Ted Hoffman

What we refer to as the Platonic worldview, simply put, refers to Plato's celestial|terrestrial dichotomy as we see in Symposium 202e-203a and Timaeus 90. But this cosmogony was only formalized by Aristotle in works like De Caelo. This worldview was the dominant worldview amongst the middle Platonists (the Platonists of the first three centuries). And this is where we find Paul. The middle Platonists "heaven" was not spiritual per se but also had physical entities. We know from Symposium 202e-203a that Plato also envisioned physical intermediary deities that mediated between man and God (daimons). We also know that Paul said that the archotons (demons) killed Jesus (1 Cor.2:8). Indeed, the Roman-period magic entailed binding invisible demons that live in the aer. We also know that Origen and Celsus, believed that these demons are the beings that heathens worshipped, with the former believing that the demons are the servants of the 'prince of this world' and the latter believing that they were God's servants (Origen, Contra Celsum).

In short, The Middle Platonic heavens were a material, physical, even 'fleshly' place, inhabited by actual entities that lived there and moved between them as we see in Paul's trip to the 3rd Heaven in 2 Cor. 12 and in Ascension of Isaiah. The nature of the structural make-up of these demons was not unanimously agreed upon. The understanding of their bodily composition varied based on whether one embraced a stoic, or purely Platonic mindset, just like the nature of the Logos varied between minds. Hellenistic Jews such as Philo and Greek thinkers alike believed God to be transcendent and too spiritual and pure to come in contact with the material and impure world. Stoics, OTOH, believed that humans possessed the reasoning principle that governed the universe as per the mind of God. They called this the logos. Among Platonists, the logos varied between being God’s creative forces and being a divine entity. We find Tatian writing in Address to the Greeks:
Tatian later notes that these demons were like fire or air. But both fire and air are matter: corruptible. Carrier has noted that the "sublunary sphere" was a catch-all phrase referring to the realm of the earth, everything below the orbit of the moon, which had been imagined even since Aristotle as being the realm of change and decay (while from the moon on up was the realm of permanence and indecay--not an implausible conjecture, given Aristotle's correct observation that everything seems static and unchanging from the moon on up, but the sky below was riddled with constantly changing meteorological phenomena--they had not yet figured out that comets, for instance, were above the moon, though they figured this out by Roman times).
The flesh, represented what was corruptible. The realm of the flesh was the sublunary realm. That, my dear GDon, is how the Platonic worldview relates to the flesh. Carrier notes that "The context is the Aristotelian scheme: everything below the orb of the moon is both "in the sphere of the flesh" and, literally, made of flesh. And that obviously includes ordinary people like you and me--though also demons of the aer (Osiris being a clear example, per Plutarch)."

Yes, it is an important issue. Tyler wants me to "demonstrate which sublunary sphere" Jesus incarnated at.
This question exposes Tyler's ignorance of what a sphere is. Per Aristotelian cosmogony, the purpose of the spheres was to rotate and hold the planetary bodies. There being no body between the earth an the moon, the ancients would have had no reason to believe there was another sphere between these two bodies. Recall that I stated earlier that the "sublunary realm" was a catch-all phase for everything below the orbit of the moon, including the earth.
Tyler also wants me to "demonstrate that the term 'sarx' is used to denote the bodily matter of the inhabitants of such a sphere."
I need to clarify something to Tyler here. But I have explained above that sarx denotes a state of being found in certain spheres in Platonic/Aristotelian cosmogony. Lets have a look at The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Friedrich G. (ed.), Translated by Bromiley, G.W. Vol VII (Sigma), 1971, p.126-128
I have indicated above which realm was considered, by the middle Platonists, as consisting of corruptible and impermanent matter. This should answer Tyler's question.
Tyler writes:
First, this is an incorrect and reckless statement on the part of Tyler because I am sure Tyler has not read every Greek text from Paul to Doherty. And the TLG shows that over three hundred early texts use kata sarka.
Secondly, these tough rules that Tyler arbitrarily manufactures should be met by the historicists too. Because of its double-standard, arbitrary and unrealistic nature, it does not merit a response from me.
Krosero, I think we have cleared up virtually everything there was to discuss.
He had reasons why he could not do this - packaging, weight, shipping charges etc, making TJP more voluminous would have driven up the cost of the book and he wanted his ideas to reach many.
"Orthodox" is a subjective term. I find orthodox Christianity very unorthodox in its way of explaining and understanding things. Indeed, its orthodoxy is a very artificial thing and the documentary record shows this: it is and enterprise that was imposed through councils and inquisitions.

