Stuart

Well, brother seems to be consistent in almost all usages in Paul and Acts when applied to Christian address to mean not just with a believer, but with a recognized officer of some form; that is a minister, disciple or apostle, and later on perhaps also an elder. Pretty much the same as it is used today for friars and monks. IMHO Matthew 5:21-25 "brother" should be understood as a minister or higher official ... a council of Bishops and Ministers is not going to be called for some common Christian insulting another, but they would react to an insult by an official against another official that was doctrinal or challenged personal conduct.

Being a brother in the flesh to the lord is something unique to Paul in this verse and also the letter of Jude's greeting, an epistles not attested before the 3rd century. in Galatians the term is used to convey an authority above or at least comparable to Paul , something completely inconsistent with his claim in the prior verses of this very letter to have no authority above his on earth.

However Galatians 1:17b-24 (everything after I did not consult with flesh and blood) was not in Marcion. It has the hallmarks of being a late addition, as does naming the three pillars in 2:9 (along with Barnabas), representing a secondary tradition, with a different basis of support. I would suggest seemingly to counter the Pauline authority heretics claimed as theirs.

So I agree with you, "brother of the Lord" is meant to mean son of Joseph, brother of Jesus. There is a definite Adoptionist aspect to this, giving us a hint about the verses author.

Tenorikuma

I think you stated your case well, Spin.

To be honest, I think that phrase is the strongest suggestion that Paul or the Pauline author considered Jesus to have been a recently-deceased flesh-and-blood human being with kindred. However, I think the metaphorical interpretation is stronger for a number of reasons.

1. The linguistic and stylistic reasons you give.

2. The existence of several plausible reasons Paul would need to specify James in such a manner. (To indicate his apostleship status vis-a-vis Peter; to distinguish him from another James; etc.)

3. There is no attestation prior to Mark of any brothers of Jesus, and Mark's list of brothers is almost certainly fictional.

4. Even our earliest Christian documents (like Acts) cannot keep straight how many Jameses there were (much like the various Johns and the Simon/Peter/Cephas confusion). James the Just, a prominent Jerusalemite and brother of Jesus, seems to be a later creation based on one or more first-century Jameses real or fictional. It makes no sense to insert this second-century fictional James into Paul's first-century letter without some other first-century corroboration.

And then there are the very real possibilities that the phrase is an interpolation, or even that Galatians is forged (as Price thinks).

I have a vague recollection that there were Christians in Nabatea or somewhere like that whose actual name for themselves was "brothers of the Lord", but I cannot for the life of me remember the reference. Does anyone else know?

aa5874

The author of gMark does NOT attest to an apostle called James who was the Lord's brother.

In fact, none of the authors of the Gospel corroborate Galatians 1.19.

And even further, there were TWO Jameses called apostles in gMark one was James the Son of Zebedee and the other was James the Son of Alphaeus.

Up to at least the 4th century, there was a tradition that there were two Jameses.

See Mark 3. and "Church History".


Mark 3.--------14 And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach , 15 And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils: 16 And Simon he surnamed Peter; 17 And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder: 18 And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite, 19 And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him: and they went into an house


Church History 2---- But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded.

James the Just was the Son of Alphaeus and was NOT the Lord's brother based on Jerome and the fragments of Papias.

TedM

Hi. I really don't understand this. Yes, 'brother' was used metaphorically. But it was also used biologically. And "the Lord" could refer to either God or Jesus. The usage here and in 1 Cor 9 is UNIQUE to Paul. Nowhere else does he use the term in the same way, so there isn't a clear answer on the meaning. However, it appears to me that when one removes the quotations of OT passages, Paul is much more frequently referring to Jesus than God when he refers to the "Lord". THAT to me is meaningful.


I again see no difference. Either James was part of a group of biological brothers to Jesus, or he was part of a group of 'special' fellow believers. A distinction may have been required, but how does that narrow down which group he was in? It doesn't.



To me knowledge there is no attestation in ANY writings to a group of metaphorical brothers of God in early Christianity. And I think we would expect it -- both in Paul's writings, and in the references we do have to the groups that were partial to James' brand of Jewish Christianity. Yet there is nothing at all.

Prior to Mark we have only Paul's letters! Why is Marks' list 'almost certainly fictional'? Because Mark has no historical truths in it?



