Rick Sumner

The discussion about what kata sarka means.

That was my initial claim, yes.

That's about the size of it.

Ultimately I don't think any textual evidence can truly compel either conclusion, unless it is utterly explicit. Preferably notarized. To reuse an earlier description, it's a literary equivalent to Rorschach's inkblots--what you see is a reflection of self.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Once again, we are forced to wait for some desert-dwelling shepherd to discover an urn full of scrolls, not tear them apart to increase sales, and sell them to bonafide scholars rather than the highest bidder. Crap.

What about the arguments external to Doherty's book to which you referred? They are better but, in your opinion, still don't offer a compelling argument favoring "his" interpretation? Who are they, by the way?

Toto

I have received this from Earl Doherty:

Rick Sumner

Fair enough. But there is a distinction between "calling [someone] to task" and issuing charges of egregious dishonesty. The former is a question of what is being said, the latter is ad hominem. To suggest immediately that such an oversight is "dishonest" and intentional is uncharitable invective. By definition this is true.

As above. It is, by definition, uncharitable invective, not because you "voiced criticism," but because of the manner in which that criticism was voiced.

The charge of rhetoric has nothing to do with said invective (though invective is, ultimately, rhetorical as well). The charge of rhetoric occured when responses were created to accord color, rather than offer substantiative response to what was said--for example, colorful (and inaccurate) descriptions of the term "semantic range." It isn't smoke, it isn't vague, and my initial statement (which Doherty denied) was wholly accurate ("One translation. . .one meaning.") Words with "one translation and one meaning" have no semantic range, and despite his immediate knee-jerk denial, Doherty is saying exactly what I suggested he was at the outset.

If he didn't know what the phrase meant (and he was clearly misunderstanding what was being said, else he wouldn't have vehemently denied stating that kata sarka had no semantic range, and then state the same a short post later), he should have asked. What he did instead was reply with rhetoric.

Were I an apologist, I might be concerned with what apologists do. As it is, I'm not even Christian.

Your suspicion that you were the brunt of "dishonest attacks," is perhaps justified, if poorly handled. The only person who has issued ad hominem attacks in our present exchange, however, is you.

Physician, heal thyself.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Editted to add:
Lest someone take the rhetorical approach, and point out that Doherty said that it was "one possible translation" and "one possible meaning" (my misquote, apologies), this makes no difference to what is being said. Doherty is suggesting that it always should be translated as such, and always has that possible meaning. If he is correct, then the phrase has no semantic range.

Rick Sumner

I think it's "compelling" enough that the verdict can justifiably be called still out.

Who? Or what? In the former, I'm afraid I've discussed this too many times, on too many forums, to remember who said what and when. I'm sure some Googling could turn something up, if need be.

For an example of one, why does Clement in 1Clem 32:2 feel compelled to describe Jesus, and only Jesus as of Jacob kata sarka? It would seem reasonable to suggest that he's telling us something about Jesus that he isn't saying about the priests, Levites, and the rulers of Judah. What would that something be? Surely not that Jesus is descended from Jacob but the remainder aren't, unless I am to presume that Clement hadn't read Genesis? (On the flip side of that, it could also be argued that there is continuity between Jesus and the remainder of Clement's list, giving weight to the suggestion that kata sarka here refers to literal lineage. It's a passage Doherty shouldn't have failed to discuss).

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I am interested in the others you suggested made a better argument than Doherty. I had thought you meant published scholars rather than discussions in a different forum.

I've just reread this entire thread and he seems to me to repeatedly say the opposite.

"I have never claimed that my interpretation of _kata sarka_ (or at least, certain specific occurrences) is a "necessary" one, as Carrier points out."

He acknowledges that the phrase has multiple interpretations but goes on to argue that the one he identifies makes more sense than the orthodox or typical interpretation. Carrier agrees that this interpretation is "barely intelligible".

This, IMO, is an excellent question that I would love to have Doherty address. It addresses something that he does claim about his interpretation:

"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)."