You are right. Now, it is up to you to read more and find out which one makes the sense: Doherty's or the Orthodox view.

Yes.

Now, to Jeffrey.

Jeff, I must say that my respect for you has moved several notches up in this thread even though I do not agree with you. I still think you have difficulty admitting error, but perhaps that is because you strive very hard not to be in error. I must also say that for someone who claims to have a mastery of Greek, you are incapable of defusing a simple (presumably) linguistic dispute. The way to do clarify the matter in dispute, IMO, is by providing examples and explaining, for example, what this and that participle means etc, instead of trying to use a myth as an instrument to argue for you and elevate you to a level of authority while you make long-winded arguments appealing to emotions and the like.

The myth here is that, because you have a better grasp of Greek, you are therefore correct. A myth, Roland Barthes writes in Mythologies, is neither a lie nor a confession: it is an inflexion. It is nothing more than a political proposition, honestly expressed. Being incapable of using your alleged expertise to unveil or liquidate the dispute, you seek to naturalize it by canning me and Doherty. Barthes explains that a myth hides nothing: its function is to distort, not to disappear. It is a double system that has a sort of ubiquity: its point of departure is constituted by the arrival of meaning. Myth has an imperative, buttonholing character. You are subjecting us to its intentional force, summoning readers to receive its expansive ambiguity: Jeffrey knows Greek, therefore he must be right. I notice that you chose not to answer my three simple questions. What are your credentials when it comes to Greek? Are they better than Carrier's? Carrier disagrees with you when it comes to kata sarka and says that the orthodox interpretation, which you espouse, is "barely intelligible".
You asked for his credentials and got them. What are your credentials? Which Greek exams did you pass? Which texts have you translated or studied? Have you taught Greek?
Readers will have to decide for themselves.
Trying to bloat the myth with quibbles. A participle, as Doherty has noted, is a form of a verb, like the word bloating in the sentence Jeffrey is bloating the myth that because TedH does not differentiate a participle from a verb, Jeffrey must be correct. Proving that we are incompetent does nothing to demonstrate that you are right. Our competence is not a matter for determination, but what Paul meant and what Burton wrote.
Who said he does? Are you now attacking a strawman?
Red herrings. Purely meant to dazzle the uninitiated.
Borton does not need to do that before Doherty can launch his argument. That is an unnecessary requirement.
In the context in which the word evidently is used by Burton, it is used as a prelude to unmasking the real meaning. That is why Doherty argues that "evidently" is used to mean "apparently". Burton is like one arguing "It looks like X on the face of it (evidently/apparently), but wait a minute, lets look closer, voila! it actually means Y!"
You just attacked a stwarman Jeff, nobody is arguing that Burton is saying that "GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS can be taken as implying the belief on the part of Paul in, let alone the expression on his part of, Jesus' birth as something having taken place somewhere other than on earth"
If you cannot rebutt the arguments without creating a strawman, maybe it is because they are sound arguments.
That is why Doherty suggests that Paul had in mind "to become, to come into existence".

Indeed. You are right, but your being right on this, IMO, does not falsify Doherty. Burton simply provided an insight on record.
I am sure you do Jeffrey. And I respect that. But I think your defense mechanism has kicked in and it has spread all over the passage like a blue haze which veils you from appreciating other open possibilities.

Aliet

Ted Hoffman

For krosero's benefit attempting to shed light on gennao vs ginomai from Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

From As you can see, Doherty is right: gennao/gennaw primarily means to be born. While ginomai primarily means to come into being.

jgibson000

Um, now I really know you need glasses, since -- and leaving aside the fact that the question is really over the meaning of GENOMENON, GENOMENON used with reference to a person, and GENNHQENTA and what GENOMENON hUPO NOMON signifies -- (1) what LSJ shows is quite contrary to, and in no way supports, what you are claiming, and (2) one has to woefully misread it to make it say what you claim it says.

