TedM

Guess what, rlogan? Josephus uses the term "according to the flesh" and it IS talking about humans on earth! Muller discusses this on his site, http://www.geocities.com/b_d_muller/djp1.html , :

Do you still think this is gobbledygook preacher-speak ? Should Doherty or anyone else?

ted

Amaleq13

Looks like it to me. He is describing the beliefs of a religious sect.

TedM

Good one.

Toto

I went back and read what Richard Carrier wrote about Kata Sarka in his revied of Doherty: It occurs to me that this might describe Docetism - the likeness of flesh, without actually being flesh. We have had some disagreements on this board as to whether Docetists are mythicists.

rlogan

Hi Ted.

Happy to look that over, thanks.


Edited to commet:

I see Amaleq13 already answered this, and you responded so I guess that leaves us back where I started.

In the meantime Toto also puy Richard Carrier's analysis in there.

Preacher-speak, yes.

jgibson000

OK. Now, leaving aside the important question of whether any commentator on Rom. 1:3, including Barrett, has ever said that what Paul was "emphasizing" in Rom. 1:3 in his use of KATA SARKA was "an earthly sojurn" on the part of Jesus, and therefore, whether Carrier is here really arguing against an irrelevant thesis (and has not engaged in equivocation):

Let's first compare what Carrier says about KATA with what is said about KATA in the entry on the preposition in LSJ (the online version of which I've quoted below in its entirety) to see if LSJ is the source for what Carrier says about KATA.

If it is – and to my eyes there seems to be more than enough evidence to say without hesitation that it is – then let's ask whether we can escape the conclusion that Carrier is aware of what LSJ says on KATA.

My answer, is no. How could it be othewise?

Let's also note that LSJ says far more about what KATA with the accusative means (literally or otherwise), and shows that the range of "common" meanings for KATA was far greater, than what Carrier says on these matters.

So given this, and given the truth of my claim that that Carrier used LSJ as his source and therefore was aware that there was more data in LSJ on the matters on which he pronounces than he lets on and words his statements to give the impression there is, then let's note that my charges

(a) not only that Carrier is wrong in his claim that " In short, all of the common meanings of kata with the accusative support Doherty's reading" , but

(b) that he has "cooked the evidence" (in the sense of what I have noted "cooked the evidence" means) in making his case

are indeed the case or at least not without warrant.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

I think what needs to be set aside is this bizarre criticism.

If Doherty is wrong, for what other reason than to emphasize the incarnation would Paul assert that Jesus had flesh?

From the Blue Letter Bible:

"according to the flesh--that is, in His human nature (compare Rom 9:5 Jhn 1:14 ); implying, of course, that He had another nature, of which the apostle immediately proceeds to speak."

In other words, Paul's use of the phrase emphasizes his humanity which is in no significant way different from suggesting it emphasizes his "earthly sojourn".

I don't see what is supposed to contradict Carrier. Could you point out what exactly is supposed to establish his alleged cookery?

Toto

I don't see any indication in what you have quoted as to which meanings are most common. I assume from this that Carrier, who has academic credentials in Greek, was supplying his own judgment from his knowledge of what meanings are "common."

Can you supply a dictionary definition of cooked in this sense in which cooked does not refer to fraudulent accounting? If not, please stop using your private language here.

As I said, I have emailed Carrier about this, but he make take a week or so to pick up the email and respond.

Ted Hoffman

Ok. I have vented and enjoyed the carthatic effect. And I think everyone has come to understand each other, even if not necessarily accept or agree with each other. The bad air has been let out. Back to work.
I asked GDon a series of questions. Questions I thought were inane. I asked them just to see how he responds to the kinds of nonsensical questions that mythicists are routinely accosted with by historicists like GDon.
And what do we learn? GDon actually agrees with mythicists - the evidence is out there, plain and clear (Paul, AoI, Plutarch, Plato, Aristotle etc), yet, the historicists keep pelting mythicists with inane questions like "where is the exact location where Christ incarnated?"
What is telling is GDons statement:
Isn't this what I said earlier?

How come that when GDon writes it himself it is okay and when I write it, he asks nonsensical questions about this sphere that demons inhabited?

I guess, historicists are just mythicists in denial. GDon, write your allegedly upcoming paper so that we can vigorously, throroughly and comprehensively dismember it. I dont see much coming out of these board discussions. I see too much grandstanding and empty rhetoric imbuing everything.

And I still await your response to my annihilation of your "Explaining The Silence".

jgibson000

I didnt say anything about which of the various meanings that LSJ noted KATA has are "most common"; I said that LSJ shows that range of "common meanings" for KATA is far greater than Carrier claims there are. Carrier claims that his list of the meanings with which KATA was used are all of the common meanings that KATA possessed. Ain't so.

Fine. But if so, and especially if he does have the credentials you say he has, then, as LSJ shows, his knowldege of what meanings of KATA with the accusive actually are, let alone which ones are and are not "common", isn't what it should be.

But be that as it may, can actually get to and discuss the first question that I raised -- which so far has been avoided -- of whether it's true that Carrier's source for the claims he does make about KATA is the entry on KATA on LSJ?

Yep. From the OED

And even absent this, my definition, which is:

is hardly a private one. Just do a google search on "cooking the evidence" +WMDs and you'll see that the expression is used by others in and with the same sense as I've defined it.

What's his address? I'll e-mail him myself.

Jeffrey