Ecrasez L'infame

I like a good punch-up as much as the next Infidel, but we're supposed to be working here. How are I going to separate the useful stuff on this thread (of which there is much) from the squabbling (of which there is many times more) for my notes? Three pages ago I was hoping Carrier himself would make an appearance; now I hope he doesn't - it would only prolong this squalid mud-wrestling. Mr Gibson - make your point or move on.

What's most upsetting is that this is a vitally important point - possibly the key point currently in discussion.

Regards

Robert

Richard Carrier

Just getting back from vacation, I was asked to weigh in here. I'm not going to address anything in this thread except the charges leveled at me. Unfortunately, I don't have much time for forum debates.

I'm not clear what it is that Gibson is claiming about me. He seems to accuse me of either incompetence or deliberate deception, though even that much is unclear, as are his grounds for making either accusation.

I'll address the charges themselves first. I assure everyone I did not deliberately engage any effort to deceive or "cook" the case in favor of Doherty--indeed, I was notably intellectually hostile to Doherty's theory and was actually forced by the evidence to rethink that opposition. I was certainly in no mood to fabricate evidence in his support, and did not. As to my alleged incompetence, I am not sure I recognize any evidence of that presented here. And as far as I can tell, no one here, Gibson included, has anywhere near my experience in this field: two years reading and translation instruction at UC Berkeley (including a semester in Biblical Greek), one year of papyrology under Roger Bagnall at Columbia University (one of the top papyrologists in the world), which involved (among other things) extensive first-hand experience in the Koine dialect as it was written in documents and correspondence, especially from the 1st century BC to the 2nd century AD, one year of course work combining ancient Greek linguistics (etymology, morphology, phonology, dialects) and Greek manuscripts and palaeography (reading literary manuscripts and completing critical textual analysis thereof), and three years specialized personal training at Columbia University in translating a variety of Koine authors (from Josephus and Plutarch to Sextus Empiricus and various Church Fathers and more). I also passed the Columbia University Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Translation Competency Exam in ancient Greek. Draw what conclusions you will from that, though I have always said that in assessing historical claims, expertise does matter--a lot.

Now to the claims supposedly supporting these charges. I could not find anywhere what Gibson means by "Carrier's claims about the meaning of KATA are not well informed." Which claims? It isn't clear whether Gibson understands anything I wrote in my Review of Doherty so I am having trouble figuring out just what Gibson thinks I "claimed" there. For example, Gibson claims my "conclusion[s] about what KATA SARKA must mean in Rom 1:3 are both highly contestable and extremely dubious," which is strange, since I never once say anything anywhere about what kata sarka "must" mean. So what is Gibson talking about?

First, Gibson seems to take issue with my statement that "the actual phrase used, kata sarka, is indeed odd if it is supposed to emphasize an earthly sojourn," but I have here put in bold the word Gibson appears to have skipped over, apparently resulting in his misreading the very meaning of the sentence. I never dispute the fact that kata sarka can refer to an earthly sojourn--in fact, I outright say so in my conclusion to the very same paragraph this sentence introduces. Rather, this sentence only says that it is an odd way to emphasize an earthly sojourn. And that is the truth.

In other words, if I wanted to say that God became incarnated on earth, I would say so--and so could Paul have done. It's pretty easy in Greek. A single sentence, a handful of words. I wouldn't avoid ever simply saying it, as Paul did, and instead only refer obliquely to it with obscure phrases like "according to the flesh." What on earth does that phrase even mean? I have years of experience reading Greek and I'm here to tell you, this is a very strange way to say "God became incarnate as a human being on earth." That doesn't mean it can't mean that. But it does mean there's something odd about Paul's choice of wording--what that odd thing is could be what Doherty theorizes, or it could be any number of other things that any historicist might propose (though I can't think of any off the top of my head--but someone here has proposed a possibility, see below).

Amaleq13 clearly understood what I wrote, so it can't be my failure as a writer that is to blame here. As he correctly observes:

Bingo. In contrast to this--which is what I actually claimed (and again, I ask anyone interested in this debate to actually read what I wrote on kata in my Review of Doherty)--I fail to find here any evidence from Gibson of kata sarka that naturally reads as "becoming a human being on earth." The only "evidence" I can find offered here is a passage in Josephus, Wars 2.154, but that only reads as follows:

The phrase from the bonds of the flesh translates twn kata sarka desmwn, which literally means in Greek "from the down-in-the-flesh bonds" hence "from the bonds down in the flesh," which corresponds exactly to the root meaning of kata that I plainly describe in my Review of Doherty. So I don't see how this argues against anything I have said. Josephus still does not choose to describe the incarnation of souls with this phrase, despite describing that very thing (the incarnation of souls) in the preceding sentence. He only uses this phrase to refer to the location of the bonds--the bonds lie in the flesh. Obviously. Yet this would be irrespective of where that flesh was. In contrast, I doubt it would ever have occurred to Josephus to say that human flesh was "on earth" by using the phrase kata sarka, and if he did, I can assure you it would be very unusual in ancient Greek literature.