For your benifit, I'm quoting the entries for GENNAW and GINOMAI from BDAG . They too show that your claims are nonsense and not based in the data.

I'm also giving the entry for KATA from both BDAG and LSJ to show that Carriier's claims about the meaning of KATA and its import for understanding what KATA SARKA means are not only a crib from LSJ, but a cooked and self serving crib which shows not only (1) that, contrary to the appernt impression that he wants us to have, he has not cited all the data on KATA let alone all the dayta that is relevant for understanding Rom 1:3, and (2) that he has (willfully?) ignored material (let alone the plain statement of the source he uses -- see section IV) that contradicts his claims and shows how shakey they are, but (3) that he has misrepresented the data itself and has engaged in selective quotation of the source he uses to make the case he is trying to make.

Jeffrey

*****

BDAG on GENNAW

BDAG on GINOMAI

LSJ on KATA
BDAG on KATA

krosero

Thanks for the quotes -- it's useful for learning. And I appreciate your bolding the key parts, since everyone's time is limited. But --

For GIGNOMAI, you bolded this general definition:

but not the specifc applications underneath:

I think Gibson has made this same point at least twice: of persons, GINOMAI specifies birth. So Paul uses a word that, of persons, specifies birth. "To become, to come into existence" is close to what your own source says that GINOMAI means of "things" (such as talents and drachmae, from what I can see).

Gibson has also pointed out that GENNAW, though you and Doherty present it as an unambiguous word while GINOMAI is ambiguous, is actually not that different from GINOMAI: Gibson showed that it has various meanings, but that in reference to a person, it means begetting or bearing (though "birth" is not actually the best definition of it). Let me requote him:

And that is borne out by LSJ, which you showed us:

Jeffrey, one point in a recent post of yours struck me as very convincing, and I notice that it's the one point where TedH says that you're right:

So it seems that Burton was offering GENNHQENTA as a less ambiguous word in the second part of the phrase about subjection to law, and not saying that it could have been used in the first part of the phrase concerning "out of woman". You also offered that GENNHQENTA would make no grammatical sense in that first part, which is further support for your reading of Burton.

I don't know whether the word that Doherty actually proposes, GENNAO, which I take to be the root of GENNHQENTA or related to it, would make sense in the phrase about woman; but we've already seen that GENNAO is no different from GINOMAI, which Paul actually uses, in both its variety ("ambiguity") of total meanings, and in its specific meaning of begetting or bearing when when applied to human beings.

So what is left of Doherty's original argument?

The first point, about GINOMAI being ambiguous, is true only of the most general definition, and not true of its application to persons.

The second point, about GENNAO being more straightforward, is untrue since that word is not more ambiguous, and it is not less ambiguous: in its general definition, it can mean many things (which makes it just as "ambiguous" as the word Paul uses), and of persons it meant begetting or bearing. And according to Ted's source, LSJ, it is not defined as "birth", while Paul's word is defined as "birth" -- contrary to Doherty's claim that GENNAO would actually be a MORE straightforward way of saying "birth".

The third point, about Paul's word meaning "to become, to come into existence", is true as we said, only of the general definition, and not the application to persons (as distinct from things).

To me it looks like if Doherty wants to keep his arguments above, he needs to remove the phrase "Burton also notes"; or get far more specific about what Burton notes and what Doherty argues; or leave Burton out of it altogether.

What he needs, really, is some evidence that Paul's word meant something other than birth when used of persons.

krosero

Earl, leaving aside any discussion of the Ascension, given your limited time in front of the computer (as you've told us), what were you trying to say about Michael Knibb?

Thanks in advance.

Toto

All discussion about apologists has been split off here. See my note there.

GakuseiDon

TedH, thanks for that. I'll respond to your points, but first I would like to confirm our understanding and usage of "sublunary realm", to make sure that we both have the same understanding:
So, those people who believe that the "sublunary realm" is "some other reality that is near or overlaps our own" are mistaken if they believe that Doherty takes it to represent a dimension that is separate to our own? That is, the "sublunary realm" consists of both (1) the earth and (2) the air above the earth, up to the orbit of the moon, in one contiguous physical space?

