spin

The discussion is in two sections. The starting post by me for each is linked to the relevant originals in the comments section of the blog entry. (Note the underlined spin in the dialogue.) The linked post will have a yellow bar to the left. To get the whole content I had to press "load more comments" (at the bottom) twice. Then I could go back to find the yellow bar. (It's not a very useful system.)

TedM

The fact that he doesn't use this phrase for John or Peter/Cephas in Galatians IMO is significant in light of the fact that in 1 Cor James is NOT the only brother of Jesus(he isn't even mentioned), and again Peter is not considered to be a brother. Almost certainly the 'brothers of the Lord' would have to have a status that John and Peter didn't have but that James did have. It surely didn't have to do with hierarchy since Paul calls them 'pillars' along with James. AND THAT AT THE SAME TIME, Paul would have no need to explain for his readers to understand. When Paul mentions the 'men from James' in Ch 1&2 he again says nothing of a special 'group' called 'brothers of the Lord' with regard to any of those men.

I don't buy it. I think the odds are against this being a title of some kind. It would not have been at all unusual to use the term 'brother of the Lord' to refer to a biological relationship. And despite the efforts of some to show a metaphorical usage here there is no denying that Paul NEVER uses the exact same kind of phrase other than in 1 Cor. - so the metaphorical argument isn't helpful. It's only a possibility with minor support.

If 'Lord' is meant to be Jesus then it is more reasonable to see this as a biological reference than a metaphorical one, and it has plenty of external support. If 'Lord' is meant as God then a metaphorical one is meant, though one with little external support.

Another consideration is the record left regarding the Jewish Christians, and James. None of those records reference a group metaphorically called the 'brothers of the Lord', which if Paul recognized its importance enough to reference the group it seems most likely that the designation would have been reflected in the records of those supportive of the early Jewish Christians and James. But the only surviving interpretation is that of a biological relationship.


IMO the better argument for those that reject a biological basis is that of later interpolation.

spin

Of course, it does. You have been trained all your life to read "the brother of the lord" in a way not reflective of Paul's usage, so any suggestion to the contrary will be bizarre. But when one realizes Paul clearly and consistently uses "brother" in a non-familial way to represent a believer, you should think that re-inserting the notion of "physical brother" is contrary to Paul's usage, so we should not be dealing with any literal notion that you conjure up with "brother of god". As I point out in the discussion above, if Paul wanted to talk of a physical connection he usually added "in the flesh" to convey the notion, so clearly the literal understanding is questionable.

At this stage someone who wants to assert the significance that the text refers to James being the physical brother of Jesus needs to justify the assertion. They will find that it cannot be done. It appears to be eisegesis.

And obviously calling someone Ahijah was not deemed bizarre. We don't know what was bizarre at the time of Paul's writing, so your declaration is irrelevant to your attempt at understanding what Paul may have meant.

spin

Cephas was not a brother of the lord as 1 Cor 9:5 shows. But your point is a poor argument from silence.

I think the odds are against the possibility of a rational person believing in a god these days.

I think you haven't been paying attention.

Gosh, another poor argument from silence. You gotta learn when you can get something out of an argument from silence. Here you are just talking through your hat.

How many of those sources are in any way historical? Good luck with that, TedM.

I think it's original and that the uses of "the lord" in lieu of the name "Jesus" are interpolations. As I have argued in the past you have to be off your nut to think Paul uses a term for two different referents without any obvious contextual way of knowing who it is. The lord as used in Gal 1:19 gives no sign of who referent is, suggesting that Paul used it univocally.

(Remember of course when it is used as a titular, "lord Jesus", "my lord". The distinction is found in the LXX where "the lord" is a substitute for Yahweh contrasting the various other contextually distinguished uses of "lord".)

hjalti

spin, you say that he "usually" does so, have you compiled a list of instances where Paul mentions "physical connections"? (so I won't have to :P )

What spin points out can even be used as pointing to an interpolation: If it is actually talking about "the brother of Jesus" then one can maybe say that would've been unusual for Paul to call him "the lord" and not to say "kata sarka" (assuming, that spin is correct...a very safe assumption! :Cheeky: ), i.e. it look non-Pauline.

spin

There is an instance in Rom 16:15, which refers to someone's sister, where the difference between "brother" and "sister" is the feminine ending (αδελφος/αδελφη). (Of course, Rom 16 is not part of the original letter, considered a cover note appended by Paul.)

