FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-16-2009, 07:46 PM   #41
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default flesh

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
I'd be grateful if you could show me how your claim that "Aristotle employed κατὰ σάρκα to mean, quite literally, "flesh"" is born out by them.
Thank you Jeffrey, for your comments, references, including the red letters on kata sarka, for my benefit, and your questions. All very much appreciated...

In all candor, it will take me a week, to answer your question, so allow me, in the interim, please, to respond to the substance of your query, if not the letter of your question precisely, as it deserves. I apologize for my extraordinarily modest intellectual skills.

Here is Ben's web site: (Thanks Gakusei Don!!)
http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/katasarka.pdf

Here's what Ben has at his site:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben C. Smith
Jeffrey Gibson has kindly provided a .pdf file containing various instances of this Greek phrase in antiquity.

Aristotle, History of Animals 17:

Of the viscera the liver in some animals becomes fatty, as among fishes is the case with the selachia, by the melting of whose livers an oil is manufactured. These cartilaginous fish themselves have no free fat at all in connection with the flesh [κατα σαρκα] or with the stomach. The suet in fish is fatty, and does not solidify or congeal. All animals are furnished with fat, either intermingled with their flesh [κατα σαρκα] or apart.
If we click on the link above, corresponding to Jeffrey's pdf file, we will find several of the same references whose lusty character is so elegantly portrayed with red letters in the post above, submitted earlier this pm.

I hope this particular English translation from the same collection, will suffice for the interim....I hope you will agree with me, Jeffrey, that at least this one reference, at Ben's web site, by Aristotle, indeed regards "kata sarka" as flesh.

I hope there is no misunderstanding, here. I am not refusing to engage in the effort to translate these several additional quotes from Aristotle, which you have kindly furnished. But, I am slow. Tempus fugit.

At least to my satisfaction, this single reference, by Aristotle, definitely equates, in my opinion, FLESH with "kata sarka". It is of course, entirely possible, that this singular example, from Ben's web site, represents the odd, occasional translation of kata sarka, as FLESH, while the vast majority of other situations, such as those several additional references, including some from the same volume, which you have kindly provided, Historia animalium, Bekker, refer to other meanings, entirely at odds with FLESH, but that, I wouldn't yet know....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Why Aristotle (4th cent BCE) is relevant to Rom. 1:3 is beyond me.
You have previously suggested some references including epigrams, and third century CE authors, and clearly Jewish authors. I would venture that Aristotle is far more relevant than any of those other folks.....at least, with respect to a physiological factor like "kata sarka".

Can we produce a comparable list of documents wherein Aristotle uses "spermatos"? I am very keen to learn whether Aristotle employs this word to indicate direct reproductive organ function, versus sociological redirection re: familial ties/genetic inheritance....

avi
avi is offline  
Old 12-16-2009, 07:55 PM   #42
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default certainty

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate Abe
OK, why is looking outside the New Testament necessary? Do you think maybe the Christians had their own special meanings of words?
I am sure of it.

But, more to the point, the New Testament is written in GREEK. This brings us right back to the conversation earlier about "eqnikos", and specifically why it is impossible to translate this word, which means, essentially, 'non-Greek', as 'gentile', which means 'non-jew'.

For both "spermatos", and "kata sarka", we must rely upon PRIOR to 1CE, non-Jewish, non-religious GREEK manuscripts, if we wish to uncover the true meaning of these two words, also written in late 1st century CE Greek books comprising the new testament.

avi
avi is offline  
Old 12-16-2009, 08:09 PM   #43
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
I'd be grateful if you could show me how your claim that "Aristotle employed κατὰ σάρκα to mean, quite literally, "flesh"" is born out by them.
Thank you Jeffrey, for your comments, references, including the red letters on kata sarka, for my benefit, and your questions. All very much appreciated...

In all candor, it will take me a week, to answer your question, so allow me, in the interim, please, to respond to the substance of your query, if not the letter of your question precisely, as it deserves. I apologize for my extraordinarily modest intellectual skills.

