S.C.Carlson

The phrase KATA SARKA ("according to the flesh" or "in the sphere of the flesh") is found several times before Paul, including in Plato's student, Aristotle. In Aristotle's History of Animals, Book III, this phrase shows up three times in close proximity (trans. D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson):

Part 16

Flesh, and that which is by nature akin to it in sanguineous animals, is in all cases situated in between the skin and the bone, or the substance analogous to bone; for just as spine is a counterpart of bone, so is the flesh-like substance of animals that are constructed a spinous system the counterpart of the flesh of animals constructed on an osseous one.

Flesh can be divided asunder in any direction, not lengthwise only as is the case with sinew and vein. When animals are subjected to emaciation the flesh disappears, and the creatures become a mass of veins and fibres; when they are over fed, fat takes the place of flesh. Where the flesh is abundant in an animal, its veins are somewhat small and the blood abnormally red; the viscera also and the stomach are diminutive; whereas with animals whose veins are large the blood is somewhat black, the viscera and the stomach are large, and the flesh is somewhat scanty. And animals with small stomachs are disposed to take on flesh (GINONTAI DE KATA SARKA).

The use of the same verb GINOMAI in conjunction with KATA SARKA should be compared to Romans 1:3 TOU GENOMENOU EK SPERMATOS DAUID KATA SARKA, usually translated "who was descended from David according to the flesh" (NRSV)

In the very next part, the phrase KATA SARKA appears twice more:

Part 17

Again, fat and suet differ from one another. . . .

Of the viscera the liver in some animals becomes fatty, as, among fishes, is the case with the selachia, by the melting of whose livers an oil is manufactured. These cartilaginous fish themselves have no free fat at all in connexion with the flesh (KATA SARKA) or with the stomach. The suet in fish is fatty, and does not solidify or congeal. All animals are furnished with fat, either intermingled with their flesh (KATA SARKA), or apart. Such as have no free or separate fat are less fat than others in stomach and omentum, as the eel; for it has only a scanty supply of suet about the omentum. Most animals take on fat in the belly, especially such animals as are little in motion.

The phrase is also found with a similar meaning in Aristotle's On the Parts of Animals and twice in Problemata as well as in his successor, the biologist Theophrastus (Frag. 7.6).

The phrase occurs three times in Epicurus (4th/3rd cen. BC) as well. One of them is his Principal Doctrines 4:

4. Continuous bodily pain does not last long; instead, pain, if extreme, is present a very short time, and even that degree of pain which slightly exceeds bodily (KATA SARKA) pleasure does not last for many days at once. Diseases of long duration allow an excess of bodily pleasure over pain.

More grist for the mill as they say,

Stephen

Amaleq13

So a better translation would be "who was descended from David to take on flesh"?

Clivedurdle

It sounds like Paul is using this one - to descibe the intermingling, not this time of fat and flesh, but spirit and flesh. So it is a theological term that in Paul's perspective was actually biological - all he was doing was making spirit clearly part of nature - which I understand to be the standard definition of incarnation.

When did flesh take on the idiom of living? Aristotle is talking about a clearly defined part of living structures. Holy Spirit has the more direct link to life.

Is the New Testament an attempt at a new biology intermingling the air and the earth, with as I stated earlier, water and fire? The catalyst to do this is some classic alchemy about sacrificing spotless lambs, drinking blood and eating flesh. The proof of the sucess of the alchemy is the resurection from the dead. OK I give in, xianity did invent science!

jgibson000

No. The syntax of the the Greek here cannot be taken as expressing purpose.

A better "translation" would be "with respect to (the question of) his ancestry: from David". See J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans.

Jeffrey

Clivedurdle

Is the classic structure of the duomo, (italian cathedrals), evidence that xianity is a religion of the four elements?

The new believer is first baptised in water in the Baptistry, they live their life taking communion - bread of earth is turned into the spiritual flesh of Christ, when they die they go up the campanile - leaning tower of Pisa to get nearer the air of heaven where the fire is. Interesting that fire does not seem to be a part of the sacraments and has been relegated to hell - I wonder why.

(or has fire become light? - I am the light of the world)

S.C.Carlson

More like "descended from David, taking on flesh," but this is translating the participle GENOMENOU twice. The "descended" in the NRSV translation is really a rendering of GENOMENOU EX SPERMATOS. If one wants to construe the participle only once, with KATA SARKA in Thompson's fashion, it could also be rendered something like "who took on flesh from the seed (or ancestry) of David."

But I wouldn't quite endorse that possible rendering because the emphasis is in the wrong place. The interposing of EK SPERMATOS DAUID emphasizes, not so much that Jesus was born (which did not really distinguish him from other Messiah claimants), but had the ancestry of David (i.e. born with the right lineage for a true Messiah). Taking on flesh is something inherent in having the right Messianic lineage.

Stephen

jgibson000

Isn't the Duomo a name for a particular Italian Cathedral, not the designation used for all Cathedrals found in Italy?

Jeffrey

rlogan

My first observation is that a book telling me how to skin an animal is not the place to be looking for assistance in what someone means when they use the term "getting under my skin".

This is the trouble with a blind word search devoid of context.

Yes, when people are actually talking about skin then they will use the word skin. They don't have much choice. So do we then adopt that literal meaning when someone says "skin deep" or "skin tight" or that someone is "skinny" or is "thin skinned" or asking what is the "skinny" with the cute girl and etc. ?


Can we find instances of "Kata Sarka" that mean something literal about skin? Well - probably so.

From a butcher talking about his trade. But that isn't what a painter making a portrait means. Or a mathemetician talking about the flesh of an argument and etc.

Clivedurdle

Possibly, but what about my second comment that xianity feels like a religion of the four elements - Many churches have this tripartite structure - font, nave and tower. In Italy, they are separate buildings in the cathedrals.

Just googled - duomo is cathedral. Not just Florence.

jgibson000

Maybe not. But what some one means by "getting under my skin" was not what we were looking for in the first place, now was it?

.

I'd say rather, that that's the trouble with engaging in equivocation.


And from a lot of other places as well, especially in the medical writers.

But the issue isn't whether we can find anyone anywhere using KATA SARKA to talk about "skin". It is what KATA SARKA means in the context of TOU GENOMENON EK SPERMATOS DAUID

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to tell me something? Before you make the claims that you do about what Greeks meant by the words they used and whether or not what they meant by those words really is as dissimiiiar in meaning to their English equivalents, do you ever consult relevant reference works (e.g, Lexicons of Clasical and Koine Greek) and test your claims against what can be found there?

But since no one said it was, aren't you here arguing against an irrelvant thesis?

In fact, just what is your point?

Jeffrey