Furthermore, the expression "Christ was crucified in a sublunary realm" would be true even if Christ was crucified on earth, i.e. on Calvary?

EarlDoherty

Personally, I think this thread has gone a bit mad, and I’m going to largely stay out of it. Jeffrey disagrees with my claim about context “inviting� the term ‘verb’ rather than ‘participle’, and I can only think that he is referring to the following passage that has been quoted from The Jesus Puzzle:

Since I am contrasting gennao with ginomai, as verbs in regard to their meaning, then I maintain it is proper to bypass the term ‘participle’ and refer to them as ‘verbs.’

I note in all this fuss, that no one has offered a comment or judgment on whether Jeffrey was indeed guilty of unjustified and misleading innuendo in regard to my knowledge of basic grammar. (He, of course, will not admit it.) My use of the word “a-------t� was ironic, in that I had just accused Jeffrey of what I saw as disreputable tactics which are sometimes found in the arguments of such people (some present company excepted, of course). My implied point was (to paraphrase a common expression), if you don’t want to be taken as a duck, don’t quack like one. No, I would not technically style Jeffrey an "a-------t".

Krosero asked:

I’m not sure what the problem is here. In TJP I said (p.107): “Knibb even voices the possibility that all entries of the names Jesus and Christ are later additions.� This is based on his note to 9:5:

Knibb realizes that there seems to be a contradiction here. The text has just said “who is to be called in the world Jesus,� which is then followed by “but you cannot hear his name until…� If the “name� refers to “Jesus�, the author has just given it, and thus Knibb faces the possibility that the preceding phrase is an insertion. The only alternative is that “name� refers to something else, some ‘secret’ name. Well, maybe so, but there is no indication that it does, and certainly no reason to prefer one explanation over the other. Knibb came up with the ‘secret’ explanation in order to find a way around the contradiction. I recall someone saying that Knibb only voiced the “slight possibility� that the insertion explanation was correct, but this is unjustified. They sound like two relatively equal possibilities to me. Knibb’s “apparently� seems motivated by a reluctance to see the interpolation explanation as a real possibility. The very fact that he has stated it as an option indicates that it is not so outlandish that he wouldn’t offer it.

I see nothing misleading or slanted in my appeal to Knibb’s comment.

Best wishes,
Earl Doherty

krosero

Personally, I think your way of putting it in The Jesus Puzzle is slightly problematic, but nothing I would have otherwise called attention to. That goes for your first comment about Knibb in the Ascension thread, which was that he "voices the possibility" (although it did cause me to wonder). It was your second comment (which I have now pointed out several times) that he "opines" this thing which seemed chiefly problematic, and which then made the first comment seem less neutral -- and which you did not address in your reply above.

So you see Knibb as having a "reluctance" to accept the possibility. Then "opines" is the wrong word, at least how I use it. I wondered if there was a legitimate way of using "opines" to mean, "he opines this as one of the many things he opines". I certainly have never used the word that way. For me, if you invoke a scholar's opinion, you should invoke their principal or favored opinion, and not one that the scholar plainly sees as being in contradiction with his favored opinion.

I thought this issue might reveal a moment in which you exaggerated a scholar's support for your theory, or exaggerated a scholar's doubt about his own theory (and I do think you have done both things with Knibb); but it's not an issue I'm inclined to spend any more time on, particularly the way you seem constantly to say that there is no problem, or to shift the problem onto everyone else.

EarlDoherty

Good grief. At first I couldn't figure out where you got the "opines" from. It certainly wasn't in The Jesus Puzzle. Then tracking your link, I realize I used it when making a second, abbreviated, reference in that earlier thread to the same point. I didn't expect anyone would take it apart, examine it under a microscope and contrast it with my first reference and try to draw some illegitimate usage of the word or nefarious motive on my part.

In my opinion, there is simply too much fixated dissection of every little iota and comma going on in these discussions, as though salvation or damnation hangs in the balance. Now we can't even call a participle a verb form, and I'm an ignoramus because of it. I would say the "problem" very much lies in this direction.

That, of course, [is] an obsessive focus on overblown technicalities. No wonder anything truly new and innovative is rarely achieved in this field.