Here is Ben's web site: (Thanks Gakusei Don!!)
http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/katasarka.pdf

Here's what Ben has at his site:
If we click on the link above, corresponding to Jeffrey's pdf file, we will find several of the same references whose lusty character is so elegantly portrayed with red letters in the post above, submitted earlier this pm.

I hope this particular English translation from the same collection, will suffice for the interim....I hope you will agree with me, Jeffrey, that at least this one reference, at Ben's web site, by Aristotle, indeed regards "kata sarka" as flesh.

I hope there is no misunderstanding, here. I am not refusing to engage in the effort to translate these several additional quotes from Aristotle, which you have kindly furnished. But, I am slow. Tempus fugit.

At least to my satisfaction, this single reference, by Aristotle, definitely equates, in my opinion, FLESH with "kata sarka". It is of course, entirely possible, that this singular example, from Ben's web site, represents the odd, occasional translation of kata sarka, as FLESH, while the vast majority of other situations, such as those several additional references, including some from the same volume, which you have kindly provided, Historia animalium, Bekker, refer to other meanings, entirely at odds with FLESH, but that, I wouldn't yet know....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Why Aristotle (4th cent BCE) is relevant to Rom. 1:3 is beyond me.
You have previously suggested some references including epigrams, and third century CE authors, and clearly Jewish authors. I would venture that Aristotle is far more relevant than any of those other folks.....at least, with respect to a physiological factor like "kata sarka".

Can we produce a comparable list of documents wherein Aristotle uses "spermatos"? I am very keen to learn whether Aristotle employs this word to indicate direct reproductive organ function, versus sociological redirection re: familial ties/genetic inheritance....

avi
It doesn't matter how many PhD's you line up to agree with you since they all find agreement in the light of common day which itself is an illusion to start with.

The word kata sarka and spermatos have nothing in common except that they make reference to the male chromosomes in this context that in Luke's lineage has kinship through the first born son, [each of them being God in their own right as son of man] right back past David and past Adam to God who was created in the image of the mythmaker who wrote that one.
Chili is offline  
Old 12-16-2009, 09:49 PM   #44
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate Abe
OK, why is looking outside the New Testament necessary? Do you think maybe the Christians had their own special meanings of words?
I am sure of it.

But, more to the point, the New Testament is written in GREEK. This brings us right back to the conversation earlier about "eqnikos", and specifically why it is impossible to translate this word, which means, essentially, 'non-Greek', as 'gentile', which means 'non-jew'.

For both "spermatos", and "kata sarka", we must rely upon PRIOR to 1CE, non-Jewish, non-religious GREEK manuscripts, if we wish to uncover the true meaning of these two words, also written in late 1st century CE Greek books comprising the new testament.

avi
OK. If there is doubt about a definition of a word in the epistle to the Romans, would you take a definition derived from non-Jewish non-religious Greek manuscripts as more likely to be correct than a definition derived from the other usages in the same epistle?
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 03:12 AM   #45
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default step by step

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate Abe
If there is doubt about a definition of a word in the epistle to the Romans, would you take a definition derived from non-Jewish non-religious Greek manuscripts as more likely to be correct than a definition derived from the other usages in the same epistle?
Thanks for your insightful comment, Abe. I don't have a ready answer. I am currently struggling to understand just one sentence, not the entire book. I appreciate your perspective, i.e. one cannot adequately understand even that one sentence, without considering the document as a whole...

Of greater concern to me, Abe, is my opinion that "spermatos" was used by Aristotle to indicate exclusively transfer of genetic material (Aristotle believed, if I am not mistaken, that the ovum furnished only sustenance, not genetic material), and not a word referring to distant relatives.

