Haran

I am "yet to respond" because I am no longer on vacation and am very busy with little time for online debate.

Anyway, as I think I stated before, I am not completely familiar with the argument that Doherty is trying to make with respect to the word kata. Even with the possible definitions given by Carrier there seems only a minute semantical difference. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible), it seems that since kata sarka can definitely refer to physical, "pinchable" flesh and possibly also to some "non-corporeal (?) body in another realm", only context could tell us which type of flesh is being referenced. What test would you propose to distinguish between the two in context?

If this is not the case, then please explain more thoroughly the difference that you find between the kata sarka of physical, "pinchable" flesh and the kata sarka of "another realm". Surely you are not saying that kata sarka always refers to this "other realm" are you? If not, how do you propose we tell the difference in context?

Ok... Let me restate. They appear to me to be stretching long-held definitions and translations. You be the judge of whether they are stretching (though they seem to state so) or whether that stretching is being done to support their theories.

Haran

Just curious.... I thought that very early Greek mythology (of Homer?) contained the idea of multiple levels of heaven and hell (perhaps it is just multiple places in Heaven and Hell...). Is this incorrect?

Map of Homer's Underworld

What post-Christian source do you think the belief is derived from?

Ted Hoffman

There is no "kata sarka of physical, "pinchable" flesh". That is the translation you find (no doubt the translators were influenced by the gospels) but Carrier states that "Even the "usual reading" is barely intelligible in the orthodox sense, especially since on that theory we should expect en sarki instead"

I think Carrier's explanation is adequate:
"The preposition kata with the accusative literally means "down" or "down to" and implies motion, usually over or through its object, hence it literally reads "down through flesh" or "down to flesh" or even "towards flesh." It very frequently, by extension, means "at" or "in the region of," and this is how Doherty reads it."

Answered above. First, kata means "down to".
"Down to" implies there is motion from an upper sphere or realm as we find in Ascension of Isaiah. This is also consistent with the Phillipians passage where an unnamed god descends to earth, undergoes suffering and is honored by being called "Jesus".

In the Pauline epistles, kata sarka always means "in the sphere of the flesh". In John, it can have other meanings.

andrewcriddle

IMHO the multiple locations in Heaven and Hell are not really relevant
I need to check one or two things before giving a proper reply.

Andrew Criddle

AgeOfReason

I'm in my second quarter of Attic Greek at UChicago. I should be reasonably proficient in it by June. I can also work out some Koine -- we actually did some of Luke in class right before winter break.

flippant

I've been studying modern and ancient on my spare time. According to the local greeks I'm doing very well on my own. The online Perseus look-up tool has been useful. Still trying to translate Xenophons Anabasis, and The Symposium. I'm finding sexually based mistranslations all over the place. But I'm no expert. Yet.

Toto

Are you using textbooks or a web based tutorial?

CX

Carrier's choice of definitions for KATA is rather too convenient to his argument. KATA is a preposition whose meaning depends on case and position in a clause. He does not discuss any of this nor descibe the particular usages where KATA SARKA occurs. But simply states by fiat that it means "Down" or "Down to". That is one of 8 or more possible definitions and that particular one needs to be defended. Most reaonable scholars secular and Xian would translate KATA in the cases in question as "according to". This is rather ambiguous since it is probably a question of common usage in the period. But it does not so strongly support the argument that KATA SARKA is evidence of descent into the sublunar realm or any other such goofy idea.

CX

Says who? In the accusative case KATA has no fewer than 7 possible interpretations none of which is "Down to" which comes from the genitive. It can be "of motion downwards...'down stream'", but it can mean quite a few other things including against, after, according to, concerning, throughout, in the course of, about....and so on. The decision as to which is the correct interpretation is highly subjective and choosing "down" and then shoehorning it into some notion of spheres of existence etc. is disingenuous and completely ad hoc.

andrewcriddle

Here goes (I emphasise this is what I think not what I claim can be proved.)

The type of idea of multiple layers (typically seven) of heavens such as we find in the AoI seems to involve several different ideas.

On the one hand it involves a non-literal interpretation of the seven days of creation in Genesis in which they are not regrded as literal periods of time but as pointing to some spiritual reality. We find an early example of this in Philo of Alexandria in the early 1st century CE.

On the other it presuppose the astrological seven day week in which each of the seven days corresponds to one of the seven planets (ie the five visible planets plus the Sun and Moon) This was invented probably in the late 1st century BCE but possibly in the early 1st century CE. This astrological week seems to have been originally independent of the Jewish seven day week but, to someone familiar with both, interpretation of one in terms of the other would come naturally.

These ideas developed in a context of an increased tendency to postulate intermediate layers between God and man and increased concern about potentially hostile heavenly powers. This context is part of the broad developments from the very late 1st century CE onwards that are referred to as gnosticism, hermeticism, merkabah mysticism, theurgy etc.

Andrew Criddle