Jeffrey Gibson

It seems that the fundamental presupposition of your claim about the meaning of κατὰ σάρκα is that the preposition κατὰ, let alone κατὰ when used as it is in Rom 1:3 with the accusative, was used by first century Greek speakers/writers to signify "in".

Do you know for a fact -- i.e, based upon lexical evidence or a consultation with standard Classical and Koine Greek grammars -- that this was the case?

One also wonders whether you''ve actually investigated in the appropriate reference works what both σπέρμα and the expression ἐκ (τοῦ) σπέρματος was used to signify.

You certainly haven't taken into consideration the data on this matter that appears in 4 Macc 18:1; Ps.-Phoc. 18; Jos., Ant. 8, 200; as well as Aeschyl.; Soph., Trach. 1147; Eur., Med. 669 or in the LXX, and in Lk 1:55 ( τῷ Ἀβραὰμ καὶ τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ) let alone in J 8:33, 37; Ac 7:5, 6 (Gen 15:13); 13:23; Ro 4:13; 11:1; 2 Cor 11:22; Hb 2:16; 11:18 (Gen 21:12); 1 Cl 10:4-6 (Gen 13:15f; 15:5); 16:11 (Is 53:10); 32:2 (cf. Gen 22:17); 56:14 (Job 5:25); B 3:3 (Is 58:7); Hv 2, 2, 2; s 9, 24, 4.

Jeffrey

avi

Thank you Toto, I appreciate your reply, yes, I know there are currently a couple of threads relating to Earl's book, and I first encountered this passage, Romans 1:3, as a consequence of struggling to understand Doherty's new book.

His book is really WAY over my head. I am just too simple minded to comprehend most of his arguments...

For me, Aristotle employed "kata sarka" to mean, quite literally, "flesh", and that's how I think of it. Sarcomere, a unit of muscle, sarcolemma, a muscle cell membrane. The sarka part, is, to me, very clear. kata, well, not so clear. I see some wiggle room there.

What I do not see, is any need to resort to "other dimensions in time or space". I am simply disinterested in such gossip....I think "kata sarka", 2000 years ago, was a kind of buzz word, which most educated people understood, connoting something like "Real McCoy", or "the genuine article". I don't imagine that, upon hearing it, most people would suppose the narrator was discussing a parallel universe, although, if one has several hundred year old, flying mummies, landing precariously, just in the knick of time, to impregnate unsuspecting teenagers, well, who knows what the folks back then believed?

avi

Jeffrey Gibson

If you'd take the time to look in BDAG and LSJ, and TDNT, as well as in some critical commentaries on the Greek text of Romans (say, by Sanday and A.C. Headlam, Cranfield, Dunn, Fitzmeyer and especially Jewett), you'd see that "most educated people" as well as others took it (and used it), when applying it, as is done in Rom 1:3, to a person as in reference to a pareson ito mean "with respect to, in relation to, one's human descent" -- one's ancestral lineage. See, e,g. Hdt. 7, 148; Diod. S. 1, 10, 73; Aelian, V. H. 2, 20; PEleph. 13, 3; POxy. 120, 14; Tob 10:9; 1 Esdr 9:17; 2 Macc 3:40; 9:3.


Jeffrey

avi

Thank you Jeffrey, both for your comment, your question, and your references. Much appreciated.

In an earlier post, I had listed your excellent list of Greek sources which included "Kata Sarka", displayed on Ben's remarkable web site.

Thanks for that. It helped me, a lot.

To answer your first question. NO. I have absolutely no facts, whatsoever, on any topic. I was not even aware that Kata represented a preposition. I suspect that even with English, I am unqualified to identify or distinguish preps from other parts of speech.

Here's my point: The Greek text, to my way of thinking, unless you disagree, points to DAVID, not Jesus, with respect to "kata sarka", regardless of how one should, ought, or must translate "kata sarka". If I have erred on this fundamental point, Jeffrey, please don't be shy to tell me so....I don't know one preposition from another, but I believe, like most ignorant fanatics, with an urgent, unrelenting grip, that "kata sarka" in Romans 1:3, refers to DAVID, rather than Jesus.

Point number 2:
Thank you for these references, I would like to examine them.

Your idea, or perhaps better, your summation of that elegant collection of scholarly references above:

"with respect to, in relation to, one's human descent"

is, in my opinion, wrong. You are discussing, I believe, not "kata sarka", but rather, "spermatoV". I am aware of the NUMEROUS forces arrayed against me, all of them writing that "spermatos" refers NOT to sperm, but rather to descendants. I disagree. I see no rationale for including "kata sarka", except in the context of this being DAVID'S own sperm. If you want to insist that "spermatos" translates as "descendants", then, why bother with "kata sarka"? Won't you obtain precisely the same meaning, i.e. Jesus predecessors were descendants of David, (not Jesus is a son of David), WITHOUT "Kata Sarka"?

Point number 3, coming again from Earl's book, and your earlier comment, on another thread, concerning Galatians 4:4
ote de hlqen to plhrwma tou cronou exapesteilen o qeoV ton uion autou genomenon ek gunaikoV genomenon upo nomon
Why would Jesus' birth be in accord with the law, unless Mary had obeyed all of the Jewish rules regarding sexual conduct, including ordinary intercourse, conducted the usual, "lawful" way?

Thanks again, Jeffrey, for your comments, and questions, always appreciated, and very appropriate, as typical of your oft-observed, meticulous, and scholarly expertise....

avi

Jeffrey Gibson

Why Aristotle (4th cent BCE) is relevant to Rom. 1:3 is beyond me. But FYI, here are the Aristotlean texts in which he e,ploys the expression



I'd be grateful if you could show me how your claim that "Aristotle employed κατὰ σάρκα to mean, quite literally, "flesh"" is born out by them.


Jeffrey

ApostateAbe

This link is a list of verses in the New Testament that use the word σπέρμα.

http://concordance.biblos.com/sperma.htm

It is translated as either "seed" or "children." I think the traditional translation of "descendant" is pretty good. The same word is used for "descendants" in Romans 9:7.

nor are they all children because they are Abraham's descendants, but: "THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED."

Jeffrey Gibson

Unfortunately, this link does not list the Genitive form of the noun. More importantly, to gain a good sense of the actual meaning of the term, we need to look at its usage outside the NT.

Jeffrey

ApostateAbe

OK, why is looking outside the New Testament necessary? Do you think maybe the Christians had their own special meanings of words?

Jeffrey Gibson

It's to avoid thinking so that we must look outside and to see just what the terms semantic range actually was. Besides that the term in question is not something drawn from a specific "Christian" vocabulary -- as if there was any unified such thing when Paul wrote.

Jeffrey

ApostateAbe

OK. My normal method, when there is doubt about a definition, is to look inside the same set of writings for other contexts where the same word is used and to choose a definition (or set of definitions) that generally fits all usages of the word. I figure that different people have different tendencies for definitions of words, or they have variations in spelling.