I can easily be refuted by uncovering any document of Aristotle's in which "spermatos" refers obviously, to distant relative, not immediate offspring as I imagine.

avi
avi is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 07:48 AM   #46
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apostate Abe
If there is doubt about a definition of a word in the epistle to the Romans, would you take a definition derived from non-Jewish non-religious Greek manuscripts as more likely to be correct than a definition derived from the other usages in the same epistle?
Thanks for your insightful comment, Abe. I don't have a ready answer. I am currently struggling to understand just one sentence, not the entire book. I appreciate your perspective, i.e. one cannot adequately understand even that one sentence, without considering the document as a whole...

Of greater concern to me, Abe, is my opinion that "spermatos" was used by Aristotle to indicate exclusively transfer of genetic material (Aristotle believed, if I am not mistaken, that the ovum furnished only sustenance, not genetic material), and not a word referring to distant relatives.

I can easily be refuted by uncovering any document of Aristotle's in which "spermatos" refers obviously, to distant relative, not immediate offspring as I imagine.

avi
First of all, you must realize that the word σπέρματος is the Genitive singular of σπέρμα and means "of seed", not "seed". Secondly, as LSJ and Quell and Schultz in TDNT indicate (see below), the predominant usage of σπέρμα by Greek speakers in both Aristotle's time and, more importantly, in the first century, was a metaphorical, not a literal one. And when used literally it more often than not meant seeds of plants. Thirdly, you are ignoring the fact that the question at hand is the meaning of the expression ἐκ σπέρματος + person, NOT the meaning of (or how Aristotle used) the term σπέρματος.

And Aristotle will not help you here because he does not use that expression.

Moreover, when he does use ἐκ σπέρματος without reference to a person, it does not exclusively indicate transfer of (human) genetic material.

See for yourself:

Quote:
Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., De generatione animalium
Aristotelis de generatione animalium”, Ed. Drossaart Lulofs, H.J.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965, Repr. 1972.
Bekker page 715b, line 26

Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν φυτῶν τὸν αὐτὸν
τρόπον· τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἐκ σπέρματος γίγνεται τὰ δ' ὥσπερ
αὐτοματιζούσης τῆς φύσεως.

Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., De generatione animalium
Bekker page 721b, line 6

Δοκεῖ δὲ πάντα γίγνεσθαι ἐκ σπέρματος, τὸ δὲ σπέρ-
μα ἐκ τῶν γεννώντων.

Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., De generatione animalium
Bekker page 734a, line 36

Ἀλλὰ μὴν
καὶ τὸ ἐν τῷ σπέρματι εὐθὺς ἐνυπάρχειν τι μόριον τοῦ ζῴου
ἢ φυτοῦ γεγενημένον – εἶτε δυνάμενον ποιεῖν τἆλλα εἴτε μή –
ἀδύνατον εἰ πᾶν ἐκ σπέρματος καὶ γονῆς γίγνεται.

Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Metaphysica (0086: 025)
Aristotle's metaphysics, 2 vols.”, Ed. Ross, W.D.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, Repr. 1970 [of 1953 corr. edn.].
Bekker page 1032a, line 31

τούτων δέ τινες
γίγνονται καὶ ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου καὶ ἀπὸ τύχης παραπλη-
σίως ὥσπερ ἐν τοῖς ἀπὸ φύσεως γιγνομένοις· ἔνια γὰρ
κἀκεῖ ταὐτὰ καὶ ἐκ σπέρματος γίγνεται καὶ ἄνευ σπέρ-
ματος.

Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Metaphysica
Bekker page 1091a, line 16

οἱ μὲν οὖν Πυθαγό-
ρειοι πότερον οὐ ποιοῦσιν ἢ ποιοῦσι γένεσιν οὐδὲν δεῖ διστάζειν·
φανερῶς γὰρ λέγουσιν ὡς τοῦ ἑνὸς συσταθέντος, εἴτ' ἐξ ἐπι-
πέδων εἴτ' ἐκ χροιᾶς εἴτ' ἐκ σπέρματος εἴτ' ἐξ ὧν ἀποροῦσιν
εἰπεῖν, εὐθὺς τὸ ἔγγιστα τοῦ ἀπείρου ὅτι εἵλκετο καὶ ἐπε-
ραίνετο ὑπὸ τοῦ πέρατος.

