What did Paul mean by brother(s) of the Lord?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: What did Paul mean by brother(s) of the Lord?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Ken Olson wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:47 am Is your suggested system of classification and end unto itself, or is it a prelude to making some further point about Paul's use of ἀδελφός 'brother'?
Hi Ken, it's just the prelude.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Whosonfirst?

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

JoeWallack wrote: Sun Aug 29, 2021 1:27 pm Paul may have felt that rhetorically not using "father" in a biological/human sense for believers helped emphasize his theology of being spiritually adopted by god.
I agree with that. But it seems to me that this word usage is not only theologically motivated, but also affects social and emotional aspects in the relationship between “christians”.

It is noticeable that Paul used many terms for family members to describe the relationship between "christians". This word usage and this attitude are not rooted in texts of ancient Judaism known to us. At some point someone (maybe Paul himself) came up with the idea of the religious community as a new family. It seems to me that this attitude is still fresh in Paul's texts. When Paul spoke of "brothers" or of "the father", he meant it. These terms are not only soberly descriptive, but also have a deeper meaning for Paul.

Ken Olson wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:47 am At the risk of stating the obvious, it would seem that in all three cases, Paul uses the word in a sense approximating our word 'Christian'. He doesn't have the word Christian or any other single word that is synonymous with it, but ἀδελφός is probably the closest thing we have in his letters.
Paul sometimes used "those believing" (for example 1 Cor 14:22) or "the one believing" or similar descriptions.

Maybe you could say that "brothers" is to "those believing" what "father" is to "God" :scratch:
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Whosonfirst?

Post by robert j »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:23 am
At some point someone (maybe Paul himself) came up with the idea of the religious community as a new family.
I think that concept is reflected in Paul in Galatians 4:4-7 and Romans 8:15-17.
gryan
Posts: 1120
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: Whosonfirst?

Post by gryan »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 10:23 am
Ken Olson wrote: Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:47 am At the risk of stating the obvious, it would seem that in all three cases, Paul uses the word in a sense approximating our word 'Christian'. He doesn't have the word Christian or any other single word that is synonymous with it, but ἀδελφός is probably the closest thing we have in his letters.
Paul sometimes used "those believing" (for example 1 Cor 14:22) or "the one believing" or similar descriptions.

Maybe you could say that "brothers" is to "those believing" what "father" is to "God" :scratch:
Points well taken. I've been pondering this.
Noobishh
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2019 9:56 am

Re: What did Paul mean by brother(s) of the Lord?

Post by Noobishh »

It is worth noting that the early Christian writers did not always understand "brother of the lord" as a mere reference to biological brothers:

Origen (184-254 A.D)
"Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine" [1]
*Origen does think that Paul is speaking of James the Just here, tho he identified him by his name, not because he Paul "regarded" him as "the brother of the Lord".

Jerome (342-347 A.D)
" 'I saw none of the apostles except James, the brother of the Lord'. I recall that while I was in Rome, I wrote, at the instigation of the brothers, the book On the Perpetual Virginity of Holy Mary [Against Helvidius]. In it I was compelled to explain what Scripture means when it speaks of the brothers of the Lord.
I must remain content with whatever I wrote there. For now let it be enough to say that James, on account of his outstanding character, incomparable faith, and superior wisdom, is called the “brother of the Lord” and was the first person to preside over the first Jewish church to believe in Christ and congregate as a community.
The rest of the apostles are also called the brothers of the Lord, just as they are in the Gospel, “Go, tell my brothers that I am going to my Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God.” And in the Psalm, “I shall declare your name to my brothers; in the midst of the assembly I shall praise you.”
The man to whom the Lord had entrusted the sons of his mother as he was on his way to meet the Father especially deserves to be called “brother.” Job and the rest of the patriarchs are called servants of God, and Moses had such an exemplary quality about him that it was written about him, “Not so with my servant Moses.” Likewise, the blessed James is, as I said earlier, given the special appellation “brother of the Lord.” [2]
*For Jerome, brother of the Lord is a "special appellation" that was given to him, not a way of saying "I saw the brother of Jesus", but it is also interesting that he doesn't differentiate between "brothers of the lord" and "brothers", as he is referencing J 20.17 that talks about "brothers" not brothers "of the Lord", so he understood it also as a shorthand.

