Mathetes

Loeb Classical Library.

Although these days you can buy these books in Amazon and other online stores.

Ted Hoffman

Rick : If we're in agreement that kata sarka has a very broad semantic range (Mounce suggests that "sarx" has among the broadest semantic ranges of all Greek words), then I would delight in seeing some reason to presume that Paul meant anything other than what he always meant when he was using kata sarka to refer to lineage. Context is everything, and when Paul uses the phrase in this context, it always means exactly the same thing. Since "in the sphere of the flesh" has such a broad semantic range, it needs to be argued based on the context. Thus far, it's fallen short of the mark. Even the sporadic arguments presented either [1] find analogy in weak parallels (the term has different meanings in different contexts, thus any analogy must be a strong one to hold up) or [2] ignore what Paul is saying in favor of an arbitrarily invented context (handled nicely by Jeffrey Gibson here) about the nature of Paul's "gospel."

Doherty : Sounds reasonable, doesn't it? But it doesn't take long to recognize that this is a blatant case of begging the question. What's under debate here is: what did Paul mean when he used _kata sarka_ in those apparent "lineage" contexts, like Romans 1:3 and 9:5? Sumner declares that "context is everything", but that's the very thing I focus on in regard to Romans 1: the context is given by Paul himself: it is God's gospel of the Son as announced in the prophets, not historical tradition. So he is not only dismissing the debate itself and declaring the orthodox view the only one possible, he demands a type of argument from me which I have in fact supplied. My context isn't "arbitrarily invented," it's argued by pointing to the evidence itself. He points to Gibson's posting on JM (which was short and relied on an appeal to lots of authorities), and ignores (or suppresses) the very lengthy argument BASED ON CONTEXT which I supplied in rebuttal to Gibson. This is either muddled thinking or deliberately deceptive.

Rick : Where's the meat? As much as I like hearing that such a translation may be "quite useful," I've yet to see any reason to believe it's more "useful" for the Jesus Myth than it is for an HJ. "Sphere of the flesh" works just dandy for either

Doherty : The meat is in whole chapters of my book which back up my interpretation of "kata sarka" as referring to Christ's relationship to and his acting upon the material sphere (which he does from a spiritual position). It's in my lengthy discussion in the book about Romans 1:1-4. And it was certainly there in my reply to Gibson, which Sumner has conveniently remained silent on. One has to be forgiven for believing that there may be a good degree of dishonesty here, and I see no objection to voicing that opinion.

But I have to disagree with his statement about the "usefulness" of the translation "sphere of the flesh." It is very much useful for the mythicist view, because it provides a way of seeing such expressions in the non-literal and historical sense. It's a rebuttal (not an ad hoc one, but one that fits and complements the total picture of the epistles as well as the cosmological philosophy of the time) to the accusation that, "don't be silly, _kata sarka_ can only mean one thing, earthly flesh." On the other side, "sphere of the flesh" isn't so "dandy" for an historical Jesus, because it raises the question of why a whole range of epistle writers for almost a century can use nothing else but this odd phraseology to describe Jesus' supposed life on earth, never stating such a situation in normal, expected language.


Rick : The translation of kata sarka as "in the sphere of the flesh" is quite fine, which is something I noted above. Doherty certainly isn't lonely in his application of it, and it ultimately makes no difference whether we translate it as "in the sphere of the flesh" or not. It's quite fine because it has a roughly equivalent semantic range in English as kata sarka does in Greek, and thus using Barrett's translation has absolutely no bearing on what Paul means in Rom.1.3. Paul can mean "in the sphere of the flesh" in the literally incarnate sense just as easily as any other, and does so frequently

Doherty : This strikes me as a lot of back-pedalling. The first few sentences don't mean anything. If he's willing to accept my usage of "sphere of the flesh" as "fine", what's the issue then? And what does "semantic range" have to do with it? This oft-used phrase strikes me as a lot of smoke. And he concludes with another question-begging statement. How do we know that Paul can mean " 'in the sphere of the flesh' in the literally incarnate sense...and does so frequently?" That's the very point under debate, and Sumner supplies no arguments in favor of his statements.