Which brings us to the last point that seems to have been bantered about here: the silly debate over where I get my information. It has already been masterfully demonstrated in this thread with a clever bit of comparative textual analysis that my primary source is the LSJ, which is indeed the most authoritative lexical reference in ancient Greek (though the 1995 9th edition Supplement should also be consulted, since it contains corrections to the original LSJ, including several for kata, though none that matter here as far as I can see). However, for grammatical reference (and this is very much a grammar question), one absolutely must also consult Smyth's Greek Grammar, the definitive reference work in ancient Greek grammar.

However, consulting references won't ever be enough, since, as others have already pointed out here, range of meaning is not the same thing as common use. Moreover, lexicons and grammars often gloss over changes in meaning or use that evolve over time or by dialect or literary context. And it is indeed here where my mention of "common" uses is based on my extensive personal expertise with the use of the word kata with the accusative case, which I have translated many hundreds of times in my lifetime, from scores of different authors. And in assessing Doherty's claims, here and in other respects, I also ran several searches in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae in an attempt to find any comparable uses of kata sarka, and none seemed relevantly able to refute Doherty's theory (though obviously none prove his theory, either), nor did I find any example of the phrase being used to refer to terrestrial location. It was usually employed as a reference to something lying inside or being attached to a fleshy body, not as a reference to where the flesh itself is located.

Even so, I'm open to hear any citations that clearly employ such a connotation--but that does not mean references where we already assume the flesh in question is on earth, since that assumption comes from the context, not the phrase itself, and that is precisely the point of dispute between Doherty and his critics: the context. The bottom line is that at present, as when I wrote my review, I see nothing to support reading kata sarka as "located on earth" or anything the equivalent. But as I said originally, that does not mean such a phrase doesn't refer to flesh that Paul imagined on earth. I've always said that's possible. The issue is not whether it is possible. The issue is whether that is probable in Paul's case, which requires a full examination of all the relevant evidence.

Finally, one should note that en sarki can also be ambiguous and is employed even in the NT in more than one connotation, but whatever one makes of its range of interpretation, it is notably (and I would say peculiarly) never used of Jesus in the authentic Pauline letters. The closest one gets is Rom. 8:3 which does not say en sarki but en homoiwmati sarkos, which again looks pretty close to what Doherty argues Paul means. However, and I will close with this, some here have speculated that this could mean Paul was actually a Docetic historicist, and that seems plausible enough to test--i.e. that would be an example of an alternative historicist hypothesis as to why Paul chose such odd vocabulary, leaving the question of assessing how these two competing hypotheses fair with the whole range of evidence in a properly crafted ABE, as I explain historicists need to do in my Review of Doherty. I suggest you people get on with doing that, instead of harping on trivial nits snatched from gross misinterpretations of what modern scholars write. Besides, if someone can't even understand modern English, I hold little hope they are going to have any real command of ancient Greek.

S.C.Carlson

Since Richard has responded, this is probably moot, but I'll try anyways.

Since he uses the literally same half-dozen or so definitions in the same order, he either had it open on his desk or a photographic memory. (His reply states that of course he is going to consult the best references.)

I'm not quite sure how Jeffrey's argument is going to unfold, so I'll just have to guess.

One obvious problem is that KATA's sense of "in accordance with" does not have the sense of downward motion. To get there, Carrier has to restate it as: "'(e.g. "according to Euripedes," i.e. "down through, or in the region of Euripedes")'". But none of the 10 instances of KATA EURIPIDHN ("according to Euripides" [note spelling]) supports Carrier's downward motion interpretation.

For example, Polemon uses KATA EURIPIDHN in the context "XXX signifies KATA EURIPIDHN: YYY". "According to Euripides" easily makes sense, but what does "XXX signifies down through Euripides: YYY" or "XXX signifies in the region of Euripides: YYY" possibly mean?

Thus, even if Carrier had cited the full range of meaning of KATA + accusative, one of that that he id cite, the "accordance with" meaning does not provide the needed support for his conclusion that "all of the common meanings of kata with the accusative support Doherty's reading: Jesus descended to and took on the likeness of flesh." The "according to" meaning does not.

Carrier's conclusion "all of the common meanings of kata with the accusative" is also not supported by the uncited common meanings of kata with the accusative. For example, LSJ has a huge section (II.) of KATA+accusative for its distributive sense ("BY clans"; "word BY word"; "one AT A TIME"). KATA in the accusative also means "by the favor of" (V.), "nearly" or "about" (sect. VI), or "during" (section VII). These are all common meanings of KATA and they don't support the "down through" sense that is supposed to be in all the common ones. Granted they don't all work with the noun "flesh," but neither do all senses that Carrier did cite.

The most significant omission, however, is the last section of KATA explaining that it is used periphrastically with an abstract noun to create an abverb: e.g. KATA TAXOS (quickness) = "with quickness, quickly"; KATA KRATOS ("force") = "by force, forcefully"); KATA MEROS (part) = "in part, partially"; KATA THN TEXNHN (skill) = "with skill, skilfully"; KATA FUSIN (nature) = "by nature, naturally"; etc. In none of these is the notion of downward motion present.

