Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

About Romans 8:29, I also have a blog post:
http://historical-jesus.info/80.html
Does Romans 8:29 indicate Paul considered Christians as (spiritual) brothers of Jesus?
Richard Carrier contends all Christians were considered by Paul "brothers of the Lord". However Romans 8:29 would deny it.

See also:
http://historical-jesus.info/10.html
Did Paul consider James, Peter, John & Church of Jerusalem members as Christian(s)?
Despite many opportunities in his epistles, Paul never said those were "in the Lord", or "in Christ", or just "brothers". But he used often these expressions to qualify other(s) as "Christian(s)".

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:About Romans 8:29, I also have a blog post:
http://historical-jesus.info/80.html
Does Romans 8:29 indicate Paul considered Christians as (spiritual) brothers of Jesus?
Richard Carrier contends all Christians were considered by Paul "brothers of the Lord". However Romans 8:29 would deny it.

Might I suggest a correction to that page? You write:


You have the cases correct (dative and accusative), but not the function of the dative. The dative is often used for the indirect object of a sentence, true, but not in this case. Here it is simply the object of the preposition ἐν (in or among).

I might add that the construction on its own is ambiguous as to whether the firstborn is actually one of the brethren or simply among the brethren though not one of them. It is the same construction as the one ceaselessly debated in Romans 16.7, which says that Andronicus and Junia(s) are well known or outstanding among (ἐν) the apostles. Does this mean that they are well known members of the group called apostles, or does it mean that they are well known to the apostles, but are not apostles themselves? It is ambiguous, which is why the argument always hinges on the context or on the likelihood that Paul would or would not be referring to these two individuals as apostles.

(The corresponding construction is ambiguous in English, as well. A lion among zebras is not a zebra, but a prince among men is, in fact, a man.)

In Romans 8.29, IMHO, the juxtaposition of the familial terms firstborn and brethren has to tip the balance in favor of seeing a relationship between the two. YMMV.

Ben.

but a prince among men is, in fact, a man

but not a historical man, even if he had only the appearance of one (via Philippians 2:6-11).

@Bernard

Despite many opportunities in his epistles, Paul never said those were "in the Lord", or "in Christ", or just "brothers". But he used often these expressions to qualify other(s) as "Christian(s)".

I see ''no many opportunities'' in his epistles were he talks about the Pillars, but only 2/3 times in Galatians. Surely not many and therefore you have very little 'evidence' as premise to imply your conclusion.

toejam wrote:

Giuseppe wrote:Richard Carrier is right when he says that, alone, ''brother of the Lord'' is not evidence of James being physical brother of Jesus because there is no way to overcome the ambiguity of the construct in the absence of more specific.

Did Carrier say this? Are you sure you haven't misquoted him? If so, that's careless nonsense. By any sound historical methodology, an epistle writer claiming to have met a "Bob, the brother of Fred" is absolutely evidence of physical kinship between Bob and Fred. Is it proof of physical kinship? Of course not. Does it convince one of physical kinship? Depends on other factors. But alone, such a reference is evidence. To say otherwise is just playing word games. I really hope, to help resuscitate my dwindling opinion of Carrier, that this is a misquote or has been taken out of context.

When Carrier talks about the lack of a biological qualifier here, it's because he is arguing that the normal use of the phrase "brother of the Lord" would be a baptized Christian. Carrier does not make this argument from any other use of the specific phrase (ton adelphos tou Kyriou), but by inferences from other passages where Paul says that everyone who is baptized into Christ becomes, like Jesus, an adopted son of God and therefore, by implication, an adopted "brother" of Jesus. Carrier argues that it would be necessary then to specify a literal brother, if that's what was intended, as opposed to a baptized Christian, which is what Carrier argues the audience would assume. I'm not personally sure this argument is convincing. It's logically sound, but I don't know that the communities in question would follow that logic or intuit the same phraseology from it.

Carrier also argues that Paul is trying to minimize the influence he got from the Jerusalem church by saying he only talked to Peter and a lower level baptized acolyte named James. In my reading of Carrier's thesis on this, I believe he is saying that the James in Gal. 1:19 is not the same James as the head of the Jerusalem church, but I could be mistaken about that.

In my reading of Carrier's thesis on this, I believe he is saying that the James in Gal. 1:19 is not the same James as the head of the Jerusalem church, but I could be mistaken about that.

Carrier concedes that possibility when he says that in that case the James of 1:19 is ''son of Zebedee'' therefore not son of a carpenter.

I came up with this little thought last year:

1) ”Apostle” is one who sees the angel Jesus during a hallucination.

2) James saw the angel Jesus (1 Corinthians 15:7)

3) So James is Apostle.

4) This James is probably James the Pillar mentioned in chapter 2 of Galatians.

4) Therefore, if this James is the same James also mentioned in Galatians 1:19, then the apostle James is apostle like Peter and therefore the costruct ”brother of the Lord” is not introduced to indicate that James was not apostle like Peter (against Carrier's conclusion that ”the brother of the Lord” = generic Christian not apostle). On the other hand, the James Pillar in the Gospels will be ”the son of Zebedee,” and not the ”son of Joseph of Nazareth”. Contradiction.

5) So to avoid this insoluble problem, taking Carrier's interpretation of Galatians 1:19 (which I find really good) the best solution to this puzzle is to assume that the James of Galatians 1 is not the same James of Galatians 2: the first James was a generic Christian not apostle, while the second James was Pillar & apostle.