Rick : "Sphere of the flesh" is supposed to have a roughly equivalent semantic range to "kata sarka," hence the not infrequent usage of the phrase in lieu of the more standard translation of "according to the flesh." You don't get to take the interpretation and ignore the semantic range upon which the translation is logically dependent. With that in mind, it needs to be assessed what an author intended on a case by case basis.

Doherty : More smoke. What does it mean to say that "sphere of the flesh", which is one possible translation and meaning of _kata sarka_, has an equivalent semantic range to _kata sarka_ itself? I have no idea what that means. And how do you perform this "case by case" evaluation? How do you arrive at a meaning for an individual case unless you bring all levels of context to the question? Is he advocating that we ignore the wider picture and try to ferret out the meaning of each passage on its own? Does this not contradict his constant emphasis on what he calls "semantic range" which has implications of something broad?

Finally, I'm still trying to figure out what he's getting at in regard to Barrett, and my appeal to his translation of _kata sarka_ as "in the sphere of the flesh". Let's see what Barrett says about this translation. Sumner accuses me:

Rick : one can't help but observe what appears to be what Rand termed the "Stolen Concept Fallacy" -- taking a conclusion while ignoring premises upon which it logically depends.

Ted Hoffman Wrt the stolen concept fallacy (which assumes a linked hierarchy/dependence), please state the premises upon which Barrett's interpretation of kata sarka logically depends, premises which, you claim, Doherty has ignored.

You later object that Barrett doesnt support Dohertys position when you write: "Nor is it enough to appeal to Barrett who, as noted, is not supportive of Doherty's position". Perhaps this is what Doherty responded to. Why is it important for Barrett to be supportive of Doherty's position?

Doherty : which is changing the focus of the complaint not on an ignoring of Barrett's "conclusion" from his translation, but to the "basis" on which he made it. Well, if Sumner had actually checked what Barrett had to say in this case (The Epistle to the Romans, p.20), he would have found that the translation was not based on any stated premiss at all, much less one on which it "logically depends". Barrett simply offers his translation as a way of 'understanding' the concept he believes Paul has in mind (a belief based on unargued traditional paradigms), preferable to the rendering "according to the flesh". Thus there was nothing for me to "steal" on some nefarious basis.

Barrett offers his opinion that 1:3 means "in the realm denoted by the word flesh (humanity) he was truly a descendant of David." This, of course, is the standard HJ-based interpretation (and Barrett "knows" and declares it on much the same basis that Sumner and others "know" the things they know), which I have spent many words in many places arguing against. But the useful point for me to draw on was that _kata sarka_, even in Barrett's context, referred in his opinion NOT to Jesus' own presumed flesh, but to a certain sphere of the universe, namely the one humanity inhabits. That's a legitimate translation, and it's a key distinction. And while Barrett simply offers it as his preferred way of reading the meaning of the phrase, it opens up a wealth of possibility. Once it becomes a "realm" that has a connection to humanity, we can then analyze what might be the more extended limits of that realm and/or that connection, and this is precisely what I have done in the context of Platonic thinking. For Sumner to declare that I have no right to do this because we already know (like most biblical translators) that this phrase refers to human descent and that the realm can only be an earthly, historical one, is simply to close the door on debate and perhaps new insight.

But what was completely unacceptable (indeed, dishonorable) was for Sumner to point to a posting by Jeffrey Gibson on the Jesus Mysteries list in May of 2001, which dismissed a rather direct reading of Romans 1:1-4 that made my position tenable (it was not of itself even a mythicist reading), and fail to even mention the fact that I posted one day later a very lengthy (and polite) rebuttal to Gibson, the result of which was that Gibson failed to respond and was not heard from again on JM for as long as I was there. Did Sumner overlook it, five messages later? Or did he choose to ignore it and conceal it from others on the board? Since Sumner's link, as well as a link to my rebuttal, is not accessible to anyone who is not a member of the Yahoo groups, and since this exchange over the meaning of the Romans 1 passage is central to the present discussion on _kata sarka_, I am willing to retrieve both and have them posted on this thread in their entirety. (For those who do have access, my rebuttal to the Gibson piece Sumner pointed to is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusM...s/message/2819. Gibson's was message 2814.)

