TedM

From the other thread:


Assuming there were biological brothers:

1. A commonly used phrase would likely have been used if the group was an important part of the movement, for referencing them.
2. It would make sense to have used a shortened, efficient version of an already-existing description commonly used: "the Lord Jesus Christ".
3. It was better than 'Jesus' since there were many Jesus' around
4. It was honoring
5. The later preference for "the Lord" over "Christ" suggests that "Christ" would have not been chosen early on also.

The fact that later on we see "the Lord" used frequently for Jesus supports a 'normal' tendency toward using it for all of the same reasons..ie it 'confirms' the perceived 'need' for it among Christians. In the case of 'brothers' the need was immediate within the community, since this 'group' needed a name/title for quick reference. Therefore Paul's normal usage of "the Lord" was trumped by a phrase already in usage within the community--ie Paul's linguistic rules don't apply.


Have you considered that the title is retained even while substituting for a name? In "brother of 'the Lord' " it substitutes for Jesus himself -- in leiu of a name, but it also retains the title used for him. From my perspective "the Lord" is simply a shorted version of "the Lord Jesus Christ". The ONLY reason you have a problem with this, I think, is because "the Lord" is used for God himself in the LXX and by Paul, and therefore would be 'utterly absurd' (your words), if he used it for Jesus 'with no explicit means of distinguishing them' (again your words). My point above is that there was NO NEED to distinguish when referring to Jesus' brothers. That's even true if the phrase is metaphorical. Paul's audience KNEW who he meant so there is no confusion or conflict in used the same phrase he normally reserves for God himself. So your primary objection isn't met under these circumstances: "the Lord" would be 'OK' to Paul to use because it really wasn't Paul's phrase!

As such, all these rules would be rendered useless. And, that's what happens over time with the NT writers. It's just that a phrase was needed early on -- even before Paul -- to reference this group, so "the Lord" got a jump start from within the community for this particular usage. It had to start somewhere, and there is no need to say that it didn't coexist in this way, only to branch out more generally at a later time.

IF that is all true, then the linguistic argument, which often has great value, would be irrelevant. I can't know that it is, but I'm providing an argument for why it MAY be in this case.

I must do other things or else will have to self-ban, so you may respond, but I probably won't have much more to say. I'm already repeating myself.

andrewcriddle

I don't think it can mean what the lord has ordained in Scripture.
Either it refers to teaching of Jesus while on earth, (in which case the lord is certainly Christ), or it refers to some special revelation to Paul. Paul's preparedness to amplify/modify this teaching on his own authority makes it unlikely that he is referring to a revelation directly from God himself. Hence in either case, the lord from whom these ordinances derive is Christ rather than God himself.
For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him [him probably means Jesus] those who have fallen asleep.

NIV paraphrases Andrew Criddle

spin

You think it's not alright for Paul to give his own take on a legal issue given by god, but it is on one given by Jesus. 1 Cor 7:10-11 deals with the separation of husband and wife, which seems to be a clarification of Mal 2:16a, "For I hate putting away (= divorce)".

Great tendentious paraphrase there, Andrew. It's one of those verses of faith. Try to get that out of the Greek, which gives this grammatical structure:

God (subject) [those who have fallen asleep through Jesus] (object) will bring with him.

God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep through Jesus.

Do you think you can connect the "him" to Jesus, when God is the subject of the verb "will bring"?

avi

And I learn something new, every time you bring up this crucial subject, so please, don't stop. It will be difficult for everyone to grasp all of the main points you are making, on first, or even second or third go around. Some of us have watched this debate for YEARS, and remain puzzled, writing for myself alone, of course.

I applaud your excellent introduction, and elaboration, very well done. I think it will be easier, maybe I am completely wrong, to start, NOT with Liddell and Scott, nor to commence with LXX, and certainly NOT with "Paul".

No, I think you should start with Psalm 110:1, which you quote above, from LXX. I think it is wiser to refer to the Hebrew, however, not LXX.

Disclosure: I know nothing about Hebrew.

There are a total of two words in that collection of symbols above, that I recognize:

Yahweh
adonai

My point then, is this: In ancient Hebrew, the concept being conveyed, in my opinion, is this: GOD spoke with a human, a powerful leader in society, i.e. a "lord", a dignitary, a ruler, a king, an emperor, we have lots of names for such folks. They hold political power, and control many lives.
BUT, all those people, are just that: HUMANS, not supernatural deities, like Yahweh. So, in this Psalm, we learn that GOD spoke to a very powerful, (but not omnipotent) human leader.

Thus far in this thread, we have already observed several folks arguing over this point or that point, relating to "kurios", which is the translation, in Greek, of the Hebrew word, adonai, "LORD", or "lord", same thing, a powerful HUMAN. Kurios did not mean, 2200 years ago, YAHWEH, or "god", or any such thing. Kurios meant adonai, nothing more, just a human political big shot with a powerful army and a lot of money, and control over people.

The problem with the nascent Christian religion was that some folks wanted to claim that Jesus was, like Herakles, BORN a human, but BECAME a god, and ascended to heaven.

Others had argued, a couple thousand years ago, after Bar Kokhba, that Jesus was already a god, on earth, in fact, he was the son of Yahweh. The problem then is how to explain that infamous verse in John:

I and the father are one.

So, another theory is that Yahweh and Jesus are one and the same. Yahweh is himself the son of El. That concept is in harmony with Liddell and Scott: focus on Kurios. The lord said to my lord. Obscure, blur the distinction between human and supernatural deity.

