Richard Carrier

Iasion, thanks for confirming my impressions. But please note that for all my erudition, I am not a "Dr." yet. In fact, I'm surprised Gibson hasn't boasted of the fact that, unlike me, he has a D.Phil. in theology from Oxford and has held professorships--although his unprofessional conduct seems incongruous with that history, he is nevertheless a "Dr."

And lest anyone be mistaken about this, I don't believe I have had any problem with Gibson's factual assertions about Greek (beyond mild hyperbole here and there, which I note in my review even Doherty is guilty of). I only have a problem with his incorrect reading of what I myself have written--and, of course, his repellant character.

Oh no, I agree, that is definitely a Pauline view of things (despite attempts to argue the contrary by some apologists).

We should not assume Paul uses the phrase identically every time (especially when different verbs are involved), or that he doesn't employ it metaphorically. For example, to "walk in the realm of spirit instead of the realm of flesh" may indeed be the literal meaning, intended in this case metaphorically ("walk as if you were now in the realm of spirit, and not as if you were the realm of flesh, though you actually are"), just as Paul uses "I die daily" metaphorically in 1 Cor. 15, and sometimes uses "resurrection" metaphorically, and so on.

Even so, I already made the same point you are about the phrase's use in Gal. 4:23 and 4:29, where it certainly appears to be between two people who have an identical location, origin, everything, and there we even have the same or analogous verb. Yet that Paul is speaking metaphorically is here something he actually explicitly states.

But again, what does that mean? Surely, "live in conformity with the flesh," but how does that illumine passages like Rom. 1:3? That's the question. But whatever we think it adds there, it does not "emphasize an earthly sojourn" even though it "can allow that," the very words in my review. I think it is Gibson who has misrepresented what I said there, pretending I said something else.

That's possible. I can't speak to that. I specifically decided not to "review" anything but his book (and I stated an explicit caveat on that point in my review). I was aware of the fact that he makes other arguments online, some of which have merit, but others I take considerable issue with, and all of which is too vast for me to review even were I inclined to. But the book is a print publication and self-contained: the argument within it can (or should be able to) stand on its own regardless of what else Doherty has said in other venues.

The overlapping of literal and metaphorical meaning makes this possible, IMO. To live "in the spiritual world" right now is to act as if we did. Thus, Paul can even say (in Rom. 8:9) that we are "in the spirit" and not "in the flesh" (and using the preposition en, no less) even though we obviously are, in actual fact, still in our bodies and still in the corruptible world and not yet in the future incorruptible world of the spirit. Likewise (8:10) our "body is dead" (even though it's not really) and (8:14) those who embrace the holy spirit are "sons of god" (even though not really), and so on.

So when he explicitly says he is speaking allegorically in Gal. 4:22-31, I think we can read him as saying "he who was of the bondwoman was born (as if) in the realm of the flesh, but he of the freewoman was by promise," meaning the latter son was a citizen of heaven, but the former was a citizen of earth (in this case Paul uses a filial metaphor instead of a political one, 4:26, 4:28, 4:31, but these are two metaphors for the same idea, and he switches because of his choice of OT analogy, which is also parental rather than political; note, also, that the parallel to Rom. 1:3 is starker at Gal. 4:29). So Paul is saying here that if we are "born" to the "free woman," whom Paul says is "the Jerusalem above," i.e. the spiritual realm of heaven, then we are free and saved, but if we are "born" to the "slave woman," whom Paul says is this world, the world of flesh (as in Rom. 7, but here emphasized by terrestrial geography, Gal. 4:25), we are doomed. Obviously he can't mean literally. So, too, I suspect, elsewhere.

Sarah's womb was a known Judeo-Christian metaphor for resurrection (you can find my discussion of this in my chapter on the "Spiritual Body" in The Empty Tomb), so Gal. 4:27, and indeed this whole "allegory" (4:24), is probably talking about resurrection. Note, too, that Isaac was the sacrificial firstborn son whose "salvation" established the annual sacrifice that would become the Atonement ritual that is finally perfected in Jesus, the "final Isaac" as it were. However that may be, what Paul clearly does say is that you take on the properties of where you live (1 Cor. 15:35-55 is all about that)--and where you really live is where you belong, even if you are away from home at the time being (we're "tourists" as I think Philo says, who also repeats the notion that we are actually "citizens of heaven").

This is how the concept crosses from the metaphorical to the literal. So the question is this: is Paul saying in Rom. 1:3, for example, that Jesus was not really in the flesh but behaved "as if" he were (in the way that we are not really in the spirit, yet are exhorted to live as if we were, and are even said to already be), or is he saying that Jesus was literally "in the flesh"? Either way, it is an odd thing to say--if Paul means to be talking about a real man. For example, he says this of real Christians, but not in a literal sense of "born of David" or "born of woman" but always in a metaphorical sense, where "born of woman" (in fact, being born of Sarah or Hagar specifically) actually means "born of heaven and/or the corruptible world below heaven," and here we are not guessing, because that is flat out what Paul says he means. Apply that to Jesus in Rom. 1:3 and we have Paul saying Jesus was "born of David" in the same sense that you and I are born either of Sarah or Hagar--either way, not literally.