(If KATA SARKA falls under this last section, it would mean "fleshly, by flesh, with flesh" In the other thread, I posted a portion from Aristotle where GENOMAI KATA SARKA was translated "take on flesh." Admittedly, the adverb is somewhat vague, which is why you read Barrett and other scholars trying to be more precise.)

There are other issues needing clarification. For example, where does "the likeness" in Carrier's "took on the likeness of flesh" come from? Perhaps, if one had strong evidence showing Paul was otherwise a docetist, one could argue that's what Paul "must" have meant in Rom 1:3, but this unlikely with the adoptionistic following verse.

Another issue is that, in end, Carrier wisely refrained from endorsing Doherty's "in the sublunar sphere of" interpretation based solely on what KATA means.

Stephen

rlogan

Thanks to Richard Carrier on such an important post.

Above I have quoted what I have tried to articulate without any knowlege of Greek.

That a historical piece does not have mysterious gibberish. The HJ crowd wants to "interpret" mysterious gibbereish in a manner that says see - what this means is Jesus is historical.

But I really have to thank Richard here for making the observation that Paul does not say this, and it would be exceptionally easy to do if that were his intent.

Very good point.

One worth repeating. The HJ crowd sometimes likes to draw false conclusions with sleight of hand, and this is a case in point.

I think we can go further with this.

I tried to use an analogy on another thread where Beetle Baily tells the Sarge that he's there "in the flesh" - and it simply means "in person". But it is a comic strip. The "location" is earth, and yet the characters are still fictional.

Which brings us back to the point: Paul does not say Jesus was a living person on earth, period.


A productive venture, for sure.

Amaleq13

I wish I could take this as a compliment indicating tremendous intellect but all it really involved was reading what you wrote.

Go figure.

Amaleq13

I appreciate that you took the time to answer.

Yes, I think Jeffrey has obtained his confirmation that it was a source but he also obtained a denial of his later claim that it was his only source since professional experience with actual texts was also utilized.

It wouldn't be in the sense of how one might refer in English to a tradition "passed down" from one generation to the next?

Wasn't this the meaning he characterized as "barely intelligible"?

From his review of Doherty:

Ted Hoffman

Isnt your argument presuming what its supposed to explain? There is no consensus that Paul used KATA in the sense of "in accordance with"
I dont understand this. What about Odyssey, Iliad etc? I cited the LSJ yesterday thusly:
Indeed. This reminds us of the vigorously presented and valiantly defended argument that a participle is not a verb.

Thanks Richard, for popping in. Always good to have you around :thumbs: .

Clivedurdle

Is it correct to say that Heracles, or the children of the daughters of men and the gods in Genesis or many other god-men figures were incarnated? What would be the correct term for them? How is Jesus's incarnation differently understood by Paul? Is it?

krosero

I’m also thankful for this post by Richard Carrier. He clearly pointed out that KATA SARKA refers to flesh, not the location of the flesh:

The location is taken from the context, which is what TedH and Don debate when they discuss demonology and cosmology:
But I was not aware that HJ scholarship ever translated SARKA as directly signifying the earth. It has always translated SARKA as directly signifying flesh. When HJ scholarship cites Romans 1:3 as evidence for Christ’s earthly sojourn, it is with the implicit or explicit argument that flesh was regarded as existing on the earth, and that it was so regarded except when otherwise specified (as for example, when human beings traveled briefly through the heavens; note Paul’s own journey to the third heaven, which he describes as a journey possibly in the body).

So the question should be whether Paul has chosen a strange way to say whatever he is saying about Christ and flesh, and not whether he has chosen a strange way to say something about Christ and the earth. He has not explicitly mentioned the earth. And what is he trying to say about flesh? What is the context? It is the relationship between Christ and David: “who was born of a descendant of David in the sphere of the flesh,� or TOU GENOMENOU EK SPERMATOS DAVID KATA SARKA.

He seems to be saying that Jesus was a fleshly descendant of David. Has he picked strange words to say THAT?

It’s true, of course, that Paul does not use the simple language of a reporter, or even that of an ancient historian. But historians were not the only ones who wrote about things that happened on earth (or were thought to have happened on the earth). Paul thought that Christ was to be associated with David in the world of flesh, and that Christ was from God in the world of spirit. It was characteristic of Paul to contrast the material world and the spirit world. That he loved to contrast the two should by itself suggest that he was not exclusively and dreamily speaking about invisible things in the spirit world – but I understand that this will be a point of contention here. What I want to know is whether Paul has chosen a strange way to say that a figure whom he thought of as straddling the sphere of God’s throne and the sphere of flesh was, in the latter sphere, to be reckoned as coming from David?

Clivedurdle

But what did flesh and spirit mean? Spirit and air look to me as they might be the same thing. How exactly did people believe they were descended from someone? It wasn't via eggs ans sperm and DNA!

What exactly is this contrast between spirit and flesh about? It sounds like alchemy of the four elements to me!