John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D):
“But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James”. “I saw him merely, I did not learn from him”, he means. But observe how honorably he mentions him, he says not James merely, but adds this illustrious title, so free is he from all envy. Had he only wished to point out whom he meant, he might have shown this by another appellation, and called him the son of Cleophas, as the Evangelist does.
But as he considered that he had a share in the august titles of the Apostles, he exalts himself by honoring James; and this he does by calling him the Lord's brother, although he was not by birth His brother, but only so reputed. Yet this did not deter him from giving the title; and in many other instances he displays towards all the Apostles that noble disposition, which beseemed him." [3]

*So it's a honorific title. Some writers also used it in this fashion:

John of Damascus (675-749 A.D):
"Let us honor the Prophet John as precursor and baptist, apostle and martyr, for 'there hath not risen among them that are born of women a greater than John,'15 as the Lord said, and he was the first herald of the kingdom.
Let us honor the Apostles as brethren of the Lord, as eye-witnesses and attendants to His sufferings, whom God the Father 'foreknew and predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son,'16 'first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly shepherds and teachers.' [4]

Apostolic Constitutions (375 to 380 A.D):
"for he that is condemned for the name of the Lord God is an holy martyr, a brother of the Lord, the son of the Highest, a receptacle of the Holy Spirit” [5]

Clement of Alexandria (150-215 A.D):
".., one who is to be made perfect after the image of the Lord by the artist himself, a perfect man, already worthy to be called a brother to the Lord as well as his friend and son. Thus the "two" and the "three" come together into one and the same thing -- a gnostic man." [6]
Two minor observations: Eusebius , althought he believes Paul is talking about Jesuse's relative, on one ocasion he writes about James the "so-called brother of the Lord" [7]

Acts of Phiip mention "James who bore the name of brother of the Lord" [8]
For Justin Martyr apostoles=brethren: " through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles" [9]
__________________________
[1] Origen, Against Celsus 1.47 in The Complete Works of Origen
[2] Jerome - Commentary on Galatians in [Fathers of the Church Patristic Series 121] St. Jerome - Commentary on Galatians (2010, The Catholic University of America Press)
[3] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/23101.htm
[4] [Fathers of the Church Patristic Series 37] by Frederic H. Jr. (trans) John of Damascus_ Chase (Author) - Saint John of Damascus_ Writings (1858, The Catholic University of America Press) )
[5] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/07155.htm
[6] http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/.../clement...
[7] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm
[8] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0818.htm
[9] https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: What did Paul mean by brother(s) of the Lord?

Post by DCHindley »

DCHindley wrote: Sat Feb 23, 2019 10:45 am
in a compilation made in 2007 on FRDB, DCH wrote:Jona Lendering, who contributed an article on Josephus to Livius.org … does cite a couple of sources to illuminate the possibility that the account reflects actual practices:

He cites the "third or fourth century" "Tannaite tradition" preserved in the Talmud at "Keth. 30a" (by way of "Strack-Billerbeck ii 197") to the effect: "... whosoever is guilty of being stoned either falls from the roof or a wild beast tramples him to death ..." which includes other examples of those convicted of death, when there was no power to enforce the decision, accidentally (on purpose) getting killed.

[Bab. Kethuboth 30a-b http://www.come-and-hear.com/kethuboth/ ... th_30.html

(a) Did not R. Joseph say, and R. Hiyya teach: Since the day of the destruction of the Temple, although the Sanhedrin ceased, the four forms of capital punishment have not ceased? 'They have not ceased,' [you say]? Surely they have ceased! But [say] (b) the judgment of the four forms of capital punishment has not ceased. He who would have been sentenced to stoning, either falls down from the roof or a wild beast treads him down. He who would have been sentenced to burning, either falls into a fire or a serpent bites him. He who would have been sentenced to decapitation, is either delivered to the government or robbers come upon him. He who would have been sentenced to strangulation, is either drowned in the river or dies from suffocation.

See also Bab. Sotah 8b http://www.come-and-hear.com/sotah/sotah_8.html

MISHNAH. IN THE MEASURE with which a man measures it is meted out to him. She adorned herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, made her repulsive. She exposed herself for a transgression; the holy one, blessed be he, held her up for exposure. She began the transgression with the thigh and afterwards with the womb; therefore she is punished first in the thigh and afterwards in the womb, nor does all the body escape.

GEMARA. R. Joseph said: Although the measure has ceased, [the principle] IN THE MEASURE has not ceased. For R. Joseph said, and similarly taught R. Hiyya: From the day the Temple was destroyed, although the Sanhedrin ceased to function, the four modes of execution did not cease. But they did cease! — [The meaning is:] The judgment of the four modes of execution did not cease. He who would have been condemned to stoning either falls from a roof [and dies] or a wild beast tramples him [to death]. He who would have been condemned to burning either falls into a fire or a serpent stings him. He who would have been condemned to decapitation is either handed over to the [Gentile] Government or robbers attack him. He who would have been condemned to strangulation either drowns in a river or dies of a quinsy [from Gk kunankhē = dog collar that controls by strangling, latter meaning c 1300 tonsillitis with abscesses].