Rick Sumner

I should have noted that these passages were being excluded--in this instance I'm the one relying on analogy, and an analogy, by definition, cannot be the thing in question.

Take a look at Acts.2.30.

What exactly Paul means in Rom.1.1-2 is still up for debate. You seem to be presuming your conclusions.

Nobody said anything about being the "only one possible." This is misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. I certainly haven't stated that your conclusion is incorrect, I even noted that others have made a better case in your stead. What I said was that in your book you do not make a good case. Since you seem to feel compelled to expand upon it here, it would appear that we're implicitly in agreement on this point.

It didn't appeal to authorities, it pointed to authorities as agreeing with the case he made.

This isn't so bad, your invective below (which will be snipped), however, is. I trust we'll carry on with a little less rhetoric, or, as your friend Ted Hoffman can attest, we won't carry on at all.

It was legitimately missed. I wasn't scavenging the archives post by post, I was searching for them for specific references. Because you replied by email, it didn't give a link to responses at the bottom of the page, so I apparently incorrectly presumed their were none. I'll comment further on your rebuttal after I've read and assessed it.

Yet this presumes your conclusions, as it is paramout to your position that we accept your reading of Romans 1:3. For what it's worth, it's paramount to the converse that they do the same. Ultimately, as I noted, I'm not sure it can be answered with any degree of certainty.

And in this sense, we can agree. It provides a range of meaning closer to the actual range of meaning of _kata sarka_, and ably captures a sentiment Paul frequently intends when he uses his phrase. Perhaps most notably, Paul's usual (though not constant) flesh/spirit dichotomy is a dichotomy of "spheres," not one of states of being.

It doesn't raise any such question, however, because allowing "sphere of the flesh," as a translation does not carry with it the implicit suggestion that said "sphere" is always a metaphorical one, rather than literal flesh. For example, Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, 2:44 refers quite clearly to literal eyes.

Because "sphere of the flesh" doesn't always refer to the same thing, as noted above. A recent JBL article, for example (I don't have the specific reference, but can get it if need be), writing of Romans 1.1-4, utilizes Barrett's translation. It's author still thought it referred to a literal descent. So, for that matter, did Barrett.

It can be "sphere of the flesh" all you like. The question is what, exactly, the "sphere of the flesh" is in this instance.

This strikes me as a lot of rhetoric, so I guess we're about even.

How about Rom.2.28? Is the circumcision outward in "the lowest celestial sphere?" Of course not. It's a mark of Israel. On the flesh. Real flesh.

Because "sphere of the flesh" is a translation with multiple meanings, not "one possible. . .meaning."

Of course not. I'm advocating that each case needs to be put in that context, one by one, because the phrase has a different meaning in different contexts.

"Semantic range" refers to the number of possible readings of a word/phrase.
erty has ignored.

It would appear that Hoffman didn't forward the entirety of my last post. If we're in agreement that "sphere of the flesh," can be taken as having multiple meanings, we're great, though this most recent post carries with it some ambiguity on the matter.

Yes, it is. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

Having had the misfortune of perusing several flame wars you've partaken in (to be fair, not all of them incited by yourself) over the "many places" you reference below, I was reticient to respond to you in the first place. I've largely withdrawn from internet forums at large to avoid such messiness. If you'd like to carry on a discussion, then by all means, let's do so. If you'd like to call names and issue rhetoric, then you'll soon find your screaming at a shadow.

Those many words do not appear in your book, which, if you'll recall, was the caveat I raised--that it is perhaps the most poorly defended position in the entirety of your book. Since I haven't read all of your many words in many places, I can't comment on all of those. I have, however, read your book, where, as noted, those "many words" do not appear.

