Differentiating fictive and biological kinship

Grammar questions which are not related to any specific text.
Sean Ingham
Posts: 17
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 8:56 am

Re: Differentiating fictive and biological kinship

Post by Sean Ingham » August 6th, 2011, 10:40 am

As an aside,
Jason Hare wrote:...ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου (but I saw none of the other apostles, except James, the Lord's brother...
Using this translation will influence your approach to reading what Paul actually said. There is a subtle but significant difference between "the Lord's brother" and "the brother of the Lord". It's fine in English to say "the brother of the cross", but not "the cross's brother". The form "the brother of the Lord" is a more more literal, and in this case more acceptable, representation of the Greek.

sean peter ingham
Last edited by Sean Ingham on August 6th, 2011, 10:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
0 x



Sean Ingham
Posts: 17
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 8:56 am

Titular and non-titular κυριος

Post by Sean Ingham » August 6th, 2011, 10:48 am

Jason Hare wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:It really is a strange conversion. I mean, the Gospels state clearly that Jesus had brothers (Matthew 12:46; 13:55; Mark 3:31; Luke 8:19; John 7:3).
The phrase τον αδελφον του κυριου says nothing about Jesus. That's why it's strange.
You think it's strange that the NT would say κύριος instead of Ἰησοῦς? I just don't understand what the problem is here. I can't see what's causing the confusion.
There are two distinct usages of κυριος in Greek, demonstrated in Ps 110:1, ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου. The first is what I call "non-titular" and the second is titular, basically the synonym, "master". The distinction seems not to have been problematical for the translator of Ps 110. The non-titular κυριος refers to God throughout the LXX and is used interchangeably with θεος. Paul refers to Jesus frequently with the titular κυριος, "the Lord Jesus Christ" and similar. Paul inherited the LXX usage of κυριος. He uses the non-titular κυριος most times he cites the LXX and obviously refers to God. What makes you think in Gal 1:19 that Paul used the non-titular κυριος for Jesus?

And we are not analysing the NT per se, but Paul's letters. Much of the NT was written decades after Paul and reflects a more certainly orthodox use of language (but you'll note there is no use of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus in Mark).

sean peter ingham
0 x

Jason Hare
Posts: 687
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Differentiating fictive and biological kinship

Post by Jason Hare » August 6th, 2011, 11:16 am

Sean Ingham wrote:As an aside,
Jason Hare wrote:...ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου (but I saw none of the other apostles, except James, the Lord's brother...
Using this translation will influence your approach to reading what Paul actually said. There is a subtle but significant difference between "the Lord's brother" and "the brother of the Lord". It's fine in English to say "the brother of the cross", but not "the cross's brother". The form "the brother of the Lord" is a more more literal, and in this case more acceptable, representation of the Greek.

sean peter ingham
My translation was perfectly "literal." We have the Saxon genitive in English, and it's a natural part of the language.

Crosses cannot have brothers. However, lords can. There's a difference in how you're perceiving this. It seems that you're coming to the text with the idea that Jesus didn't have any brothers, whereas Matthew says that he did, and this instance of ἀδεφλὸς τοῦ κυρίου simply refers to that.
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Jason Hare
Posts: 687
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Titular and non-titular κυριος

Post by Jason Hare » August 6th, 2011, 11:20 am

Sean Ingham wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:You think it's strange that the NT would say κύριος instead of Ἰησοῦς? I just don't understand what the problem is here. I can't see what's causing the confusion.
There are two distinct usages of κυριος in Greek, demonstrated in Ps 110:1, ειπεν ο κυριος τω κυριω μου. The first is what I call "non-titular" and the second is titular, basically the synonym, "master". The distinction seems not to have been problematical for the translator of Ps 110. The non-titular κυριος refers to God throughout the LXX and is used interchangeably with θεος. Paul refers to Jesus frequently with the titular κυριος, "the Lord Jesus Christ" and similar. Paul inherited the LXX usage of κυριος. He uses the non-titular κυριος most times he cites the LXX and obviously refers to God. What makes you think in Gal 1:19 that Paul used the non-titular κυριος for Jesus?

