Hello,
Pardon my interrupting the discussion about Chinese writing. I'm the other person in the discussion about the use of αδελφος in Gal 1:19, so I thought I might be given the opportunity to present my views.
Answering the original presentation here of an informal analysis made on another forum for a different audience concerning the problem in analysing this noun that Paul generally uses in his own idiosyncratic manner, the following answer came:
Barry Hofstetter wrote:in a word, context. The word can bear either sense. There is no separate or special word used to designate metaphorical kinship in the NT. ἀδελφός is used for both.
This is certainly true and never in contention. It is also certainly true that Paul eschews the common significance of αδελφος in all uses that we can ascribe a clear meaning to. He uses the noun over 70 times and at least 70 indicate a believer in Paul's religion. How many times can it be confirmed to indicate "biological brother(s)"? In fact there is a general absence of discussion about biological relations in talking to his communities. When Paul does talk about biological connections, on three occasions he qualifies them with a laden phrase, κατα σαρκα:
Romans 1:3
περι του υιου αυτου του γενομενου
εκ σπερματος δαυιδ κατα σαρκα
concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh
Romans 4:1
...αβρααμ τον
προπατορα ημων κατα σαρκα
...Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh?
Romans 9:3
ηυχομην γαρ αναθεμα ειναι αυτος εγω απο του χριστου υπερ
των αδελφων μου των συγγενων μου κατα σαρκα
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.
One would expect Paul to stress a biological connection with κατα σαρκα, as he has done in the above examples of certain biological concern. Context is important. Paul has shown his usage of αδελφος throughout his writings and has also shown the tendency to qualify his indications of biological connections. There is a substantial case for Paul being consistent and in Gal 1:19 there are no contextual hints to suggest that he is not using αδελφος as he generally does. In fact, without his using κατα σαρκα to stress the biological link, I'd expect that he wasn't talking of a biological connection at all.
In the opening post, it was suggested that the Cartesian formula, 'X, the brother of Y', had sufficient weight such that,
a priori, whatever Paul generally means by the noun, in the stricture of the formula, it must mean "brother". This is an assertion, rather than evidence. In discussion elsewhere it was suggested that "proximate literature" uses αδελφος this way when in the formula, 'X, the brother of Y', so this is a sufficient indicator as to what Paul means. But how many of Paul's contemporaries can we find who actually use αδελφος regularly as Paul does? Knowing this would help construct useful contextualization for applying the formula. If such a shift can be regularly shown elsewhere from this Pauline type usage to the common meaning of the noun when in the formula 'X, the brother of Y', then it should be considered with Paul. However, an analogous
a priori rule,
'X, the son of Y' means biological son, fails in the situation of "son of God". In Wisdom 2:18 the writer says,
ει γαρ εστιν
ο δικαιος υιος θεου αντιλημψεται αυτου και ρυσεται αυτον εκ χειρος ανθεστηκοτων
for if the righteous man is God’s son, he will help him, and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries
X = ο δικαιος
Y = θεος
I doubt that anyone would want to claim that the righteous man is actually the biological son of God. In fact in Wisdom 5:5 we find εν υιοις θεου paralleled with εν αγιοις, telling use that "sons of God" here is basically another way of saying "holy ones", so 'X, the son of Y' is not a pointer of biological necessity. Why should 'X, the brother of Y' be? Obviously there is no "should" about it.
A priori formulae are generally not useful when doing linguistics. One has to show meaningful contextual indicators to call into question Paul's normal, though idiosyncratic, use of αδελφος. He shows what he thinks of biological connections when he qualifies them with κατα σαρκα.
How would Paul's readers know that he intended the common meaning of αδελφος in Gal. 1:19, when Paul has generally avoided biological connections and used the noun to refer to fellow believers? I don't think there are any contextual clues to suggest that Paul meant a biological connection so the linguistic rule is, we should read the word to mean what he normally meant by it.
sean peter ingham
Barry Hofstetter wrote:It sounds like your interlocutor has a theological axe to grind on this.