Then he cites "Tosephta Kelim, i. 1. 6; Bab. kam., 1 (middle)" to the effect: "...according to an affirmation on oath of R. 'Eli'ezer, the first pupil of R. Johanan b. Zakkai and therefore an inhabitant of Jerusalem contemporary with James the Just, 'even a high priest' who on entering the sanctuary is guilty of any breach of the purity laws of the precincts must have 'his skull split with a wooden club.' The barbarous punishment here threatened, like the 'fall from the roof' of the man condemned to be stoned, at once recalls the fate of the 'high priest' James, who was beaten to death with a wooden club by a man whom the Christians regarded as a 'fuller' accidentally on the spot."

[R. Jacob Neusner, The Tosefta: Translated from the Hebrew, Hendrickson: 2002 (KTAV 6 v., 1977-86), vol 2, pg 1576, Sixth Division, Tohorot (Order of Purities), Kelim Baba Qamma 1:6 H.

"He [R. Eliezer, the first pupil of R Johanan b. Zakkai and therefore an inhabitant of Jerusalem contemporary with James the Just] said to him [R. Simon the Modest] 'By the [sacred] service! Even the high priest [who without washing his hands and feet enters the area between the porch and the alter] - they break his head with clubs.'"]
I guess it is possible something like this could have been inflicted upon the James the Just described by Hegesippus (as quoted/paraphrased by Eusebius), but these rules originated after the destruction of the Temple. Since it is unsettled whether the Sanhedrin had the authority to put people to death, I cannot put much faith in attempts to take these practices as those employed by a HP before the destruction, after the Romans took control in 6 CE.
Let me add that even though all of these varied elements of his death scene have Judaic precedents (scriptural or mishna or talmud etc), to have all four of them ALL AT ONCE seems a little over the top, wouldn't most people think?

The point is this, if Hegesippus' punishments of James were from an era after the destruction, then he was basically presenting a collection of Judaic writings of his day (early 2nd century?) which he used to weave a narrative. How can we believe that James was known for justice in those pre-war days if we cannot be sure when the tradition was first current. The types of death we know post date the period James may have died.

This does tie in with my suggestion that the place where the death of a single individual is attributed as the reason for the destruction of the city, the person was Ananus son of Ananus in War 4.228-270 (Ananus and Jesus his lieutenant priest insult the Idumeans from the city wall, and how the rebels opened the gates for them); 314-320 (they hunted down and killed Ananus and Jesus his lieutenant, casting their dead bodies to the base of the wall and not allow anyone to bury them.

Why was Ananus' death significant? 4:318-319a:

318 I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. 319 He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man ...

Wherever Origen got this idea that it applied to James, not Ananus, would seem to have to do with a comparison between this passage in War 4 and the passage in Ant 20.200 etc., relaying the trial of a certain James the brother of Jesus the one called "anointed" in Ant 20.200 etc. That person was also said to have been very just, and it is the very same Ananus who he had praised in 4:318-319, now portrayed completely negatively in Ant 20:200 etc.

I'm sticking to the idea that a marginal note was on a mss of either War 4.318 or Ant 20.200 etc., asking the rhetorical question "Could this man (meaning Ananus) be the same man as described in the other book?" The note writer was perhaps incredulous because they are polar opposite pictures of the same man. "Which to believe?"

When Origen saw it, his Christian brain saw it as a reference to James the brother of Jesus, who just HAD to be Jesus Christ of the Christian lore. I don't think he was even making the connection to War 4, so he likely saw it in the margin of Ant 20. Believing it was a note by Josephus himself (maybe he bought the copy from a slick bookseller - "Yeah, See that scribble there? That's Joe-ceephus' very own signature. This manuscript is worth twice what I am charging you for it!") and proceeded accordingly.

DCH
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: What did Paul mean by brother(s) of the Lord?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Thank you for posting. I had all but forgotten this thread.
DCHindley wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2024 11:52 am ...
This does tie in with my suggestion that the place where the death of a single individual is attributed as the reason for the destruction of the city, the person was Ananus son of Ananus in War 4.228-270 (Ananus and Jesus his lieutenant priest insult the Idumeans from the city wall, and how the rebels opened the gates for them); 314-320 (they hunted down and killed Ananus and Jesus his lieutenant, casting their dead bodies to the base of the wall and not allow anyone to bury them.
Josephus doesn't attribute the destruction exclusively to a single death, but rather to a series of deaths beginning with a featured individual, Joanthan the high priest. (Antiquities 20.8.5)
Wherever Origen got this idea that it applied to James,
The aforementioned Antiquities 20.8.5, which reads in pertinent part:

... And this seems to me to have been the reason why God, out of his hatred of these men’s wickedness, rejected our city: and as for the temple, he no longer esteemed it sufficiently pure for him to inhabit therein: but brought the Romans upon us, and threw a fire upon the city to purge it; and brought upon us our wives and children slavery: as desirous to make us wiser by our calamities.