TedM

The problem with this argument is that it completely discounts Paul's readers. Paul didn't need to explain which 'Lord' he meant because his readers know who James was and why he was called a brother and who he was a brother to. WHy would you think that Paul would never refer to Jesus as "Lord", all by itself, when we do have a few verses in which that is exactly what he does? IF your answer is that those other places are interpolations, I hope you have a reason other than convenience or consistency--if the verse clearly is referencing "Jesus" then your argument would seem to be circular unless you have additional support for an interpolation.

And is it of no value to realize that the use of phrase "the Lord Jesus Christ" is equivalent to calling Jesus Christ "the Lord"? Therefore to Paul it was acceptable to think of God as "the Lord" and to think also of Jesus Christ as "the Lord". How unacceptable would it then be to simply use "the Lord" in lieu of "Jesus" when the meaning would be clear to all his readers? Common sense would dictate the answer: Not unacceptable at all. Yet, I know you don't care much for arguments based on common sense...which is why you are very difficult to reason with sometimes.

My arguments from silence are way stronger than your arguments from silence, as I see them. You have nothing to stand on but ad hoc possibilities.

Who, again I ask, would be in this mysterious, unattested, special 'brother of God' group, knowing that it does not include John, Peter, nor the apostles, but does include James himself? And, why wouldn't Paul have addressed this when it is clear that they were bestowed by the Christian community with 'special' status, when his own status with the churches was important to him?

spin

Really working your crystal ball, TedM. Very inventive.

I can show you an example where it is certainly an interpolation, as the manuscript evidence clearly indicates: 1 Cor 11:29. There are good philological cases for the few others (both in 1 Cor).

I do wish you would think about the problem rather than this kneejerk stuff. This is really a no-boner if you think about it. One does not use a term in such a way that you can be sure your audience doesn't know who you're talking about. Give it a think.

Clearly not an argument you thought about.

If you haven't yet thought about what I asked you to think about above, please do so.

See above.

Back to the argument from ignorance. Will you never learn that common sense cannot help you in these issues. You are merely pleading ignorance.

Yes, I want you to do philology, not crap on.

You are talking rubbish. Paul's usage is in. He uses "brother" to talk about believers. He certainly uses "the lord" to talk about god. He certainly didn't write "James the brother in the flesh of Jesus". You cannot assume that he meant what you want.

If you'd read what I'd written, you'd know the answer.

I can say what Paul did based on what he wrote. I'll repeat: he uses "brother" to mean a believer and he uses "the lord" in lieu of god. I can't read his mind and certainly you can't, so stop asking silly questions that you cannot answer in the name of common sense.

Now I have made it clear what the issues are and, as you aren't going to get into the philology, I don't think you and I are going to say much more of use to each other.

TedM

Your sarcasm doesn't cover up the deficiencies of your thinking. Do you deny that Paul's readers knew why Paul would call James "brother of the Lord"? If you do that's one thing. If your don't then there is no difference between using it metaphorically and using it biologically. He didn't write for us. He wrote for them, and his own usage elsewhere would be irrelevant for his purpose of writing something they understood.

What I'm saying is that if you want to argue that "brother" is metaphorical, fine. One can equally argue that it is biological. Both terms are acceptable. If you want to argue that "the Lord" refers to God Himself, fine. One can equally argue that it refers to Jesus, since Paul DOES refer to Jesus as "the Lord" numerous times. It doesn't require that he isolate the term as you seem to think, since as I explained, "the Lord Jesus Christ" applies a title "the Lord" to a person "Jesus Christ".

Since there is no reason to object to the use of "the Lord" for Jesus, nor the use of "brother" to mean a biological relationship, we can then look at the arguments. The silence regarding a special group is loud. The silence regarding brothers of Jesus doesn't exist.