Vorkosigan

32. If any man will consider them one by one in sincerity, he shall understand the magnificence of the gifts that are given by Him. For of Jacob are all the priests and levites who minister unto the altar of God; of him is the Lord Jesus as concerning the flesh; of him are kings and rulers and governors in the line of Judah; yea, and the rest of his tribes are held in no small honour, seeing that God promised saying, Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven. (Lightfoot)

Hmmm...Roberts-Donaldson does not have "jacob". Is there a problem with the Greek?

Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, "Your seed shall be as the stars of heaven." (R-D)

Greek
1) VEa,n tij kaqV e]n e[kaston eivlikrinw/j katanoh,sh|/( evpignw,setai megalei/a tw/n u`pV auvtou/ dedome,nwn dwrew/n
2) evx auvtou/ ga.r i`erei/j kai. leui/tai pa,ntej oi` leitourgou/ntej tw|/ qusiathri,w| tou/ Qeou/\ evx auvtou/ o` Ku,rioj VIhsou/j to. kata. sa,rka\ evx auvtou/ basilei/j kai. a;rcontej kai. h`gou,menoi( kata. to.n VIou,dan\ ta. de. loipa. skh/ptra auvtou/ ouvk evn mikra|/ do,xh| u`pa,rcousin( w`j evpaggeilame,nou tou/ Qeou/ o[ti :Estai to. spe.rma sou w`j oi` avste,rej tou/ ouvranou/)

Rick Sumner

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Doherty is suggesting that, while other interpretations are possible, they are nonetheless incorrect in the end, because his reading is correct. He is not entirely omitting the possibility that he is wrong, but he is demanding a consistency to the phrase--he is suggesting that, if his translation is accurate, it should always be read the same way (hence his wondering about clear uses of it referring directly to flesh, and his suggestion that "sphere of the flesh" has only one possible meaning. If it has only one possible meaning, and it is a translation that should be employed consistently, then it has no semantic range). He is, I suggest, quite incorrect. Cicero's eye being perhaps the most clear-cut example.

Editted to add: For what it's worth, I wholeheartedly agree that in a sizable number of instances it is incorrect to follow the "orthodox" reading, particularly, as noted above, when dealing with Paul's usual employment of the flesh/spirit dichotomy. He isn't comparing literal flesh with spirit, and it's nonsensical to read him as doing so. I think "sphere of the flesh" works just dandy, as long as we aren't too rigid in ascertaining what that "sphere" is. I would suggest that sometimes we can think of it as the sphere in which humanity lives, while other times it's humanity (or more specifically, humans) itself.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Lightfoot (the translation I used) drops the pronoun in favor of the name it refers to. Roberts-Donaldson correctly follows the Greek. Jacob's name appears in 31:4.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I don't think that is an accurate description of either his or Carrier's position. They both seem to me to be saying that the "orthodox" interpretation makes no sense regardless of whether Doherty's is correct. The starting point, therefore, is that the "true meaning" is unknown. Doherty then steps in, applies one interpretation and argues that it makes more sense. At the very least, it does not have the apparently obvious problems of a consistent use of the orthrodox interpretation.

Where is a "clear" use of it referring "directly to flesh"? Doesn't that statement require that we assume only one possible meaning? I admit that my understanding depends on Carrier's explanation but I thought it was agreed that this particular phrase is too ambiguous to ever "clearly refer directly to flesh" in any context.

I don't understand why it is flawed for Doherty to consistently interpret a vague phrase in the context of early Christian references to the pre-crucifixion Jesus.

This seems to me to confuse the existence of the word on its own and within a specific context. It apparently has a fairly substantial semantic range without context but, according to Doherty's argument, the context of early Christian reference to the pre-crucifixion Jesus involves only one aspect of that semantic range. For the word to have any meaning in any given context, the semantic range must be necessarily reduced. Attempting to identify a specific meaning being doesn't deny that the phrase has more potential.