Either Jesus is the grandson of El, or Jesus and Yahweh are identical. There is no benefit in wasting time with "Paul". By the mid second century, when "Paul" was created, the confusion was obvious, Jesus was the son of god, or he was god himself, or he was a just a bloke, else, as I believe, he was simply a fictional character. Detailed scrutiny of Kurios, isn't going to yield the answer, nor will it help explain how Christianity got off the ground.

aa5874

If Clement wrote over a century after Paul and is not useful in understanding what Paul wrote about it most hilarious that you can supply useful information 1800 hundred years later while simultaneously admitting there is no provenance for the Pauline Corpus and that it was manipulated.

Please, please your argument that "Lord" [does not refer to the character called the Lord Jesus Galatians 1.19 is hopeless.

The very Greek for 'Lord' [κυρίου] in Galatians 1.3, 6.14 and 6.18 is the very Greek word for 'Lord' [κυρίου] [in Galatians 1.19.

Examine a Greek version of Galatians 1.3, 1.9, 6.14 and 6.18.

See
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/...startnumber=76

145.ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 1:3
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ,

146.ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 1:19
ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου.

147.ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 6:14
ἐμοὶ δὲ μὴ γένοιτο καυχᾶσθαι εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ σταυρῷ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι’ οὗ ἐμοὶ κόσμος ἐσταύρωται κἀγὼ κόσμῳ.

148.ΠΡΟΣ ΓΑΛΑΤΑΣ 6:18
Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί· ἀμήν.


In fact the very same Greek word for 'Lord' [κυρίου] used in Galatians 1.19 is found in direct reference to the Lord Jesus over 50 times throughout the Pauline Corpus.

tupac chopra

The Syriac version changes "the lord" to our/my/your lord pretty much at every point here, except Corinthians 7:17
The Syriac version here too, changes all the references in Thessalonians 4 to our Lord rather than the Lord.
The peshitta also changes Luke 7:13 from the Lord to Jesus.
For some reason that is a bit obscure, whoever produced the peshitta took great care not to refer to Jesus, the Lord, and to avoid even a hint of it (?)

spin

It seems to me there is no argument here... at least beyond a theorized desire for brevity on the part of people in Paul's time, so that they could use a reference only used for god in the LXX as is for some other referent. It doesn't make much sense. It just shows that you are keen to find some way to keep an unfounded conclusion.

Where do you think the special κυριος came from? It is a title that was dragooned by the LXX as a substitute for "Yahweh", so that every time it was used in the LXX it meant Yahweh. And you have been trying your darnedest to find loop holes to get out of the fact that that is part of the Jewish linguistic background received by Paul and then the earliest Jesus believers. The special κυριος meant Yahweh, nothing else.

We have this:

1. Jewish use of the special κυριος for god;
2. pagan mysteric use of the special κυριος for the savior;
3. alignment of Jesus with pagan saviors, leading to the use of the special κυριος for Jesus;
4. linguistic confusion concerning the use of the special κυριος;
5. interpretation of earlier works with the special κυριος taken as Jesus;
6. confusion of roles of, and relationship between, Jesus and god, leading to binitarian ideas.

As a restatement, I got that conjecture already.

As we are still being conjectural here, ie no evidence whatsoever, you should be able to accept just as readily that this conjecture of yours is totally ad hoc and conclusion driven.

The reading audience probably understood what he was talking about, but that has no impact on the issue of the linguistic background of both writer and readers in which "the lord" indicated god.

This sort of theory is just shifting the problem to someone earlier, which changes nothing other than being a little closer to the LXX ethos. Why would someone earlier in Paul's linguistic context choose to use a clear term for god in this case???

Being "the brother of Jesus" would only be important in the eyes of believers. In the christian religion there is only one significant Jesus, which should mean that "the brother of Jesus" would be patently obvious.

tupac chopra

Will be interesting to see what you think. I also found John 6:23. Where the Syriac has been changed from "the lord" to Jesus. In this case the Sinaitic pampliset isn't much help, but in Luke 7:13 we have the same reading, giving something to work with. Not sure if Cureton is any more help.

Duvduv

In many places kings and prophets are called adon, meaning lord or master as a term of respect. When referring to God the tetragrammaton or name Elohim is translated as Lord or Almighty in English as a matter of convention, and which evidently the Greek was also trying to reproduce with Kirios.

TedM

I addressed this already. "the brother of Jesus" is unclear because the exact same phrase would be used for someone else named Jesus.

As to why moving from "our Lord" "my Lord" "Lord" "the Lord Jesus Christ" to simply "the Lord" would be a SMALL step and not the HUGE GULF you see because of the tradition of referencing Yahweh in this way, see my response here:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....05#post7518005

It's all about convenience and context. Common sense dictates that convenience and context will be the guide. If it happened by Luke's time, why not by Paul's time, if Jesus had been historical: Had Jesus been walking around on earth, known as a Teacher and Lord, why wouldn't people refer to him in the third person as "the Lord" if it was clear they didn't mean "Yahweh"?

IN THE END, though, your argument has value, and mine IS ad hoc, even if it is a reasonable ad hoc. IF Paul nowhere else references Jesus as "the Lord" (ie the 2 places where the epistles do are interpolations and the others that appear to are to be interpreted to mean "God") then the linguistic odds suggest that he doesn't do so in Gal 1:19 or 1 Cor 9:5 also. The problem is in knowing how much weight to give to this linguistic argument: 50%, 20%, 2%..?