Aristoteles et Corpus Aristotelicum Phil., Physica (0086: 031)
Aristotelis physica”, Ed. Ross, W.D.
Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1950, Repr. 1966 (1st edn. corr.).
Bekker page 190b, line 5

ἀεὶ γὰρ ἔστι ὃ ὑπόκειται,
ἐξ οὗ τὸ γιγνόμενον, οἷον τὰ φυτὰ καὶ τὰ ζῷα ἐκ
σπέρματος.

(0086: 012)
See too the data on Aristolte's use of the expression in Alexander of Aphrodisius' Commentaries on Aristotle

Quote:

Alexander Phil., In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria (0732: 004)
Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria”, Ed.Hayduck, M.
Berlin: Reimer, 1891; Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 1.
Page 488, line 37

τούτων δὲ τῶν ἀπὸ τέχνης γίνονταί τινα καὶ
ἀπὸ ταὐτομάτου καὶ ἀπὸ τύχης, ὥσπερ καὶ <τῶν> ἀπὸ φύσεως· γίνονται γὰρ
καὶ ἐκεῖ, λέγω δὴ ἐν τοῖς ἀπὸ φύσεως γινομένοις, ἔνια ἐκ ταὐτομάτου· γί-
νονται γὰρ βοτάναι καὶ ἐκ σπέρματος καὶ ἄνευ σπέρματος· πολλαὶ γὰρ
τῶν βοτανῶν ἄνευ σπέρματος φύονται ἐκ ταὐτομάτου.

Alexander Phil., In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria
Page 501, line 4

γίνεται γὰρ βοτάνη καὶ ἐκ σπέρματος καὶ χωρὶς σπέρματος
διὰ τὸ δύνασθαι κινεῖσθαι τὴν τῆς βοτάνης ὕλην τὴν κίνησιν ἣν τὸ σπέρμα
κινεῖ.

Alexander Phil., In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria
Page 653, line 26

εἰ γὰρ καὶ ὅτι μάλιστα ὁ ἄνθρωπος ἐξ ἀνθρώπου γίνεται, ἀλλὰ
προσεχῶς ἐκ σπέρματος καὶ καταμηνίου, ἅπερ οὔκ εἰσιν ἄνθρωποι.

Alexander Phil., In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria
Page 819, line 3

ταῦτ' εἰπὼν λέγει ὅτι
περὶ μὲν τῶν Πυθαγορείων οὐ δεῖ διστάζειν εἴτε γενητά φασι τὰ ὄντα
εἴτε μή· <φανερῶς γὰρ λέγουσιν ὅτι τοῦ ἑνὸς συσταθέντος> εἴτε ἐξ
ἐπιπέδων εἴτε ἐκ χρωμάτων εἴτε ἐκ σπέρματος εἴτε ἐξ ἄλλου τινός (ἀπο-
ροῦσι γὰρ καὶ οὗτοι λέγειν ἐκ τίνος συνέστη τὸ ἕν, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁτὲ μὲν
ἐκ χρώματος καὶ ἐπιπέδου γενέσθαι φασὶ τὸ ἕν, ὁτὲ δὲ ἐξ ἄλλου τινός),
φανερῶς δὴ λέγουσιν, ὅτι τοῦ ἑνὸς συσταθέντος ἐκ τῶν τοῦ ἀπείρου τοῦ
ὡς ὑλικοῦ αἰτίου αὐτοῖς ὑποκειμένου μερῶν <τὸ ἔγγιστα καὶ> πλησιάζον
τῷ ἑνὶ <εἵλκετο καὶ ἐπεραίνετο> καὶ εἰδοποιεῖτο ὑπὸ τοῦ ἑνός· τὸ ἓν
γὰρ εἶπε πέρας.