And we are not analysing the NT per se, but Paul's letters. Much of the NT was written decades after Paul and reflects a more certainly orthodox use of language (but you'll note there is no use of the non-titular κυριος for Jesus in Mark).

sean peter ingham
Psalm 110 should not be used as an example of Greek usage, since it is translational, and the purpose of that translation is to convey two separate things. The first is the use of the name of God used in the Hebrew Bible [יהוה], translated simply as Κύριος (without the article) in many places, and the second is the use of a title in the Hebrew text [אדני], which was also translated with the same Greek word, but with the article. These are two different things in the Hebrew Bible, and it was a convergence of translation issues that created the two uses in the verse.

Do you have examples that actually come from Greek that demonstrate your problem, which are not the result of translation decisions from other languages into Greek?

Thanks.
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Sean Ingham
Posts: 17
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 8:56 am

Re: Differentiating fictive and biological kinship

Post by Sean Ingham » August 6th, 2011, 11:28 am

Jason Hare wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:As an aside,
Jason Hare wrote:...ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου (but I saw none of the other apostles, except James, the Lord's brother...
Using this translation will influence your approach to reading what Paul actually said. There is a subtle but significant difference between "the Lord's brother" and "the brother of the Lord". It's fine in English to say "the brother of the cross", but not "the cross's brother". The form "the brother of the Lord" is a more more literal, and in this case more acceptable, representation of the Greek.
My translation was perfectly "literal." We have the Saxon genitive in English, and it's a natural part of the language.

Crosses cannot have brothers. However, lords can. There's a difference in how you're perceiving this. It seems that you're coming to the text with the idea that Jesus didn't have any brothers, whereas Matthew says that he did, and this instance of ἀδεφλὸς τοῦ κυρίου simply refers to that.
I have pointed out in English difference lies in the two forms of English genitive. There is no problem about talking of a "sister of mercy", a "son of the devil", a "brother of the cross", etc. You might be able to get away with "the devil's son" but it is problematic.

I have made no comment on Jesus having or not having brothers. However, Mk 6:3 is sufficiently indicative of the issue, but this is a red herring: we are trying to understand the significance of the language of Gal 1:19.
Jason Hare wrote:Psalm 110 should not be used as an example of Greek usage, since it is translational, and the purpose of that translation is to convey two separate things. The first is the use of the name of God used in the Hebrew Bible [יהוה], translated simply as Κύριος (without the article) in many places, and the second is the use of a title in the Hebrew text [אדני], which was also translated with the same Greek word, but with the article. These are two different things in the Hebrew Bible, and it was a convergence of translation issues that created the two uses in the verse.

Do you have examples that actually come from Greek that demonstrate your problem, which are not the result of translation decisions from other languages into Greek?
There is no reason to dismiss the LXX Ps 110:1 within its community's use, purely because it is supposed to be translational Greek. The verse was understandable enough to be cited in the NT. There is nothing controversial in the distinction.

sean peter ingham
0 x

Jason Hare
Posts: 687
Joined: June 2nd, 2011, 5:28 pm
Location: Tel Aviv, Israel
Contact:

Re: Differentiating fictive and biological kinship

Post by Jason Hare » August 6th, 2011, 11:41 am

Sean Ingham wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:My translation was perfectly "literal." We have the Saxon genitive in English, and it's a natural part of the language.

Crosses cannot have brothers. However, lords can. There's a difference in how you're perceiving this. It seems that you're coming to the text with the idea that Jesus didn't have any brothers, whereas Matthew says that he did, and this instance of ἀδεφλὸς τοῦ κυρίου simply refers to that.
I have pointed out in English difference lies in the two forms of English genitive. There is no problem about talking of a "sister of mercy", a "son of the devil", a "brother of the cross", etc. You might be able to get away with "the devil's son" but it is problematic.