You give it a think. If the audience knew what he was talking about (and we can reasonably assume that they knew who James was) then whatever term he used was one that they understood, even if we in the 20th century do not!


In answer to the membership qualification for "brother of the Lord", I see that you wrote:

This is a completely inadequate explanation, as it doesn't explain why others had esteem not given to John or Peter or the apostles. Weren't John, Peter and the apostles 'fellow believers' too spin? It sounds as though the brothers other than James had a higher status than John, Peter, and the apostles. Yet we know that is almost certainly not the case. Is this how hierarchy's work? No. Do you wish to claim that James wasn't an apostle? Or that John was? One could do that if they adhere to the tradition of 12 disciples, but that's getting awfully close to the tradition of the gospels, having James as one of the biological brothers, is it not? Do you not see the problems here?





First of all, this ignores the frequent use of "Lord" to refer to Jesus elsewhere, including all of the gospels, Acts, 1 Peter, and Hebrews.

It also ignores the common sense understanding of what "the Lord Jesus Christ" means, a phrase Paul uses liberally. Obviously to anyone who thinks about it, the title "the Lord" is given to Jesus in this phrase. Paul clearly thought of Jesus as "the Lord", even if he also thought of God as "the Lord". We can't just pretend the ambiguity doesn't exist, spin.

Lastly, lets take a look at Pauls' other references to Lord, as Jesus:


Romans 1:4
who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

Romans 4:24
but for our sake also, to whom it will be credited, as those who believe in Him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead,

Romans 5:21
so that, as sin reigned in death, even so grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 7:25
Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Romans 8:39
nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;

Verse 9 makes clear who "the Lord" is
Romans 14:6-9
He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. 7 For not one of us lives for himself, and not one dies for himself; 8 for if we live, we live for the Lord, or if we die, we die for the Lord; therefore whether we live or die, we are the Lord’s. 9 For to this end Christ died and lived again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and of the living.


All references in Romans 16 to "in the Lord" are arguably to Jesus.

1 Corinthians 1:2
To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their Lord and ours

1 Corinthians 1:9
God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.


1 Corinthians 2:8
the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;


The following is referring to Christ, mostly likely, as the judgement is done THROUGH Jesus (see Romans 2:16, 2 Timothy 4:1), and it is Jesus who comes (11:26, 2 Thess 1:8-10)
1 Corinthians 4:5
Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.

"The Lord" refers most likely to Jesus here, since he qualifies that the body is a member of Christ, and God raised up the body of "the Lord":
1 Corinthians 6:13-15
.. Yet the body is not for immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord is for the body. 14 Now God has not only raised the Lord, but will also raise us up through His power. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?


"the Lord" and "Christ" are used interchangebly here:
1 Corinthians 7:21-24
1 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that. 22 For he who was called in the Lord while a slave, is the Lord’s freedman; likewise he who was called while free, is Christ’s slave.

God the Father, Jesus the Lord -- the relationship
1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.


Arguably, every reference in Chapter 9 is to Jesus:
1 Corinthians 9:1
[ Paul’s Use of Liberty ] Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?

1 Corinthians 9:2
If to others I am not an apostle, at least I am to you; for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.

1 Corinthians 9:5
Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

(see Luke 10:8)
1 Corinthians 9:14
So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.

1 Corinthians 11:26
For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.

Jesus previously referred to this as 'my body', 'my blood'
1 Corinthians 11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 15:31
I affirm, brethren, by the boasting in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.


2 Corinthians 4:5
For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake.


a "few others", spin?:huh:

There simply is no good reason linguistically to reject the idea that Paul's "the Lord" meant "Jesus" in Galations 1:19. As such, considering all other arguments that don't reject this as an interpolation, it almost certainly refers to a biological relationship to Jesus.

Grog

Do you mean specifically this reference to "brother of the Lord" in Gal 1:19 was interpreted as "brother of Christ" meaning Jesus' brother, from Nazareth? And how ancient do you mean? It seems like there is plenty of support for the view that some ancients did not accept that Jesus had physical brother.