spin

Here's a dialogue with James regarding "the brother of the lord" in Gal 1:19. How well do you think he supported his understanding?

[t2]spin

You seem to be alluding to Gal 1:19 with its reference to "James the brother of the lord".... the text doesn't support you. Had Paul meant "James the brother of Jesus", wouldn't he have said so? Paul generally uses "brother" to indicate a "fellow believer" and one must conjecture that Paul means "Jesus" when he uses "lord" in this non-titular manner. You tend to couch your responses obscurely, so one has to guess what you are committing yourself to. That's safe, but not communicative. It would be nice if you could be clear, so that one doesn't need to try to pin you down. Have I understood you correctly that you allude to the reference in Gal 1:19 and that you interpret it to refer to James being the physical brother of Jesus? If so, can you justify that based on Paul's indications, without retrojecting later ideas into the fray?


JFMcG

You seem once again to be content to repeat things that you have been told, without looking into the matter. Paul certainly does refer to all believers as brothers, and brothers in the Lord. As in English, so also in Greek, the meaning of "brother of" is distinct and dinstinguishable from "brother in." But if you wish to make a case that the Lord is someone other than who it normally is for Paul, and that Paul meant "brother" in the generic sense and yet is distinguishing James from Peter, then by all means make your case.


spin

Uh-huh. How does "brother of the cross", "sister of mercy", "son of perdition " or "father of lies" fit into your theory?

Problem is you haven't paid attention. You'll note that I specifically talked of the use of "lord" in this non-titular manner. There is no problem with the titular use, eg "the lord Jesus" and "our lord", but when it functions as an absolute reference, Paul certainly uses it regarding god. What makes you think he isn't doing so here? Do you honestly think "son of god" is literal? You know, god had sexual physical relations with a woman?

The text doesn't say what you want it to say. You are applying a few levels of manipulation to the text that you don't justify.

Your intent again is unclear. Paul calls James "the brother of the lord", not "the brother", so what you seem to assume isn't based on the text. James has a significant position with the Jerusalem group, which may be what is indicated with the phrase "brother of the lord", a title not used for Cephas.


JFMcG

anyone who cares to fact check your claim about Paul's use of "the Lord" can easily determine that Paul does not reserve the unqualified term only for God.


spin

That is not the issue, though you'd have to look hard to justify your claim. The issue is that Paul clearly uses the non-titular κυριος for god, so when he talks of "the brother of the lord", how do you know he is not referring to god?


JFMcG

If you want to make a case for Paul having viewed James as God's brother, please do so.


spin

You had better respond to what you ignored:

Do you honestly think "son of god" is literal? You know, god had sexual physical relations with a woman?


JFMcG

No, of course not. And since Paul thought that Jesus was of the seed of David, that isn't what it meant for Paul.

Now let's hear your case for Paul, despite his emphatic statement that God is one, having thought that he had a human brother.


spin

Now that it's clear that no literal familial relationship is implied in a phrase such as "son of god", forcing a literal understanding of "brother of god" should seem just as unnecessary. No literal notion need be intended with "brother of the lord".

When you transformed the phrase "the brother of the lord" into "God's brother" earlier, you employed an English grammatical structure that contains notions neither found in the original Greek nor implied in the English literal translation of the Greek. Just think of the problem of "the cross's brother" which doesn't exist with "the brother of the cross".

Earlier I said, James has a significant position with the Jerusalem group, which may be what is indicated with the phrase "brother of the lord", a title not used for Cephas. James is not just a brother, but a brother with an elevated status, as might be indicated with "the brother of the lord".

It should be clear from 1 Cor 9:5 that "brothers of the lord" are a significant group of believers of a nature analogous with "apostles" (while Cephas is singled out as separate from both).

I don't want "to make a case for Paul having viewed James as God's brother" in any literal sense. I want to make a case that the argument that transforms "the brother of the lord" into "the [physical] brother of Jesus" is not derived from the text: it doesn't reflect Paul's usage of "brother" nor is there justification to read κυριος in the phrase as Jesus. That leaves us with the reasonable possibility that Paul uses the phrase in quite a different way, such as to individuate James as a believer of status.


JFMcG

Son of God had a wide and established usage in first-century Judaism. The notion of God having a brother is attested at best in an ancient Israelite name from an era well before the advent of anything that could be called monotheism. It is not enough to merely note that something is not impossible, with ad hoc solutions akin to those offered by Christian apologists. Few things are strictly speaking impossible. Historians need to ask what is most likely given the available evidence. You have not even attempted to do that for your position, much less actually accomplished it.


spin

...is irrelevant to the discussion. You have already accepted that "son of god" is not literal, as I'm sure you would "son of perdition" and father of lies". Nobody is arguing for god having a brother, just as nobody would argue for the cross having a brother.