That person was also said to have been very just, and it is the very same Ananus who he had praised in 4:318-319, now portrayed completely negatively in Ant 20:200 etc.
The reported personal qualities of Ananus the younger are consistent enough I think. In Antiquities 20.9.1:

... But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the High Priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent. He was also of the sect of the Sadducees: who are very rigid in judging offenders above all the rest of the Jews: as we have already observed...

So we have a human being who is rigid in his judgment of others, but not a hypocrite (that is, he was righteous himself). We might also allow that having been sharply sanctioned for his boldness in 62 CE, eight years later in 70 Ananus might have mellowed. Josephus himself might have matured in the 15+ years that separate War and Antiquities.
I'm sticking to the idea that a marginal note was on a mss of either War 4.318 or Ant 20.200 etc.,
Maybe so. All I can say that that there is no extant trace of this note, and it plays no necessary role in the story. If Jerome's memory can place the "temple voices" incident at the time of the crucfixion, and Bart Ehrman's memory can describe in detail Pliny's non-existent single letter about Christians and a fire brigade, then Origen's memory can conflate a passage about Jonathan with a passage about some James which both appear in the same book in adjoining chapters.

More generally, if some hypothetical anonymous scribe could think of the possible connection with the text in front of him to make this note, why couldn't Origen make the same connection working from memory?
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 7872
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: What did Paul mean by brother(s) of the Lord?

Post by Peter Kirby »

Paul the Uncertain wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 1:27 am More generally, if some hypothetical anonymous scribe could think of the possible connection with the text in front of him to make this note, why couldn't Origen make the same connection working from memory?
Good point.

Does the same apply equally to the phrase "the brother of Jesus called Christ" in Josephus - that it could have been a connection made by Origen without anything in the text to ground it more directly - or is that case different in some respect?
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: What did Paul mean by brother(s) of the Lord?

Post by DCHindley »

More generally, if some hypothetical anonymous scribe could think of the possible connection with the text in front of him to make this note, why couldn't Origen make the same connection working from memory?
The note maker (if s/he existed) would have been honestly perplexed how the two passages could refer to the same person - so different they seemed, while Origen really wanted to understand it as referring to James, the brother of Jesus Christ, even imagining that Josephus had himself wrote it (the note). Origen succumbed to what he wanted, not what really happened.

Now I don't know if Origen (or his patrons in Alexandria or Caesarea) actually had possession of a ms of Ant 20 (or War 4) with such a note in its margin, but Josephus retained his estates in Judea after the war ended. I recall Gamble and Trobisch describing how elites who were writing memoirs etc would send drafts to friends (say one in Caesarea) asking for the reader's input on this volume, which the readers communicate back their ideas for inclusion in a later edition.

God, there were probably dozens of editions of each of Josephus' works as he was writing the volumes, each one a little different as he refined his literary production. I believe Eusebius Church History went through a half dozen recensions over its development. These become unregulated copies that compete with the author's "final" version. I only half jokingly suggested that Origen had purchased what he though was a copy of Ant 20 from Josephus' own hand, by a shifty scroll salesman. "I hijacked this scroll from the baggage wagon at the station. You can pay 200 denarii at the bookstore, or a mere 20 denarii right now ..."

Yes, Josephus had changed his position between War 4 and Ant 20. I'm going from memory but I seem to recall that one critic explained this as due to Josephus thinking, when he wrote War 4, that Ananus was the best thing ever. He honestly admired the man, who he describes as a kind of compassionate moderate in War 4.

Later, after the war he learned more about the intrigues that wracked Jerusalem after he left to take his station in Galilee. One thing that distressed him was to learn that Ananus had sent an assassination squad to kill him, something that most folks would take as a personal betrayal. So, yeah, by the time he was writing book 20 of Ant he now thought of Ananus as wrong headed and petty, and was shamefully willing to manipulate Josephus, even kill him, to achieve his own goals.

DCH
Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: What did Paul mean by brother(s) of the Lord?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

Thank you. @DCH and @Peter.
Peter Kirby wrote: Mon Feb 26, 2024 4:33 pm Does the same apply equally to the phrase "the brother of Jesus called Christ" in Josephus - that it could have been a connection made by Origen without anything in the text to ground it more directly - or is that case different in some respect?
I think such connections-in-memory can be made even against what's really in the text. It isn't just Origen, it's all of us potentially. Jerome, for example, wrote a letter in which he placed the "temple voices" incident, which he attributes to Josephus and which really is in War, at the time of Jesus's crucifixion (46.4; https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001046.htm )

That timing is not in any text, but Christian tradition does have signs and wonders when Jesus died. Jerome's brain moved this wondrous sign of the Temple's imminent fall from the 60's to the 30's without any external support, and despite what the source text really said.
Post Reply