The 'prominent Jerusalemite' named James is not a creation. Paul writes of him as the leader. Acts writes of him as the leader. The Nazarene tradition (even the Hebrew Gospel they used) references James as the leader. There is no confusion on that -- he led the Church, he called the shots. You ask for 1st century corroboration, but you have discounted it where it exists: Galatians, 1 Cor 9, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Acts all reference Jesus as having brothers, and Matthew and Mark specifically mention James by name. Josephus mentions James the brother of Christ, also, and is widely held to be authentic. That's quite a bit of corroboration in the first century, considering how little information we have about Christian origins.



How does that increase the odds that the reference is metaphorical? It doesn't.

I hope I'm not coming across too sharply here, but I really don't see the basis for your various claims and conclusion.

stephan huller

The passage is normally translated:

But this is why Jacob wrestled with the ish and why Jacob (James) is said to be the brother of Jesus (IS).

The origin of the idea of being a 'brother' to God is the ritual of adoption where - like the Patriarch Jacob - we gaze into his face and take on his being and thus become his twin.

Tenorikuma

I'll let Spin defend his own linguistic arguments, but I think he made a solid case in his discussion with McGrath. I believe Hoffman has made a similar case on his own blog.

Agreed. It simply makes the phrase plausible from either perspective.

Bingo.

You miss my point. The second-century James the Just is a fictional, fleshed-out rendition of whatever James Paul knew, just as Luke's John the Baptist is a fictional, fleshed-out version of the one Mark mentioned. He is an invention of church tradition like most of the disciples, and little more*— a composite character created to make sense out of disparate references to disciples/evangelists named James.

Acts is confused over its own source material. It starts out with James son of Zebedee being the leader. And when exactly between the end of Luke and the beginning of Acts is Jesus' alleged brother James supposed to have moved from Galilee to Jerusalem, converted to Christianity, and risen through the ranks of society to become an internationally renowned religious figure?

Anyway, Acts is mostly fiction. Go read Pervo if you haven't already.

Indeed, it truly was a common Jewish name!

They mention three or four, and can't keep them straight. And I don't consider the Gospels to be first-century writings.

More options decreases the likelihood that any given interpretation, including the one that Paul's James was the brother of Jesus, is correct.

Like I said, I think the passage is the strongest evidence in the entire New Testament in favour of a historical Jesus, but I still think the odds tilt 70-30 against it.

aa5874

We know exactly which character is referred to as the Lord's brother--it was the son of Alphaeus.

Examine Jerome 'De Viris Illustribus" Examine the fragments 10 of Papias Examine Church History 2 Examine gMark 3. Jesus the Son of Zebedee and James the Son of Alphaeus were the apostles named James.

James the Son of Zebedee was killed in Acts of the Apostles.

Acts 12:2 KJV---And he killed James the brother of John with the sword.

James, the Lord's brother in Galatians is the character who was the son of Alphaeus.

The Jesus character in the NT had no human brother called apostle James whether or not the Lord refers to Jesus or God.

MrMacSon

And that is recorded by Eusebius Pamphilus, allegedly from writings of Hegesippus, as repeated here http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....02#post7513802

See the previous post, too

Tenorikuma

Early church historians had a whole mess of Jameses to make sense of.

1. James of Jerusalem, whom the Pauline writer knows.
2. James of Capernaum, a brother of Jesus briefly mentioned once in Mark. (Mk 6.3)
3. James the Less, son of Mary Clopas. (Mk 15.40)
4. James son of Alphaeus, a disciple.
5. James son of Zebedee, a disciple.
6. James the Greek-speaking author of a New Testament epistle.
7. James the Righteous, mentioned in Thomas and Hegesippus.

And for fun, let's throw in…
8. James, a Jerusalem leader mentioned by Josephus in association with Jesus ben Damneus.

Jerome, Eusebius, and the like had to make sense of all this so the proper saints could be established, relics and tombs venerated, and so on. As a result, they were combined in a variety of different ways to keep the number manageable. (The same thing was done with disciples to trim the number mentioned in the Gospels from 17+ down to 12.)

We have no idea, really, if the James mentioned in Galatians is the same one as any of those other seven.

MrMacSon

Is James the Just the brother of Jesus ben Damneus??

as written about by Barbara Theiring? ...