Justin: apostles = brothers of Jesus

[Giuseppe]

Justin: The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.'

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm

Note that Justin doesn't say : He stood in the midst of His brethren and the apostles. So the implication is that an apostle is eo ipso a 'brother of Jesus'.

So according to this view the James in Gal 1:19 would be only an apostle. Not the biological brother of Jesus.

[Ben C. Smith]

Justin: The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.'

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/01287.htm

Note that Justin doesn't say : He stood in the midst of His brethren and the apostles. So the implication is that an apostle is eo ipso a 'brother of Jesus'.

So according to this view the James in Gal 1:19 would be only an apostle. Not the biological brother of Jesus.

"He stood in the midst of his brethren, the apostles" (ἐν μέσῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ ἔστη, τῶν ἀποστόλων). I fully agree, backed by the Greek. In this passage, apostles = brothers. In Matthew 28.10, Jesus instructs the women: "Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee," which seems to equate brothers to disciples (eleven of them, according to verse 16).

The complications arise when the "brothers of the Lord" appear to designate a group that is not exactly the same as the apostles:

1 Corinthians 9.5: 5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

On the one hand, Cephas himself seems at first glance to fall outside of both groups (brothers and disciples), which seems unlikely overall, so maybe Paul is not writing very clearly. On the other hand, however, it is far easier to understand why a very important figure like Cephas, known by name to the Corinthians (according to the rest of the epistle), might be singled out than it is to understand why two different names for the same group might be listed as if they were different groups altogether.

I sympathize fully with the effort to understand James as somebody other than Jesus' brother by blood, believe me. But that position will not be mine cheaply. I need to see a full reckoning of how these terms are used throughout our source texts.

[Giuseppe]

About 1 Cor 9:5, I made a thread

viewtopic.php?t=2614#p58449

where I have noted that Porphyry didn't read "brothers of Lord" in the his quote of the passage. How do you interpret that evidence? I remember your answer about it but was not entirely clear your conclusion.

[Ben C. Smith]

About 1 Cor 9:5, I made a thread

viewtopic.php?t=2614#p58449

where I have noted that Porphyry didn't read "brothers of Lord" in the his quote of the passage. How do you interpret that evidence? I remember your answer about it but was not entirely clear your conclusion.

Actually, I had forgotten all about that thread, and about my reply to it. Okay, the interpolation of "and the brothers of the Lord" in 1 Corinthians 9.5 is (still) a live option for me, at least until somebody can disabuse me of it.

ETA: IOW, regarding your last comment, I do not have a firm conclusion yet, but I freely admit the possibility of the interpolation.

[jude77]

Hello Guys:

It seems like a bit of a stretch to me to draw a conclusion about Jesus' paternal relationships based on one line from Justin Martyr. It looks to me like Justin is simply saying the Apostles are Jesus' spiritual brothers (see MK 3:34-35) without thinking about all the implications of that statement.

[Giuseppe]

Hello Guys:

It seems like a bit of a stretch to me to draw a conclusion about Jesus' paternal relationships based on one line from Justin Martyr. It looks to me like Justin is simply saying the Apostles are Jesus' spiritual brothers (see MK 3:34-35) without thinking about all the implications of that statement.

I have quoted Justin as evidence of the fact that the prima facie meaning of the simple construct "brothers of Jesus/Lord/Son" is just as you say, spiritual brothers. So the onus probandi is on the historicists, if they want to prove that Gal 1:19 is evidence of a James carnal brother of Jesus.

[Ben C. Smith]

It seems like a bit of a stretch to me to draw a conclusion about Jesus' paternal relationships based on one line from Justin Martyr. It looks to me like Justin is simply saying the Apostles are Jesus' spiritual brothers (see MK 3:34-35) without thinking about all the implications of that statement.

Thank you for being polite, but to draw such a conclusion from this single line in Justin would be much more than "a bit of a stretch."

There are rather many reasons to be at least suspicious of the datum that Jesus had blood brothers who were well known in the early church. One of these reasons is Marcion: if James was known to be a blood brother to Jesus, was Marcion simply being an idiot and denying the obvious? I am suspicious of any datum in the hands of Catholics which comprises such a slam-dunk argument against Marcion and other sectarians: in this case just that one little detail, that Jesus had literal brothers, singlehandedly wrecks the entire docetic framework. I think it is correct to thoroughly test that detail, including alternate scenarios which explain just as many data with equal or less effort.

Giuseppe overstates his case. That is just what Giuseppe does. But I think the questions about the "brothers of the Lord" are worth asking.

[Giuseppe]

if James was known to be a blood brother to Jesus, was Marcion simply being an idiot and denying the obvious?

they will reply by accusing Marcion not of idiocy, but of deliberate conspiracy against James. Just the same accusation an Eisenman addresses against Paul (according to his reconstruction): he would have eclipsed deliberately the memory of the poor James.

[Blood]

Good find.

[jude77]

[/quote]

Thank you for being polite, but to draw such a conclusion from this single line in Justin would be much more than "a bit of a stretch."

There are rather many reasons to be at least suspicious of the datum that Jesus had blood brothers who were well known in the early church. One of these reasons is Marcion: if James was known to be a blood brother to Jesus, was Marcion simply being an idiot and denying the obvious? I am suspicious of any datum in the hands of Catholics which comprises such a slam-dunk argument against Marcion and other sectarians: in this case just that one little detail, that Jesus had literal brothers, singlehandedly wrecks the entire docetic framework. I think it is correct to thoroughly test that detail, including alternate scenarios which explain just as many data with equal or less effort.

Giuseppe overstates his case. That is just what Giuseppe does. But I think the questions about the "brothers of the Lord" are worth asking.
[/quote]

That's a very good point. I think it's always wise to be suspicious when the perfect evidence to prove a point just "happens" to show up at the perfect time.
But, on the other hand, was Marcion just being an idiot and denying the obvious? Well, it certainly has happened before.
To wit:
"I did not have sex with that woman, Miss lewinsky."
"I am not a crook."
"Ninety percent of my emails as Secretary of State were, according to the State Department, “already in the system.”

People sometimes say what fits their theory and just hope nobody ever notices.

All the best.