Rick Sumner

You're still missing the point. Doherty reads kata sarka exactly the same way every time he sees it. A word/phrase that is read the same way in all contexts has no semantic range. That he allows that it is not impossible that another interpretation is correct is irrelevant to that. From Doherty's standpoint (that it is read the same way in all instances), it has no semantic range.

Cicero and the eyes?

Not at all. If I say we played a "set of tennis," it is a clear use of the term "set" in the context of a game of tennis. If I say that I "set it down in writing," it is a clear use of it to refer to writing something down. Both of these uses are a part of "set"'s semantic range (set, incidentally, has the broadest semantic range in the English language, just for some useless trivia).

This is agreed. By all parties, myself included. I suspect it does, because prima facie that's what it says, but "clearly"? Nah. But the problem is that in some instances it is clearly "sphere of the flesh" in the sense Doherty uses the term, and in other instances it seems pretty clear to me that it is a much more restricted term. Doherty favors the former in all instances (no semantic range), I favor the former in some and the latter in others (semantic range).

See above, as this statement (as those snipped below) is still misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Within the same context (ie early Christian texts), yes. There does not appear to be anything inherently flawed with that since it is entirely possible that a group sharing beliefs about the pre-crucifixion Jesus would use the term consistently.

The following seems to be his primary position since he states it in several ways throughout:

"It would be nice, as Carrier and others lament, if we could find other usages of such a phrase with my suggested meaning, elsewhere in the literature of the time. But this phraseology just might be unique to the early Christian milieu..."

but, I think, you are focusing on this single statement or, more specifically, the phrase I have given in bold:

"Not only is the mythicist interpretation of _kata sarka_ "consistent with" the going philosophical and cosmological trends of thought, it is the only interpretation that fits and complements all the other expressions (and silences) we find in the early documents and in the wider world outside them. One might call it an argument to the best explanation (ABE)."

Even if we assume that this phrase is untrue, it really doesn't change Doherty's argument.

I'm not sure that even qualifies as "the wider world outside them" but it certainly isn't part of the more relevant early Christian context.

Are these other instances in the context of early Christian texts?

flippant

Well, my question I think was misunderstood....I'm aware of perseus (nice tool) but my question is how to communicate on this web-site with greek letters? Oh my, my ability to confuse other people astounds even me sometimes.

Andio,
Flippant

Mathetes

In relation with the Clement quote, I found something odd.

The Greek quote that Vorkosigan posted follows the J. B. Lightfoot text in Kirby's site, as well as the English translations there.

However, for some reason the same text in CCEL omits the Jesus reference (there is no "�?ξ α�?τοῦ �? Κύ�?ιος Ἰησους τὸ κατὰ σά�?κα").

The text there is supposed to be based on the Apostolic Fathers book in the Loeb Classical Library. I wonder if someone around here could check it for us.

Haran

Sure. The Greek phrase you mentioned is in the LCL edition of 1 Clement, as it sits before me.

It looks to me as if the omission was a case of homoioarcton on the part of the person who entered the Greek text for CCEL. Amazing how such a thing still happens today!

Vorkosigan

:d

Mathetes

Or a case of underpaid intern?

Doesn't surprise me much. Lately I've been reading Clement and Hermas in that website and I've noticed a number of errors. I guess I should just go ahead and buy the book.

Peter Kirby

Actually, I learned a bit from copying the Greek of the Gospel of Peter when I knew just about no Greek. I both started a line over again and skipped over sections. Some scribes were, also, barely literate in the Greek language.

best,
Peter Kirby

Rick Sumner

That's not how context works. The group using a phrase is a factor one considers, but it certainly isn't primary--that a group uses it a certain way in no way precludes them from using it other ways.

I told you where I got it from, Doherty's comments on the JM list, many moons ago.

It's not more relevant by fiat, and you've provided nothing but. Cartman on South Park says "sweet" when he means "good." Does that mean that Cartman on South Park can never say "sweet" when he means "sweet?" Who is saying it is a secondary concern.

That's rather what's being debated, isn't it? Are any of them flagrant, such as Cicero's eyes? No. Yet it's also seldom used to describe characteristics where we might expect it to refer to actual flesh, so we can't garner much from that, particularly given that the instances where it does are exactly the instances under discussion--your question is a loaded one.

Just for curiousity's sake, fully allowing Doherty's reading--that he is exactly correct in what the term means in this instance, what exactly can we discern? Doesn't the virgin birth rather preclude a literal descendency anyway, and shouldn't we expect an early Christian, attempting to reconcile the virgin birth with the Davidic requirement of the Messiah to find some loophole to get around the apparent contradiction?

Wouldn't the "sphere of the flesh" be a dandy loophole for such use (and wouldn't the need to reconcile the two account for. . .well, pretty well every instance, and rather preclude that conclusion Doherty draws from his reading of kata sarka? It seems undeniable that that's why Ignatius uses the term in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans, for example. It handily accounts for Clement, and what he is telling us about Jesus that he isn't telling us about everyone else--Jesus wasn't really of the seed of David, he only was in the "sphere of the flesh.")

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

I had this argument lined up when I asked about Clement above, but hadn't really thought it through. There are at least two instances where we can state with a fairly high degree of probability what is going on--an apologetic for the virgin birth. The first, already noted, is Ignatius. The second is Acts.2.30, which cannot possibly (despite myself above) refer to a literal descendency--Luke wrote a long narrative about Jesus' miraculous birth, even noting that "it was thought" he was the son of Joseph, though he wasn't really. Both of these are using "sphere of the flesh" to refer to the human world, not a literal descent.

I noted above that others have stepped up to compensate for Doherty's lack of argumentation regarding this phrase, and done a better job of it. For what my own biased opinion is worth , I think I can add myself to that list, because Doherty is right. Kata sarka is an apologetic, attempting to reconcile a Davidic requirement with a Davidic birth that never happened. As to what that implies, I'll have to mull it over a bit more. I may have just convinced myself that Paul believed in the virgin birth (which would have interesting ramifications for my stance on the Two Source Hypothesis. . .it also works spiffy with "born of a woman". . .). More likely I've just further compounded my belief that it's an unanswerable question, solved only by predilection.

Regards,
Rick Sumner