Alexander Phil., In Aristotelis metaphysica commentaria
Page 824, line 20

πρὸς οὓς λέγει ὅτι οὐδὲ ἐνταῦθα ἡ γένεσις ἁπλῶς ἐξ ἀτελοῦς
ἐπὶ τὸ τέλειον ἄγει, οἷον ἐκ σπέρματος ἐπὶ τὸ ζῷον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἀτελὲς
ἐκ τοῦ τελείου ὑφίστησιν· ἄνθρωπος γὰρ πρὸ σπέρματος καὶ αἴτιος τοῦ
σπέρματος, καὶ ἁπλῶς τὸ ἐντελεχείᾳ πρὸ τοῦ ὁυνάμει.

Alexander Phil., In Aristotelis topicorum libros octo commentaria
Alexandri Aphrodisiensis in Aristotelis topicorum libros octo commentaria”, Ed. Wallies, M.
Berlin: Reimer, 1891; Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca 2.2.
Page 497, line 25

οἷον εἰ βροτὸς
καὶ μέροψ ταὐτά, καὶ αἱ γενέσεις αὐτῶν αἱ αὐταί· ἔστι γὰρ γένεσις μὲν
αὐτῶν ἡ ἐκ σπέρματος καὶ καταμηνίων, φθορὰ δὲ ἡ διάλυσις τῆς ψυχῆς
ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος.

Most important of all is the fact that you are ignoring the context of the phrase in Rom. 1:3 which is about how Jesus is truly qualified to be what Paul proclaims him to be, namely ὁ Χριστὸς and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, since with respect to the question of his ancestral lineage he is, as Jews expected the Messiah would be, a descendant of David, and since he was appointed by God to these offices.

That, after all, as even a quick glance at the context of Paul's use of the expression, is what Rom 1:3-4 is all about:

See for yourself:

Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος,
ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ,
ὃ προεπηγγείλατο
διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις,
περὶ τοῦ
υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ
σάρκα,
τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ
πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ
τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν,
δι' οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν
εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ
ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ,
ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ
Χριστοῦ,


I suggest again that you do what you seem to never do -- and have a look in a critical commentary on Romans to see whether your admittedly wholly uninformed claims about the meaning of Greek texts have any merit.

If you need to see what is said there, I can supply you with texts.


Jeffrey

****


A. seed, only once in Hom., in metaph. sense, v. infr. 1.2:

I.
mostly, seed of plants, ς. ἀνιέναι, κρύπτειν, h.Cer.307, cf. Hdt.3.97: pl., Hes.Op.446; ς. τῇ γῇ διδόναι, ἐμβαλεῖν, X.Oec.17.8, 10: prov., “εἰς πέλαγος ς. βαλεῖν” Epigr.Gr.1038.8 (Pamphylia); of fruit, Antiph.58.4; τοῖς γαίης σπέρμασι with the products of earth, of corn-stalks, AP9.89 (Phil.).

2.
metaph., germ, origin of anything, “ς. πυρός” Od.5.490; “φλογός” Pi.O.7.48, cf. P.3.37; σπέρματα, = στοιχεῖα, elements, Anaxag.4, cf. Epicur.Ep.2p.38 U., Fr.250; “ὁ τὸ σπέρμα παρασχών, οὗτος τῶν φύντων αἴτιος” D.18.159; “συκοφάντου ς. καὶ ῥίζαν οἴεται δεῖν ὑπάρχειν τῇ πόλει” Id.25.48; “ς. τῆς στάσεως” Plu. Mar.10; “τοῦ ὅρκου” Longin.16.3.

3.
seed-time, sowing, Hes.Op. 781.
II. of animals, seed, semen, φέροισα ς. θεοῦ pregnant by the god, Pi.P.3.15; but ς. φέρειν Ἡρακλέους to be pregnant of Heracles, Id.N.10.17; “μυελὸν . . εἰς ς. καὶ γόνον μερίζεσθαι” Ti.Locr.100b, cf. Pl. Ti.86c; “ς. παραλαβεῖν” E.Or.553; “σπέρματος πλῆσαι” Plu.Lyc. 15: pl., “κατ᾽ ἀμφότερα τὰ ς. θεῶν ἀπόγονος” Hp.Ep.2.