I have made no comment on Jesus having or not having brothers. However, Mk 6:3 is sufficiently indicative of the issue, but this is a red herring: we are trying to understand the significance of the language of Gal 1:19.
Again, you're comparing things that are not physical entities with something that is. Mercy cannot truly have a sister; the devil does not truly have sons (unless you posit that angelic beings have sons, which is outside of the scope of the discussion, of course); crosses do not have brothers, either.

However, human beings can and do have brothers. We can say "the wife of the President" or "the President's wife." Both are perfectly valid in English, since it is natural for the President to have a wife. The same is true of "lords," for whom it would be natural to say that they have brothers and other family relations.

If I'm speaking of something symbolic or non-literal, I might agree with you that English better renders it with "of," but with personal relationships, that's not the case. "Children of God" is much better sounding that "God's children."

I just can't see any justification for not understanding this passage as physical relation, whether you say "brother of the Lord" or "the Lord's brother." The verse itself certainly cannot be the basis for arguing anything. The fact that the other writers actually say that Jesus had a brother named James and the presence of James in other contexts among the brothers of Jesus clearly indicate that this was his brother - not friend or follower, though he became a follower in the end, also.
Sean Ingham wrote:There is no reason to dismiss the LXX Ps 110:1 within its community's use, purely because it is supposed to be translational Greek. The verse was understandable enough to be cited in the NT. There is nothing controversial in the distinction.
Indeed, and the verse is intelligible in the King James English just the same, but if a reader doesn't notice the small caps used in the first instance and realize that this verse is a translation, it might cause confusion. The same was certainly true of the Greek. A Greek-speaking Jew would have to maintain the fact that the first instance was a translation of God's name, while the second was a reference to a person (adoni). Otherwise, it would tend to confusion.
0 x
Jason A. Hare
Tel Aviv, Israel

Jonathan_Burke
Posts: 11
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 10:09 am

Re: Differentiating fictive and biological kinship

Post by Jonathan_Burke » August 6th, 2011, 12:33 pm

Sean, have you conducted diachronic and synchronic analysis to see if the syntax '[name] τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ [name]' is ever used by anyone as a reference to fictive kinship rather than biological kinship? This is especially important since, as David already pointed out, you cannot consider what Paul wrote without considering his readers. You need to provide evidence that people would have naturally read his words as a reference to fictive kinship; without this you have no evidence at all that this was Paul's meaning, only speculation.

When we read '[name] τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ [name]' in the LXX (2 Kingdoms 36:10), in the New Testament (Mark 5:37), and Josephus (Life, 41.201), we find that it's a reference to biological kinship. Do you have any examples of any proximate texts relevant to Paul's letters, which use '[name] τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ [name]' for fictive kinship and not biological kinship? I'll remind you of the danger of the prescriptive fallacy.
Bock, 'The Bible Knowledge Word Study: Acts-Ephesians', p. 23 (2006) wrote:5. The prescriptive fallacy argues that a word has only one meaning and means the same thing in every passage. For example, if a word has the meaning "X" in 13 out of 14 occurrences, then it must mean "X" in the disputed case. But word meanings are determined by context, not word counts.
0 x

Sean Ingham
Posts: 17
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 8:56 am

Re: Differentiating fictive and biological kinship

Post by Sean Ingham » August 6th, 2011, 1:27 pm

Jason Hare wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:
Jason Hare wrote:My translation was perfectly "literal." We have the Saxon genitive in English, and it's a natural part of the language.

Crosses cannot have brothers. However, lords can. There's a difference in how you're perceiving this. It seems that you're coming to the text with the idea that Jesus didn't have any brothers, whereas Matthew says that he did, and this instance of ἀδεφλὸς τοῦ κυρίου simply refers to that.
I have pointed out in English difference lies in the two forms of English genitive. There is no problem about talking of a "sister of mercy", a "son of the devil", a "brother of the cross", etc. You might be able to get away with "the devil's son" but it is problematic.

