Julius Sextus Africanus early in the 3rd century. The idea that Jesus had siblings (and by extension that some church members could make dynastic claims) was resented by some in the church, among them Eusebius (HE 1.12), as I am sure you are aware.

I would be much obliged for anything that would shed light on this, that I might not be aware of.

Sorry, this again is semantically unclear...what do you mean by "mistaken misuse of linguistics" ?



What does the use of "called Christ" signify in Matthew 1:16, (in view of 1:21 ) ? Would that be Matthew trying to mimick an unbelieving heathen ?

Best,
Jiri