2.
race, origin, descent, “τοὐμὸν . . σπέρμ᾽ ἰδεῖν βουλήσομαι” S.OT1077; τίνος εἶ σπέρματος πατρόθεν; Id.OC214 (lyr.); “γένεθλον σπέρμα τ᾽ Ἀργεῖον” A.Supp. 290, cf. Ch.236; “ς. ἄντας᾽ Ἐρεχθειδᾶν” S.Ant.981 (lyr.), cf. Pi.O.7.93, etc.

3.
freq. in Poets, seed, offspring, τὸ βρότειον ς. A.Fr.399; “ς. Πελοπιδῶν” Id.Ch.503; ς. [τοῦ Ἀβραάμ] Ev.Luc.1.55, etc.; sts. of a single person, Pi.O.9.61, A.Pr.705, S.Ph.364, Orac. ap. Th.5.16, LXX Ge.4.25, etc.: pl., A.Eu.803,909, S.OT1246, OC600, Ep.Gal.3.16; once in Pl., “ἀνθρώπων σπέρμασι νουθετοῦμεν” Lg.853c.


1.σπέρμα
The word is found in Gk. lit. from Hom. in the sense of “seed.”1 The underlying verb σπείρω may be seen in New High German “sprühen,” Old High German “spriu” and New High German “Spreu.” a. It is often used for the seed of plants, Hdt., III, 97; Hes. Op., 446 and 448; Xenoph. Oec., 17, 8 and 10, and the time of sowing, Hes. Op., 781. b. But it is also found for animal seed μυελὸνεἰς σπέρμα καὶ γόνον μερίζεσθαι, Tim. Locr., 100b: σπέρματα τῶν ἀκμαζόντων, Xenoph. Mem., IV, 4, 23 (also Plat. Leg., VIII, 839b); σπέρμα παραλαβεῖν, Eur. Or., 553; σπέρματος πλῆσαι, Plut. Lycurgus, 15 (I, 49a); in the sense “offspring”: σπέρμα θνατόν, Pind. Nem., 10, 81. Similarly there is ref. in Gk. lit. to divine seed:φέροισα σπέρμα θεοῦ, Pind. Pyth., 3, 15; σπέρμα φέρειν Ἡρακλέους, Pind. Nem., 10, 17. In a transf. sense there is a twofold development. c. In relation to plant seed we find “core,” “original or basic material,” “basis,” “element,” anything which has in it quickening or creative force σπέρμα πυρὸς σῴζειν, Hom. Od., 5, 490 (the only instance in Hom.); σπέρμα φλογόςPind. Olymp., 7, 48; σπέρματα == στοιχεῖα, Anaxag. Fr., 4 (Diels, II, 34, 5 ff.); σπέρμα ἄφθιτον Λιβύας, Pind. Pyth., 4, 42 f.; ὑπάρχει σπέρμα τῆς στάσεως, Plut. Mar., 10 (I, 410e); σπέρμα τοῦ ὅρκου, Ps.-Long., 16, 3. d. In connection with human seed we have a poetic use for “scion,” “descendant,” “offspring,” “child”: σπέρμα Πελοπιδῶν, Aesch. Choeph., 503; Ἀργεῖαισπέρματʼ εὐτέκνου βοός, Aesch. Suppl., 275;τὸ πᾶν σπέρμα τῶν συναιμόνων, σπέρμα παίδων, Soph. Trach., 1147; Eur. Med., 669;Ἰνάχειον σπέρμα, Aesch. Prom., 705; βρότεια σπέρματα, Aesch. Eum., 909; τὰ ἐμαυτοῦ, σπέρματα, Soph. Oed. Col., 600; ἀνθρώπων σπέρματα, Plat. Leg., IX, 853c. Along the same lines we find “tribe,” “race,” “descent,” Soph. Ant., 981 (also Pind. Olymp., 7, 93 and Soph. Oed. Tyr., 1077): τίνος εἶ σπέρματοςπατρόθεν, Soph. Oed. Col., 214; γένεθλον σπέρμα τʼ Ἀργεῖον, Aesch. Suppl., 290.
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 10:16 AM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
Default