I have made no comment on Jesus having or not having brothers. However, Mk 6:3 is sufficiently indicative of the issue, but this is a red herring: we are trying to understand the significance of the language of Gal 1:19.
Again, you're comparing things that are not physical entities with something that is. Mercy cannot truly have a sister; the devil does not truly have sons (unless you posit that angelic beings have sons, which is outside of the scope of the discussion, of course); crosses do not have brothers, either.
For some reason you are arguing that there are not subtle differences in usage between the two English genitives, yet you acknowledge there are.
Jason Hare wrote:If I'm speaking of something symbolic or non-literal, I might agree with you that English better renders it with "of," but with personal relationships, that's not the case. "Children of God" is much better sounding that "God's children."
You are merely intuiting the problem and ascribing it to sound.
Jason Hare wrote:I just can't see any justification for not understanding this passage as physical relation, whether you say "brother of the Lord" or "the Lord's brother."
I'll put it down to our differing idiolects. The distinction is clear to me.
Jason Hare wrote:The verse itself certainly cannot be the basis for arguing anything. The fact that the other writers actually say that Jesus had a brother named James and the presence of James in other contexts among the brothers of Jesus clearly indicate that this was his brother - not friend or follower, though he became a follower in the end, also.
So you are proffering two layers of linguistic mystification here. One, that αδελφος does mean"brother of the flesh" and that you can somehow know that Gal 1:19 refers to Jesus and not to God in the non-titular use of κυριος. What you offer in your defence is that Jesus did have a brother named James and that is somehow relevant, despite the fact that post-Pauline literature shows no interest in this rejected brother converting to Christianity and becoming so important in the Jerusalem church until Acts and then Acts knows nothing about the James of Gal 1:19 being related to Jesus. (These are called "loud silences".) The language issue of how you decide the meanings of the terms remains unaddressed.
Jason Hare wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:There is no reason to dismiss the LXX Ps 110:1 within its community's use, purely because it is supposed to be translational Greek. The verse was understandable enough to be cited in the NT. There is nothing controversial in the distinction.
Indeed, and the verse is intelligible in the King James English just the same, but if a reader doesn't notice the small caps used in the first instance and realize that this verse is a translation, it might cause confusion. The same was certainly true of the Greek. A Greek-speaking Jew would have to maintain the fact that the first instance was a translation of God's name, while the second was a reference to a person (adoni). Otherwise, it would tend to confusion.
The readers of the NT were not generally literate in Hebrew, otherwise the texts would probably have been written in Hebrew, but Greek readers received the phrase in two gospels and it was not improved upon by a redactor. The distinction between titular and non-titular κυριος is clearly functional. The writer chose to use κυριος in both senses in close proximity and didn't feel forced to clarify further.
0 x

Jonathan_Burke
Posts: 11
Joined: July 27th, 2011, 10:09 am

Re: Differentiating fictive and biological kinship

Post by Jonathan_Burke » August 6th, 2011, 2:07 pm

Sean Ingham wrote:So you are proffering two layers of linguistic mystification here. One, that αδελφος does mean"brother of the flesh" and that you can somehow know that Gal 1:19 refers to Jesus and not to God in the non-titular use of κυριος. What you offer in your defence is that Jesus did have a brother named James and that is somehow relevant, despite the fact that post-Pauline literature shows no interest in this rejected brother converting to Christianity and becoming so important in the Jerusalem church until Acts and then Acts knows nothing about the James of Gal 1:19 being related to Jesus. (These are called "loud silences".) The language issue of how you decide the meanings of the terms remains unaddressed.
What Jason has showed you is a language issue. He has shown you that the phrase in question (not merely the word), was naturally understood by users of the Greek language who were proximate to Paul, with the referent of biological kinship. So far Stephen, David,and Jason have given you the following points.

