Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-16-2009, 07:46 PM | #41 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
|
flesh
Quote:
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:
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:
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 |
|||
12-16-2009, 07:55 PM | #42 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
|
certainty
Quote:
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 |
|
12-16-2009, 08:09 PM | #43 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Alberta
Posts: 11,885
|
Quote:
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. |
|||
12-16-2009, 09:49 PM | #44 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Quote:
|
||
12-17-2009, 03:12 AM | #45 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
|
step by step
Quote:
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 |
|
12-17-2009, 07:48 AM | #46 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
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:
See too the data on Aristolte's use of the expression in Alexander of Aphrodisius' Commentaries on Aristotle Quote:
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. 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.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, 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 μυελὸν … εἰς 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; Ἀργεῖαι … σπέρματʼ 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 σπέρματος … πατρόθεν, Soph. Oed. Col., 214; γένεθλον σπέρμα τʼ Ἀργεῖον, Aesch. Suppl., 290.
|
||||
12-17-2009, 10:16 AM | #47 |
Contributor
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: MT
Posts: 10,656
|
Jeffrey Gibson, your answer was very reasonable, very well-researched. <edited>
|
12-17-2009, 10:39 AM | #48 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Location: eastern North America
Posts: 1,468
|
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:
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:
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:
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:
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 |
||||
12-17-2009, 11:58 AM | #49 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
|
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? |
12-17-2009, 12:43 PM | #50 | ||||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 3,058
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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. |
||||
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|