You are the one trying to force an interpretation against Paul's usual usage of αδελφος while asserting that κυριος must refer to Jesus, when you haven't done the footwork to justify either. How frequently does Paul use κυριος substituted for the name Jesus Christ? Why on earth would you think Paul meant Jesus by it here?

The available evidence is mainly Paul's usage and you are in denial over that.


JFMcG

No, you cannot simply suggest a possible meaning, and then declare it irrelevant to the discussion. At least, not if you want to at least maintain the facade of having an interest in this subject as a matter of history rather than apologetics. So do you have a case to offer for your proposed interpretation or not?


spin

You are attempting to force on me a literal meaning, when you've already helped establish that a literal meaning isn't necessitated by the phrase under consideration. The facts which you don't like are as I have pointed out: 1) Paul's general use of αδελφος doesn't mean what you want and 2) the context doesn't allow you to assume that κυριος implies Jesus. There is no philological necessity for your interpretation of the phrase "James the brother of the lord".

Considering Paul's language, I have suggested from the context what it could mean, ie an honorific, indicating from 1 Cor 9:5 that "brothers of the lord" are a significant group of believers of a nature analogous with "apostles", no physical fraternity implied in the context. There is reasonable sense to be derived from considering Pauline usage and that is not the notion of God having a brother, but of god having a believer. You are insisting on me defending a meaning I have never advocated. You should have known this when you accepted that "son of god" is not literal. Instead you made a plea that "son of god" was well-established usage, as though new metaphors are not developed, when Paul has shown quite a few. Christ is the head of every man. First fruits of those who have fallen asleep. We are all members in one body. Perhaps you want to insist on literal meanings in those cases as well. Are Paul and his proselytes literally members in the one body?


JFMcG

"Son of God" denotes someone who relates to God with obedience as a son is expect to towards their father. "Brothers in the Lord" denotes people who consider one another brothers through their union with/in Christ. What does "brother(s) of the Lord" denote, is it the same as or different from "brother(s) in the Lord," and what is the evidence that the phrase had that meaning? I am asking you to make your case for your viewpoint. Don't just make things up and leave others to guess what you mean and why you think it, and then complain when they guess incorrectly.


spin

Where does "Brothers in the Lord" denote people who consider one another brothers through their union with/in Christ? Don't just make things up and leave others to guess why you think it.

(After a hiatus and further exchanges we came back: )


spin

All you have attempted is to claim--with more of the same clairvoyance--that Paul would have talked about "brothers in the lord" (a phrase nowhere found in Paul) had he meant something other than your desired interpretation.


JFMcG

If you do not think that the Lord referred to was either Jesus or God, then by all means propose an alternative. But just saying "It could be metaphorical" without discussing parallels or the details of the construction is mere clutching and straws. Just because "father of" is found in reference to God and used non-literally does not mean that wherever one encounters that phrase one is justified in seeing the meaning as non-literal. A case has to be made.


spin

I'll put this down as a lapse in concentration. I have already indicated that Paul certainly used κυριος for god, so there are few alternatives available as to its use in "the brother of the lord", one being god, which I in fact proposed as the candidate you need to deal with, as you cannot just assume κυριος implies "Jesus".

This is where you continue to forget that Paul uses "brother" not to refer to a familial relationship, but as a fellow believer. This points to a second term in the space of four words that you need to establish meaning for (the other two being articles), so you have no apparent basis from which to assert your interpretation.

I have tried to help you by suggesting a reasonable reading for the phrase using the most likely Pauline usage, "the brother [=fellow believer] of the lord [=god]". That reading is, a believer with esteem in the community. (As "son of god" shows, we can ignore attempts to over-literalize.) But I'm not putting this suggestion forward so you can change the topic away from the need for you to support your interpretation, but merely to show that adhering to Paul's usage allows at least a reasonable possible significance, usage that you continue not to consider.


JFMcG

I have not forgotten Paul's metaphorical usage of brother, which you must know, since I have made reference to it. What you have forgotten, even though I have addressed it on this blog in the past, is that "brother of" and "brother in" are not straightforward equivalents. To suggest that people are fellow believers in submission to their Lord is one thing. To suggest that someone has a relationship of brother, of equality or near-equality of status, to God is something else entirely.


spin

As I've already explained, unless you can show where Paul uses "brothers in [christ/the lord]", it's of no relevance. Do you have anything that actually relates to Pauline usage? Incidentally, when Paul calls Titus (2 Cor 2:13) "my brother", that is actually "the brother of me" (τον αδελφον μου), he isn't referring to a literal brother, is he? So Paul functionally does use "brother of" contrary to your claim.