But now I would be more inclined to see that as a interpolation.

to Ben,
I did not make my arguments on the dative case. I mentioned it in opposition to the genitive case that Paul used for familial (by blood or spiritual) relationship.
From my blog post #80

>>Note: Carrier wrote: "the evidence shows Christians were all called brothers ..." (Ref: here).

Now if we replace "brethren" by "Christians" in Romans 8:29, we get:
"For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many Christians [brethren]."

Gone is the (wrongly) perceived notion of a spiritual link as brothers between Jesus (the Son) and the "brethren". And if Paul wanted to express a brotherly relationship between the Son and the brethren/brothers, he would have written:
"... that He might be the firstborn of[/color] [among] many brethren."
or
"... that He might be the firstborn among his many brethren."

The Greek words used in the verse for "many" & "brethren" are in the dative case (while"firstborn" is accusative). That means "many brethrens" is an indirect object to"firstborn", certainly not connected by any familial (spiritual) relationship.
If Paul thought of his Christians as being "brothers of the Son/Lord/Christ/Jesus", he would have used the genitive case instead.
...
Note: for all the four occurrences of "sons of God" in the Pauline epistles (Romans 8:14, 19 & 9:26 and Galatians 2:20), "God" is always in the genitive case.
Also in the two occurrences of "brother(s) of the Lord" (1 Corinthians 9:4 and Galatians 1:19), "Lord" is in the genitive case.<<

I think the Genitive would certainly apply to my first case (with "of") but maybe not with my second one (with "among his").

In Romans 8.29, IMHO, the juxtaposition of the familial terms firstborn and brethren has to tip the balance in favor of seeing a relationship between the two. YMMV.

Are you sure? Did you ponder all my arguments?
When I engaged Carrier on the same verse, he was rather reluctant to make use of this verse in his favor.

Cordially, Bernard

Despite many opportunities in his epistles, Paul never said those were "in the Lord", or "in Christ", or just "brothers". But he used often these expressions to qualify other(s) as "Christian(s)".

I see ''no many opportunities'' in his epistles were he talks about the Pillars, but only 2/3 times in Galatians. Surely not many and therefore you have very little 'evidence' as premise to imply your conclusion.

From my blog post #10:
>> Paul mentioned the Church of Jerusalem and members several times (1 Cor 16:1,3; 2 Cor 8:4, 13-15; 9:1, 12-15; Ga l2:1-10; Ro 15:25-26, 31) and acknowledged them as "saints" (1 Cor 16:1; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:1, 12; Ro 15:25, 26, 31). But despite these many opportunities in his epistles, Paul never said those were "in the Lord", or "in Christ", or just "brothers". However he used often these expressions to qualify other(s) as "Christian(s)": 1 Th 2:14, 3:8, 4:16, 5:12; 1 Cor 3:1, 4:15, 17, 9:1-2, 15:18,58, 16:19, 24; 2 Cor 1:21, 2:14, 17, 12:2; Php 1:14, 3:1, 4:1-2, 4, 10, 21; Phm 1:6, 8, 16, 20, 23; Gal 1:22, 3:14, 26, 28; 5:10; Ro 8:1, 12:5, 16:3, 7-13, 22<<

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,
I did not make my arguments on the dative case. I mentioned it in opposition to the genitive case that Paul used for familial (by blood or spiritual) relationship.

You wrote (underlining mine):


The underlined statement is grammatically incorrect. Many brethren being in the dative does not mean that it is an indirect object, not in this verse. Here it means that it is the object of a preposition that routinely takes the dative.

In Romans 8.29, IMHO, the juxtaposition of the familial terms firstborn and brethren has to tip the balance in favor of seeing a relationship between the two. YMMV.

Are you sure? Did you ponder all my arguments?

Yes, of course. But... the grammar comes first.

For the sake of clarity, let me add that I am not arguing for what the phrase brother(s) of the Lord means. This is about Romans 8.29 only.

When I engaged Carrier on the same verse, he was rather reluctant to make use of this verse in his favor.

I cannot speak to what Carrier thinks or says. I am giving my own view. I suspect I disagree with Carrier on a lot of things.

Ben.

to Ben,

Yes, of course. But... the grammar comes first.

I do not know why the dative would tip the balance, more so when "brothers", without "of the Lord" always means "Christians" in the Pauline epistles and Paul did not use a phrase (as the two I proposed) which would clarify these "brothers" as (spiritual) brothers of Jesus.
And where would the use of the dative case suggest a familial relationship?

Cordially, Bernard

Bernard Muller wrote:to Ben,

Yes, of course. But... the grammar comes first.

I do not know why the dative would tip the balance, more so when "brothers", without "of the Lord" always means "Christians" in the Pauline epistles and Paul did not use a phrase (as the two I proposed) which would clarify these "brothers" as (spiritual) brothers of Jesus.

I do not think the dative tips any balance at all. I think (rather, I know) the dative follows the preposition. That is all there is to the dative in this verse.

I specified what tips the balance for me in this verse, and it has nothing to do with the dative; it has to do with the fact that the terms firstborn and brethren are both familial.

And where would the use of the dative case suggest a familial relationship?

Again, the dative case does not suggest anything of that kind, nor does it suggest the opposite. The dative case is simply what the preposition ἐν expects. Your page says that the dative indicates the indirect object in this verse, but that is not true. At all. Indirect objects are generally in the dative in Greek, true enough, but this verse does not have an indirect object. Rather, it has an object of the preposition ἐν, which normally expects the dative.

Ben.