* Appeals to Paul's use of αδελφος for fictive kinship are irrelevant, since we do not have a sufficiently large corpus of Paul's writings to make reliable determinations on the meaning he ascribed to single words

* In this case a single word is not in question, but the syntax of the phrase in which it is used; so lexical-syntactical analysis is required, not merely a prescriptive claim that Paul only ever used αδελφος for fictive kinship

* The function of the article before the ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου is to identify which James Paul was talking about; this is a typical use of the article when a phrase such as this is referring to biological kinship, it is not an honorific

* Just because a person uses a word almost always with a particular literal or figurative or metaphorical meaning does not imply that his use of the word has that same meaning by default; letters to fellow believers cannot count as a sufficiently balanced corpus of an author's usage of a word, and 'word meanings are determined by context, not word counts'

* There is no evidence that Paul uses σαρκος every time he wants to identify biological kinship; there is evidence that he uses σαρκος in at least two places to contrast biological kinship with fictive kinship

* 1 Corinthians 9:5 has merely the plural form of that which is found in Galatians 1:19, so it does not count as evidence for understanding Galatians 1:19

* We also have to look at the other writings in the same period because Paul is communicating through his letters with other people who will understand the word in ways evidenced by their own writings; the more peculiar the language Paul uses is to himself, the more misunderstood he would be

The last point is particularly important. We have examples in other writings in the same period, of the phrase Paul uses in Galatians 1:19 being used to refer to biological kinship. This means we can definitely say that this is a reading which would have occurred naturally to the recipient of the text. Until we have sufficient examples of the phrase being used to refer to fictive kinship, we cannot assert that this is a reading which would have occurred naturally to the recipient of the text.

Thus far we have only one proposed reading which has evidence; biological kinship.
0 x

Sean Ingham
Posts: 17
Joined: August 3rd, 2011, 8:56 am

Re: Differentiating fictive and biological kinship

Post by Sean Ingham » August 6th, 2011, 2:23 pm

David Lim wrote:I do not think your example is valid because "children of God" naturally excludes relationship in flesh, which is what I meant by the context excluding unlikely possibilities. That does not necessarily occur with "son of Y" where "Y" is a human.
This complaint only works if you assume that του κυριου refers to Jesus, doesn't it?
David Lim wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:I think this is all somewhat moot now if we consider 1 Cor 9:5, οι αδελφοι του κυριου. There is no X-factor. It is merely the plural form of the qualifier in Gal 1:19, which precludes the separation you are trying to make here.
I was not trying to say anything based on the difference between "X, son of Y," and "X is [a] son of Y", but [..] I was just trying to point out that it may not be a valid example of that "analogous rule". Anyway, as you said, 1 Cor 9:5 has merely the plural form of that which is found in Gal 1:19, so it does not count as evidence for understanding Gal 1:19.
Now that is strange to me. An obvious parallel usage of language is excluded though I can't see why you exclude it.
David Lim wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:
David Lim wrote:Agreed, but that depends subjectively on what we consider "demonstrably". I would not consider anything less than a few hundred instances as sufficient, for the reason that our usage of any word varies a great deal across our daily communication as well as across the type of communication. Letters to fellow believers cannot count as a sufficiently balanced corpus of an author's usage of a word.
But it is all we have. You can't talk about what you have no information for. You can talk about what the language in the letters show. And that is all we are doing. It is from that language that I have argued that it is a misreading to consider any implication of biology in the fact that James is defined as τον αδελφον του κυριου, when Paul strongly points to a "spiritual" relationship implied in the notion of αδελφος.
Because we have too little, I would think that we cannot make reliable conclusions about Paul's usage. I definitely agree that he uses "αδελφος" often to refer to fellow believers, but I do not think we have sufficient evidence to exclude any other meaning from Paul's understanding of the word. Therefore we also have to look at the other writings in the same period because Paul is communicating through his letters with other people who will understand the word in ways evidenced by their own writings. The more peculiar the language Paul uses is to himself, the more misunderstood he would be.
We have over 70 of less than 80 uses that are certainly not the original usage and no confirmed examples of the original use of brother.
David Lim wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:[[David Lim]]I do not see how "αδελφην γυναικα περιαγειν" = "leading [a] sister [to be] [a] wife" suggests any importance... Anyway I do not think 1 Cor 9:5 can be used to support your position because it is of the same type as Gal 1:19. I think that "αδελφος" simply is considered a family member, not necessarily biologically close-related, just as in Lev 19:17, Deut 1:16, 15:1-12, 2 Sam 1:26, Jer 34:9, Mal 2:10. So my view is that Paul was simply considering all "fellow believers" as family members just as the children of Israel were supposed to consider all fellow Israelites as brothers. Therefore in the contexts which suggest biological relation, it is perfectly natural to me.

