avi

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....

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

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

Chili

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.

ApostateAbe

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?

avi

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

Jeffrey Gibson

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:


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.

ApostateAbe

Jeffrey Gibson, your answer was very reasonable, very well-researched. <edited>

avi

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.
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.

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.

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.

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

Toto

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?

Jeffrey Gibson

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"?

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.

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.