I notice too late that I gave Charles' duchy to John. My apologies to both.
Brainache
I don't know about Greek, but if Peter was also a "Brother Of The Lord" in English it should read: "Peter and James, the Brothers of the Lord"
Why should it? John and Charles are both Dukes, but I would generally not call Charles a Duke because he also holds a higher rank, so much higher that my reader might sometimes know to whom I referring without my mentioning any of his ranks at all.
Suppose that the example sentence appears in a story about two times I had met Prince Charles in London, leading up to a climactic third time when I publicly humiliated him in Akron, Ohio. The reader would, presumably, have a pretty good idea which Charles I was talking about, whenever his name appeared, what with him being the only Charles in the story and the point of the story being what a BFD I am for having slapped a really big big shot around.
Craig B
If James had a title "Brother of The Lord" and it meant "Brother in religious affiliation" then Peter and the others were also entitled to it, but are not addressed by Paul in that way.
And I don't see any relationship between that remark and anything I have argued.
I propose that "Brother of the Lord" is a noun phrase, in response to another poster's note that grammar needs to be examined. OK, game on. The meaning of a noun phrase is not necessarily or even by default determined by other ways any of its constituent nouns is used elsewhere. So, neither "one of the family members of Jesus" nor "brother in religious affiliation" is obligatory.
Paul uses the phrase twice, once in the singular, for James, and once in the plural, for some of the people whose wives travel with them. Peter is mentioned separarely on both occasions, and on neither occasion is there plausible concern that the reader would be at sea as to which 'Rocky' is meant. It does not follow that Peter is not a Brother of the Lord.
In examining whether or not he is, we may consider that 'Rocky' is already an epithet. This Rocky also holds another title from Paul, Apostle to the Jews, which nobody else does. Since that title is parallel to and complementary with a title Paul grants himself, Apostle to the Gentiles, then we may consider whether apostle with portfolio trumps any other kind of apostle for Paul.
If so, then like any author, Paul mightn't mention a lower rank held by an already unambiguously identifiable Peter, although he might mention the highest rank held by others who come up.
If there were lots of princes of Wales,
On information and belief, there are other princes besides Charles, just as Peter was not the only apostle with portfolio. There is no failure of parallelism to mention that of which Charles is the prince in explanatory matter, since no title at all appears in the example, just as with Peter.
He is also Lord High Steward of Scotland. But not Scottish. So what?
So, knowing the meanings of the individual words that appear in a noun phrase is sometimes uninformative, and can possibly be misleading, about the meaning of a noun phrase.
Thank you for that additional example. Finally, was there some error in Mr Bevin's discourse? If not,. then he seems to provide us a third example, one suggesting that what we can say of noun phrases generally is especially likely to be true of titles - that the whole phrase may be different in kind from the parts.
For a point you have professed not to grasp, you have furnished two fine examples of it.