But what is meant by that sphere differs by context, as noted above. Cicero's eyes, are, again, quite real.

Here we seem to be in agreement again. The implications of the phrase are multiple, not all of which favor your end.

Does the "sphere of the flesh" necessarily indicate a "realm?" Why?

1) Nobody has suggested that we already "know" anything of the sort. I, in fact, suggested that we don't necessarily know, and in fact may never know. My own position is that Paul didn't create Rom.1.1-4 in the first place, he's simply parrotting another source.

2) Nobody is closing the door on any debate, and claiming that I am doing so is simply a touch of closing rhetoric, rather than an address to any argument being presented--it's color, not criticism.

3) Nobody has suggested that you have no "right" to anything, and it is uncharitable to claim that I have. You have all the right in the world, you have just failed, thus far, to convince me that you are right, which is an entirely separate statement.

[Big snip]

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

It seems to me that "This board requires users to register before posting." I'd suggest, in the spirit of fairness (else I am subject to moderation while Doherty cannot fairly be such), Doherty be required to register like everyone else. Failing that, and not wanting to preclude further discussion, I'd suggest it would be prudent for further posts to be first submitted to a moderator.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

Doherty has registered here, but has indicated that he prefers not to participate directly in the discussion for various reasons (his time and other considerations.)

I am not sure what submitting the posts to a moderator would accomplish. If you wish to PM me on the subject, please do.

Rick Sumner

Under what name? "E"s on the members list show no Earl Doherty. Perhaps you are thinking of the Trafford debate, where Doherty was an "IIDB Visitor"?

It would provide a means of complaint when I'm met with a post laden with uncharitable invective and rhetoric, for starters, as well as additional concerns sent in PM

Done. I'm curious as to why, exactly, Doherty gets exemption from a rule mandated by the forum? I couldn't post until I registered. Rules is rules and all that. It is one thing when external input to a discussion is sought, and in such circumstances citation of emails (with permission, naturally) is quite appropriate. It is quite another when that external source seeks dialogue by proxy.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Toto

Perhaps Doherty's registration lapsed after the Doherty-Trafford debate, and his name was lost in the last software upgrade, but in any case I know of no rule that prevents someone from posting comments from another person or a scholar.

You are free to point out and argue against any argument that you consider to be uncharitable or merely rhetoric, or report any comments that you consider a violation of the rules.

Rick Sumner

There is, as noted above (my edit seems to have crossed your posting), a difference between quoting comments for external clarification, and debate by proxy. If Doherty wishes to defend his position at length, he should do so here. Those are, after all, the rules.

They were pointed out. The dilemma, however, is that when a moderator begins editting a cited argument, then it is no longer a citation. It's not fair to Doherty to edit it without his presence on the board, and fruitless for him to be chastized for it. On the flipside, it's not fair to me for Doherty to be exempt from such moderation. If we're unable to work out the compromise suggested by you in PM, you can feel free to move this on over to P&C, because there is a fairly clear double-standard employed by allowing Doherty to debate me without registering.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

Rick,


What debate? It seems to me that the only point of disagreement between the two of you is that you feel others have argued Doherty's interpretation better than he does in his book. Am I missing something here?

You acknowledge that the term is vague enough that it can be applied to either view, right?

Isn't this yet another piece of evidence that fails to compel either conclusion?