[[Sean Ingham]]
So we need the contextual evidence that suggests biological relation. We've seen that there is no necessary suggestion in Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου. Would there be in Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του θεου?

[[David Lim]]
In my opinion, yes, because of two reasons:
(1) The article causes "τον αδελφον του κυριου" to refer to a specific individual who is either described as "αδελφον του κυριου" or well-known by that description. The first is more likely because nowhere else in the new testament do we see "τον αδελφον του κυριου" being a well-known person's title.
(2) Jewish culture has precisely such a Hebrew construction used in names, so as I mentioned above Jews would most likely consider the whole clause "ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου" as description of a person similar to a name.

[[Sean Ingham]]
If you'll note, I asked a different question: "Would there be [a suggestion of biological relation] in Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του θεου?" I asked this because I think there is the assumption that του κυριου does not imply God, but Jesus.
I noted that, but if "κυριου" does not imply "θεου", then changing the word would change the whole question, and the answer to the changed question is irrelevant to the original question because of the different resulting context. (And that would be beyond B-Greek already.)
Again we have an LXX full of the non-titular usage of κυριος for God, you need a reason to think that Paul doesn't mean God in Gal 1:19.
spi: (One may in passing look at the theology here: just as Paul indicates that faith in Jesus supersedes acts of the law, so do members of the church supersede biological families.)

dl: (Jews believe that all are descendents from Adam, therefore you could likewise claim that there was nothing wrong if all called one another "brother", even as some cultures still do today.)

spi: (But they aren't literally "brothers", are they? We are dealing with another use of brother.)

dl: (To them, and to me, it is literal, because they do not view "brother" as biology today may view it "biologically".. And I had always taken it literally in the sense of "family member".)

spi: (You'd expect more adoptions to appear in the genealogies. Can you find any?)

dl: Sorry I do not understand what you are trying to say. However I can say that from my viewpoint there was no "adoption" because every one was either an Israelite, a brother, or a non-Israelite, a foreigner. The verses from the old testament that I mentioned clearly identify each Israelite as a brother (of any Israelite).
(There are two ways to enter a family: be born into it or be adopted. As there are no traces of adopted filiation in the genealogies, we should be able to see that blood is where family really is.)
David Lim wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:
David Lim wrote:I believe your viewpoint rests on the interpretation of "κατα σαρκα". However I do not believe absence of this phrase is sufficient evidence for any specific meaning. Clearly its presence denotes a relationship in the flesh, but its absence does not denote a relationship that is not in the flesh. Just as we sometimes qualify what we are saying by adding words or phrases but do not always dogmatically do so, so also we cannot conclude from the absence of qualifying clauses that something different is meant.
We have a track record in favour of the use of κατα σαρκα to indicate fleshly ties. We don't have clear evidence for a habit of talking about blood relations without it.
The clear (in my opinion) evidence comes from the rest of the new testament. You however restrict your evidence to the small corpus of what you consider Paul's writings, so your conclusion may be valid based on your sample but may not be precise because the margin of error is large. My conclusion is likewise valid based on my sample and is more precise but is in your opinion not applicable to Paul. I think we probably will not agree then, so let each choose his own sample and thus conclusion. :)
Paul is writing under different conditions from most of the new testament writers. He has no established orthodox language usage for him to conform to. Injecting much of the NT theologically influenced language into Paul is a formula for mystification.
David Lim wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:
David Lim wrote:I definitely agree that to be a member in what Paul considers his true family one had to be "begotten of promise" which has nothing to do with biology, but unless the whole community in which he was in also used "αδελφος" solely to refer to fellow believers, I do not think it is possible for him to completely detach the original meaning of "family member" from the word. I never claimed that "biology" counted, if you refer to all that I had said. Rather, I said "αδελφος" probably just means "family member" who is by default male, as evidenced in Lev 19:17, Deut 1:16, 15:1-12, 2 Sam 1:26, Jer 34:9, Mal 2:10 long before Christ.
This doesn't consider a distinction that you yourself bring up later from Rom 9:8: "the children of the flesh" (τα τεκνα της σαρκος) and "the children of the promise". Paul clearly makes the distinction between biology and a more significant "family" linkage. In so doing he is denying the validity of biology while demonstrating that it is entailed in the original notion. He is espousing a paradigm shift from the flesh as the marker of descent from Abraham to those "begotten of promise". It is a general kind of adoption through faith, but adoption implies a shifting paradigm.