JFMcG

You seem not to be grasping the point. Even metaphors have meaning. To claim that one has a bond akin to being brothers with people who are not literal brothers has a meaning. You seem not to grasp what the connotations would be of claiming the status of brother of God, in the context of Jewish emphasis on there being one God who is without equal, an emphasis which Paul himself affirms.


spin

So we forget about the claim about "brother in christ" and go back to attempts at literalizing "brother of god". How do you literalize "son of perdition"? Is there a bond like that of son and father? What about the other name proposed for Benjamin (Gen 35:18), "son of sorrow" (υιος οδυνης)? I think you are still trying to be prescriptive about language.

Let's go over your problems once again.

1) You have no reason to believe that "brother" means anything other than "believer".

2) You have no reason to believe "the lord" must be Jesus.

3) You have no explanation as to why Paul didn't say what you wanted him to, ie "the brother in the flesh of Jesus".

This is supposedly one of your silver bullets for historicity and it rests solely on a tendentious interpretation of a phrase. There is no history here.


JFMcG

The "son of" idiom is well known in Aramaic and other Semitic languages as a category descriptor. "Son of perdition" as one in the category of perdition, "son of man" as human being, "son of God" as divine being, and so on.

Are you suggesting that if an idiom exists of this sort, then one can swap words in and out and the meaning does not change? That would be like saying that just because you can throw a party in English, "fling a party" means the same thing. And fling is closer to throw than brother is to son. You'll note that "brother of perdition" and "brother of man" and "brother of God" are not found as equivalent idioms to the ones you mentioned. What makes you think that "brother of the Lord" is simply equivalent to these sorts of idioms? Is it something other than a very strong desire to avoid the text meaning what it does more naturally?

You seem to think that if a word can be used metaphorically in some instances, then it is safe to assume that it is metaphorical in all instances regardless of idiom, linguistic context, and other relevant considerations, unless the speaker strenuously emphasizes that they are speaking literally. But that is self-evidently not the case, whether in ancient languages or modern ones.


spin

I didn't say it was. I said that there is no reason to assume it is literal, as these other examples show.

Hell, let's have a "father of" idiom as well. Jn 8:44 strongly suggests "father of lies", Eph 1:17 talks of "father of glory" and James 1:17 "father of lights". And what about "king of terrors" (Job 18:14) or "king of glory" (Ps 24:7)? Non-literal phrases were not restricted, though "son", "father" and "king" were used much more frequently than "brother", that non-literal phrases could not be spawned from it is ultimately just an argument from silence.

You're trying too hard to be prescriptive. "son of god" does not need to be a divine being. All Jews are sons of god and see also Mt 9:5 ("blessed are the cheesemakers") & Gal 3:26. Sons of god can be those who have god's approval, just as James the brother of the lord may have had god's approval.

But the situation is actually worse for you though, for when Paul wants to indicate physical relations he generally adds the phrase "in the flesh", as in the following:

Romans 1:3
the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh

Romans 4:1
What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh?

Romans 9:3
For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own brothers, my kindred according to the flesh.

Paul is related to the Jews according to the flesh and to Abraham according to the flesh. He stresses the physical nature of the relationship here.

No I don't assume that at all. I assume that you need to demonstrate why you think your interpretation is necessary. Nothing to shed the implication that "brother" is not a physical relationship. "Brother in" ploy failed. "Brother of" ploy failed. No reason to think "the lord" must be Jesus and no explanation for why Paul didn't say what you think he must have meant. Your determination here that it must be so is dogged, but underwhelming.

(No further response from JFMcG.)[/t2]
Who thinks James will push "James, the brother of the lord" from Gal 1:19 next time he wants to provide some evidence for his historical Jesus?

Will he be justified?

yalla

Er, ahem, "blessed are the cheesemakers" is Mt.5.9 not 9.5.
That went through to the keeper -twice.

Where did this dialogue occur spin, got a link?

cheers
yalla

andrewcriddle

Leaving aside the question of the literal or symbolic meaning of the phrase, I think brother of the Lord makes far more sense as brother of Christ than as brother of God.

Despite the possible parallels in the Hebrew scriptures, brother of God seems bizarre.

Andrew Criddle

yalla

More bizarre/less bizarre than the cheesemakers being the 'sons of god', ie equal in status, at least literally, to JC?
How is 'son of ...." more or less bizarre than 'bro of ..."?
The problem is we have been reading the Gal 1.19 phrase in one way for so many centuries that we just accept its preferred meaning and move on without pausing.

hjalti

Here you go: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/explori...available.html

hjalti

Ah...the good ol' "You seem to think that.. [insert straw-man]"

andrewcriddle

As you say, brother of the Lord was understood from early times to mean brother of Christ. Before replacing this ancient understanding with an alternative without ancient support, I think one has to clearly show that the alternative makes sense.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley

Can't find it there.

DCH

hjalti

It's there. I think the silly commenting system they have at Patheos might be screwing with your search.

yalla

Well I think that what spin is suggesting [I think??] is that the original 'understanding' has not been substantiated.
Just asserted.
There is no compulsion to defend an alternative.