Jeffrey Gibson, your answer was very reasonable, very well-researched. <edited>
ApostateAbe is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 10:39 AM   #48
avi
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
Default

Thank you Jeffrey, a wonderful, scholarly, brilliant rejoinder, one which will keep me busy for months!!!
Here are some initial thoughts, in no way profound, as was your own submission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
First of all, you must realize that the word σπέρματος is the Genitive singular of σπέρμα and means "of seed", not "seed".
Good. Excellent starting point. No, I did not realize that σπέρματος is the Genitive singular of σπέρμα. I foolishly thought it meant, sperm (or seed), not "of sperm", or "of seed".

Let's see how your first point changes the English translation:

Here's our tenatative translation, thus far:

"Concerning his son, who was made (or born) of the sperm of David, himself (i.e. "in the flesh"),"

I do not use "seed", because, in English, "seed" refers exclusively to genetic material of plants, not animals. Animals produce sperm, not seed. You, Jeffrey, seem to be somewhat partial to KJV, I gather, based upon your continuing to employ its archaic, and incorrect tradition of referring to animal (in this case human) male genetic material as "seed".

This is not the Inquisition, and we are not going to be tortured and burnt alive, for employing proper English. Please follow conventional biological sciences, Jeffrey, and use words which are appropriate to the current, not dark ages', English.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Secondly, as LSJ and Quell and Schultz in TDNT indicate (see below), the predominant usage of σπέρμα by Greek speakers in both Aristotle's time and, more importantly, in the first century, was a metaphorical, not a literal one. And when used literally it more often than not meant seeds of plants.
Thank you. Today, σπέρμα, when applied to males of the animal kingdom, refers exclusively to sperm, not seeds, which represents, in English, exclusively genetic material originating from the plant kingdom.

With regard to person xyz's opinion about subject abc, when that subject relates in some fashion to the New Testament, I have very few doubts that the opinion is likely contaminated by political considerations, hence, fundamentally, until proven to the contrary, worthy of ignoring.

In this specific instance, Jeffrey, you are asking me to accept, uncritically, the notion that experts a, b, and c have all deemed σπέρμα to represent a "metaphorical" term, hence, not worthy of literal interpretation. Sorry to disagree with you, for you are obviously the brilliant and well educated one, not me, but I remain unpersuaded by any notions that Romans 1:3 is to be read as a metaphor. You may be absolutely correct, and I may be absolutely in error, here, but with regard to your second point, I do not accept your contention that σπέρμα ought to be viewed as a metaphor, not taken literally, just because experts a, b, and c tell us that this is correct. I would feel the same way, even if the "experts" had argued the contrary....In other words, I am not hostile, (at least in this particular instance) to expertise, in general, but rather, I simply do not approach the question of the proper English translation of Romans 1:3 by asking how people, a lot smarter than I, have translated it.

Finally, with regard to your second point, THANK YOU, for confirming that speakers in Aristotle's time, and in the first century, used similar Greek in expressing ideas.

To this point, I see no change in the English translation, above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Thirdly, you are ignoring the fact that the question at hand is the meaning of the expression ἐκ σπέρματος + person, NOT the meaning of (or how Aristotle used) the term σπέρματος.

And Aristotle will not help you here because he does not use that expression.

Moreover, when he does use ἐκ σπέρματος without reference to a person, it does not exclusively indicate transfer of (human) genetic material.
Jeffrey, you are confusing me. Sorry to be so dense.
Umm, is it my mediocre vision, or did you contradict yourself in this third point? Did Aristotle use ἐκ σπέρματος with reference to a person, or not? If he did, but the context was unrelated to transfer of human genetic material, then, what did ἐκ σπέρματος mean? Assuming that Aristotle did employ ἐκ σπέρματος with regard to transfer of animal genetic material, did he imply, in your opinion, IMMEDIATE genetic offspring, or, on the contrary, DISTANT genetic relatives, perhaps hundreds of generations distant from one another, as would have been the case for David and Jesus?