When Onan refused Tamar it was because he knew that any children he sired would not belong to him by law. This works on the notion that it was normal that children one sired were of your own family, ie blood was the prime indicator, though adoption could make one like a blood member.
In the example you cite, the situation resulted because of the law, and therefore "physical fathering" was not the indicator that Israel lived according to. I cannot see any evidence that the Israelites had only "biology" in mind when calling people "brother" or "son".
I was talking about Onan making the distinction, which he obviously does. Biology is the guide, but then the law can even take that away, so he wanted to maintain control of his bloodline.
David Lim wrote:
Sean Ingham wrote:
David Lim wrote:I believe that if we simply take the Jewish notion of every Israelite being a "brother", it to me fits perfectly in all instances. See Rom 9:6, in which the same word "Israel" is used to refer to two different "Israels", "Israel according to the flesh" and "the true Israel". So also I believe "αδελφος" can easily refer to "brother according to one's family" if the context permits.
The Jewish notion of every Israelite being a "brother" is merely a different usage of "brother". Consider how unsuccessful it would be in shedding light on the significance of 2 Sam 3:30 ("So Joab and his brother Abishai murdered Abner because he had killed their brother Asahel in the battle at Gibeon"). That verse refers to brothers as Paul would qualify κατα σαρκα, as the oldspeak descendants of Abraham were κατα σαρκα. The same distinction Paul clearly makes between two different "Israels", he also implies with αδελφος, with the same contextual distinction, των αδελφων μου των συγγενων μου κατα σαρκα (Rom 9:3). He cannot make the separation more clearly than in Rom 9:8, τα τεκνα της σαρκος versus τα τεκνα της επαγγελιας. Paul's αδελφοι are all της επαγγελιας and doesn't need to qualify them. The problem comes when dealing with fleshly links once he uses αδελφος as he does. I can accept that "αδελφος" can easily refer to "brother according to one's family" if the context permits, though I don't think the context points to the traditional notion of family here. Consider (οι χριστιανοι) τα τεκνα του κυριου or τα τεκνα του θεου.
My point in mentioning the Jewish notion of every Israelite being a "brother" is to show that there was already a well-established use of "brother" referring to "family member", normally in the "immediate family" but sometimes in the "true family". It is easily the same use that Paul had, only that Paul in his letters to fellow believers obviously used "brother" more for "true family". Also the fact that Paul used "ου παντες οι εξ ισραηλ ουτοι ισραηλ" in Rom 9:6 without using any qualifying "κατα σαρκα" for the first "ισραηλ" shows that he did not dogmatically qualify every word that he used, so likewise the unqualified nouns in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 9:5 do not imply something different from "brother according to flesh", just as the first "ισραηλ" in Rom 9:6 does not imply something different from "τον ισραηλ κατα σαρκα" in 1 Cor 10:18.
The phrase ου παντες οι εξ ισραηλ ουτοι ισραηλ itself is making the distinction, which he enunciates clearly as the passage develops. Israel is not something that he commonly talks about, not a frequent idiosyncratic Pauline term, so he is arguing the issue, getting to τα τεκνα της σαρκος against τα τεκνα της επαγγελιας. He doesn't need to argue his usage of brother. It is clearly established.
0 x

Locked

Return to “Grammar Questions”