Ted Hoffman

Rick: I should have noted that these passages were being excluded--in this instance I'm the one relying on analogy, and an analogy, by definition, cannot be the thing in question.
Take a look at Acts.2.30.
Ted Hoffman : Why would we exclude these passages? Secondly, you haven't answered the question that was asked. Thirdly, we have no need to look at Acts since it wasnt written by Paul. We have sufficient Pauline passages for our purposes.
Rick: What exactly Paul means in Rom.1.1-2 is still up for debate. You seem to be presuming your conclusions.
Ted Hoffman : He has made his arguments in p.83-86 and in p.95-108 and cannot repeat them everytime someone who hasnt read them, or someone who hasnt understood them complains - he is not presuming his conclusions. For some strange reason, you state that Doherty has made no argument (you shift between "no argument at all" to "Doherty's argument is, at best, lacking" to "poorly defended" and "minimal support") and that others have made his arguments for him.
Carrier states that "Doherty's theory is as plausible as any other--and, overall, more plausible than most". Its unclear what would be considered an "adequate support" according to you. It is therefore incorrect and worthless to keep repeating that Doherty has made no arguments. Words like "poorly defended" without any demonstrated cases to back them are empty rhetoric. What constitutes adequate support for example? How is it that you find Doherty's argument "lacking" yet Carrier found it adequate for assesment and comparison with other arguments?
The pages I have mentioned above do address Paul's usage of kata sarka and en sarki so, please, do not waste time claiming, erroneousely, that Doherty's argument is lacking.
Rick: It didn't appeal to authorities, it pointed to authorities as agreeing with the case he made.
Ted Hoffman : Doherty's interpretation challenges the ones given by the so-called 'authorities', so you cannot cite them as a counter-argument without explaining why their interpretation is more correct: you have to bring out exactly why their interpretation, which Carrier regards as "barely intelligible", is more correct. It shows that you do not even understand the onus of Doherty's work.
Rick: This isn't so bad, your invective below (which will be snipped), however, is. I trust we'll carry on with a little less rhetoric, or, as your friend Ted Hoffman can attest, we won't carry on at all.
Ted Hoffman : I think you should show some respect and be thankful that Doherty has sacrificed a few minutes in his busy schedule to purge your mind of vain imaginings and respond to what appears to be vacuous objections cloaked in empty rhetoric.
In fact, what Doherty sees as "smoke" and "muddled thinking" is what I see as complete lack of thought on your part.
You recklessly flung in "stolen concept fallacy" into your rhetoric without the tiniest clue as to what Barrett's argument was and without the barest understanding of whether there is any premise which Barrett based his interpretation upon. You just assumed and did nothing to eliminate your ignorance. This is incompetence and sloppy argumentation and you have to be called upon it.
Rick: Ultimately, as I noted, I'm not sure it can be answered with any degree of certainty.
Ted Hoffman : You have to make up your mind Rick, not backpedal arbitrarily, shift goalposts, blow smoke and vacillate. Now you are saying you are "not sure it can be answered", you have also claimed Doherty's argument is fine. You have also stated that Doherty's argument is lacking, You have stated that Doherty's argument is poorly defended and without adequate support. You have also said that Doherty's argument wholly depends on Barrett's interpretation. You have also stated that Barrett does not 'support' Doherty's conclusions.
One has to admit it does seem muddled. Why dont you take some time and sort your thoughts out. This is becoming embarrassing. Even for you.
Rick: And in this sense, we can agree. It provides a range of meaning closer to the actual range of meaning of _kata sarka_, and ably captures a sentiment Paul frequently intends when he uses his phrase. Perhaps most notably, Paul's usual (though not constant) flesh/spirit dichotomy is a dichotomy of "spheres," not one of states of being.
Ted Hoffman : The distinction between en sarki and kata sarka should resolve this dichotomy for you. En sarki is about states of being. Kata sarka about [going down to a] sphere.
Rick: It doesn't raise any such question, however, because allowing "sphere of the flesh," as a translation does not carry with it the implicit suggestion that said "sphere" is always a metaphorical one, rather than literal flesh. For example, Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods, 2:44 refers quite clearly to literal eyes.
Ted Hoffman : Who talked about "metaphorical" spheres? This is platonic cosmology.