I apologize for imposing my ignorance upon you. I appreciate your tolerance for my numerous amateurish gaffes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
Most important of all is the fact that you are ignoring the context of the phrase in Rom. 1:3 which is about how Jesus is truly qualified to be what Paul proclaims him to be, namely ὁ Χριστὸς and ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, since with respect to the question of his ancestral lineage he is, as Jews expected the Messiah would be, a descendant of David, and since he was appointed by God to these offices.
Thanks again, Jeffrey, well written, and well researched. "ignoring the context". Umm, no, I disagree. One of the few, tiny matters, which I am able to comprehend (there aren't many!!) is that Christians believe, (at least in part, based upon the interpretation of this passage in Romans,) that Jesus was descended from David, (as foretold in the old testament.) So, I fear that you may have omitted reading the meat and potatoes of the start of this thread, so I will summarize in one sentence the essence of the OP: Yes, David was the father of Jesus, therefore, the old testament prophecy has been fulfilled. With regard to two somewhat related points,
ὁ Χριστὸς : not here, in this passage, though it is inserted, improperly, in the English translation of KJV.
ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ : nope. does not have qeos.
These two phrases appear in Romans 1:1.
I do not disagree that "qeos" is understood,"tou uiou" refers to "god's son", who we call, after Paul, "christ". I am just being fussy, here, trying to focus on producing a clean, clear, accurate translation of Romans 1:3. I am NOT trying to insert any kind of metaphorical or political interpretation. I simply want to know the literal meaing of the Greek original. To me, it is exactly as I have written it above.

Thanks again, Jeffrey, great work!!! Much appreciated. Finally, dear Jeffrey, I will again ask, for the record, as I have now already in this thread, would it make any difference to YOUR English translation of Romans 1:3 if "kata sarka" were omitted?



avi
avi is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 11:58 AM   #49
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

avi -

Why use modern scientific terminology when the writers in the first century were not modern scientists and would not have understood modern scientific concepts?

Why do you think that a literal translation is superior to a metaphorical one?
Toto is offline  
Old 12-17-2009, 12:43 PM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by avi View Post
Thank you Jeffrey, a wonderful, scholarly, brilliant rejoinder, one which will keep me busy for months!!!
Here are some initial thoughts, in no way profound, as was your own submission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson
First of all, you must realize that the word σπέρματος is the Genitive singular of σπέρμα and means "of seed", not "seed".
Good. Excellent starting point. No, I did not realize that σπέρματος is the Genitive singular of σπέρμα. I foolishly thought it meant, sperm (or seed), not "of sperm", or "of seed".

Let's see how your first point changes the English translation:

Here's our tenatative translation, thus far:

"Concerning his son, who was made (or born) of the sperm of David, himself (i.e. "in the flesh"),"
Our?? It certainly isn't mine. Nor is it anyone else's who actually knows Greek.

I ask again, what is your justification for taking κατὰ as signifying "in"? Can you point to any instance of Paul's (or any Greek writer's) using κατὰ to mean "in"?

Quote:
I am NOT trying to insert any kind of metaphorical or political interpretation. I simply want to know the literal meaing of the Greek original. To me, it is exactly as I have written it above.
Yes, and that's because you don't know what you are talking about with respect to the meaning of the Greek original and the idioms employed there.

Quote:
Thanks again, Jeffrey, great work!!! Much appreciated. Finally, dear Jeffrey, I will again ask, for the record, as I have now already in this thread, would it make any difference to YOUR English translation of Romans 1:3 if "kata sarka" were omitted?
Yes, it would. And that's not only because you keep thinking that κατὰ
σάρκα is somehow to be construed with (and/or modifies) David, but because Paul would no longer be drawing the parallel that he intends to draw between who Jesus is κατὰ σάρκα and κατὰ πνεῦμα.
Jeffrey Gibson is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:33 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.