Paul discusses going to the third heaven in 2 Corinthians 12. The Phillipians passage mentions a nameless god that descended from heaven and was elevated by being named Jesus for that. Hebrews 8:4 ("if he were on earth") implies that Jesus' activities were never on earth. The peculiar phrase "archons" implies spiruitual beings killed Jesus. Paul doesn't mention Pilate or Mary or Joseph of Jesus' disciples or ministry on earth. Pauline thought is consistent with the idea of spheres and a non-HJ. Throwing in Cicero amounts to a red herring since we have enough allusiions and passages that give us a good idea about his platonic cosmology. Using Cicero can only yank the usage of kata sarka wide enough to provide you with wriggle room. Look at any Lexicon, you will find usages in Homer, Philo, Euripedes, Plato etc. So, Cicero's usage is of no major importance since its outside the context in which we are examining the phrase.
Rick: It's author still thought it referred to a literal descent. So, for that matter, did Barrett.
Ted Hoffman : Red herring: you have left Doherty's argument untouched, and planted an unsupported argument in its stead. Do you realize that even "literal descent" presumes a non-historical Jesus?
Rick: It can be "sphere of the flesh" all you like. The question is what, exactly, the "sphere of the flesh" is in this instance.
Ted Hoffman : A sublunar realm close to the earth. Where do you think Philo's 'heavenly' man resided?
Rick: This strikes me as a lot of rhetoric, so I guess we're about even.
Ted Hoffman : It is not rhetoric because it is true that you are stringing together vague terms (like "semantic range") and treating them as if they have a clear meaning. You have treated kata sarka as different from "the sphere of the flesh" and this is one section where muddled thinking spectacularly intrudes upon the discussion. To be sure, let me quote you:
Rick: ...Paul can mean "in the sphere of the flesh" in the literally incarnate sense just as easily as any other, and does so frequently
Ted Hoffman : You of course did not and havent demonstrated this. Thus, it is smoke. As Doherty correctly pointed out.
Rick: Of course not. I'm advocating that each case needs to be put in that context, one by one, because the phrase has a different meaning in different contexts.
Ted Hoffman : Doherty did that. Which specific passage do you feel he did not address based on context? I bet you can't point out any.
Rick: "Semantic range" refers to the number of possible readings of a word/phrase.
Ted Hoffman : You stated before: "Sphere of the flesh" is supposed to have a roughly equivalent semantic range to "kata sarka," ".
What is the semantic range of "sphere of the flesh"? You really ought to define your neologisms before you use them.
Rick: It would appear that Hoffman didn't forward the entirety of my last post.
Ted Hoffman : I never forwarded any of it. Doherty reads the posts himself. I just notified him about your insinuations here that he had insisted on the JM list that kata sarka had no semantic range. A claim you have since failed to support and instead distracted us with a link to Gibbon's mail. Do you intend to back up that accusation?
Rick: Yes, it is. I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Ted Hoffman : He is showing how Barrett provides a contxtual interpretation.
Rick: Does the "sphere of the flesh" necessarily indicate a "realm?" Why?
Ted Hoffman : Because 'sphere' has a spatial meaning. What is the other meaning you know of?
Rick: Doherty be required to register like everyone else. Failing that, and not wanting to preclude further discussion, I'd suggest it would be prudent for further posts to be first submitted to a moderator.
Ted Hoffman : That is up to Doherty and the admins/mods: you dont get to state how debates are to be conducted here and threaten to leave. Your job is to debate, not to manage the debate.

deleted

As far as I am concerned, Doherty, CX, Carrier and Haran have said their piece. What they have said is perhaps more than you can post regarding kata sarka, so you can quit the debate and stop threatening us as if that would be the end of the world.

Your participation is voluntary and pacifying you is not the central purpose of the discussion, especially after, even by your own admission, you started the rhetorical tactics.

1. You have not provided any evidence that Doherty stated that there is no semantic range for kata sarka.
2. You have failed to demonstrate that Doherty is guilty of comitting the stolen concept fallacy.
3. Your infernal accusation that Doherty's argument is 'lacking' is blatantly false and flies in the face of what Carrier has written regarding Doherty's arguments, and what Doherty has written in the pages I have cited in his book.
4. You have failed to provide a sober, sustained and consistent argument. You have employed empty rhetoric, falsehoods, vague terminology and smoke and mirrors.

Based on the above, you are not interested in honest debate but on grinding a giant axe with a giant chip on your shoulder.