Even so, none of this entails that this is what Paul is saying in Rom. 1:3 (for example). It just seems to make more sense of all the evidence, considered together, than any other interpretation so far (with the recent possible exception of docetism, whether ahistoricist or historicist, but I have to wait for someone to write a good thesis on that in competition with Doherty's before I can make a call). As an example of a dead end, one could propose that Paul is engaging apologetics for a non-Davidic Jesus in Rom. 1:3, i.e. knowing the historical Jesus wasn't really Davidic, Paul argues that he nevertheless "was" in the same sense that we are sons of Hagar. But were that the case, IMO, we should expect to hear more of the argument, if not here certainly elsewhere, since Paul is forced to argue against controversies in his letters over far less controversial or difficult concepts. Likewise, if Paul means to say that Jesus was actually born on earth, his insertion of kata sarka seems redundant and a bit odd (since he certainly is not using this to refer to literal birth anywhere else, least of all in Gal. 4), but more importantly, we would expect to hear more about this.

I'll leave it at that, since really this is a debate for the Doherty gang to engage. I've spent far too much time on this already, and my studies and work are suffering for it. I have to get back to the things that I really ought to be doing. I only came here to defend myself against accusations of deceit and incompetence, and I think we've brought that issue to a close. Gibson will continue to rail, but I think he's lost enough credibility on this point.

There will come a time when I will write my own articles and book on the Jesus Myth theory (though not for at least two years, since I already have my next two years' work planned out), in which I will certainly deviate from Doherty on many points, and may even (by then) deviate from my conclusions now. In the meantime, my review remains a review of his book. If someone comes up with a theory better than his, on all the issues (not just this one alone), please get it published (even self-published, as long as someone actually puts real money in it, which demonstrates that they care as much about it as I they expect me to) and as long as it exhibits at least as much knowledge and care as Doherty's book, I will review it on the same terms as I reviewed Doherty's. Until then, you guys duke it out. Just be nice to each other when you do.

jgibson000

And lest anyone be mistaken about other things as well, Iason, you may wish to know that Richard and I have far more in common than you might suppose. Like him, I an anti-creationist. Like him, I am a philosophical naturalist. Like him, I am not a thesist. Like him, I have argued repeatedly -- and in my classes -- aganst the idea of "intelligent design" as a scientific concept.

But his surprise that I have not referrenced, let alone boasted of, my credentials surprises me. For I am, for all my repellant character, a believer in the idea that in debate, it is the strength of one's arguments and one's evidence, not the weight of, or the pointing to one's credentials, that is important, and that what distinguishes the professional from the non professional is the refusal to trot those credentials out at any time in the course of an argument.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

His lack of response tells us nothing, Jeffrey.

What is "telling", IMO, is your apparent failure to consider the obvious possibility that the guy might have simply decided it wasn't worth the effort of a response.

Chris Weimer

I really don't want to draw this out any further than it has to, so I'll ask it once and leave it at your word alone. If the evidence is so important and not the credentials (which it rightly is, none will deny this), then why did you take the matter to his advisor? A simple and single answer will suffice, and then maybe we can get back to the kata sarka debate.

krosero

When I first arrived here, Richard, I started by mentioning your review of Doherty's book; and I spoke sympathetically of your contention that professional HJ scholarship had not yet produced an ABE as good as Doherty's. I would not say that their arguments are inferior to his, and in fact I strongly believe the opposite; but you may be right that HJ scholars need to produce a better response to Doherty, which is to say, arguments with greater power to explain the data to a greater number of people (an ABE that is acceptable to a greater range of readers). The content of the HJ arguments seems fine to me (and other theists), but I am not going to be hard to convince of an HJ; agnostics and atheists are another matter.

But on the matter of whether KATA SARKA in Romans 1:3 is an "odd" usage, I don't see the oddness. (In this sense, Doherty needs to come up with a more convincing argument for me). Let me explain.

Prior to Paul, maybe. In Paul himself, as you know, there is this use, referring to lineage:

"What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh [KATA SARKA], has found?" (Romans 4:1)

So Paul has said, our forefather in the sphere of the flesh, or something like that, depending on the translation. You offered this in regard to possible translations:

It is just as easy to ask what the hell it means when Paul says,

"For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh[KATA SARKA]" (Romans 9:3)

Why say that he is kinsmen to certain people in such a mystical fashion? Well, that's how he spoke. You won't find me saying, "my brothers in the sphere of the flesh," or "my brothers in conformity with the flesh." But if I were more like Paul, and I started speaking all the time about what was in conformity with this world in which we find ourselves, and what was in conformity with the realm of God, where we hope to find ourselves one day, I probably would draw attention to what sphere I'm talking about when I make almost any contention. If I am Paul and I believe that Christ as God's Son is descended from unearthly spheres, but I believe that Christ has a relationship to David in this sphere, I'm going to point it out in just that way.

None of this sounds difficult or odd to me.

I have checked that in Romans 1:3 and 9:3, KATA SARKA is used both times. If there is some other consideration in the Greek context, there is very little I could say, without knowing Greek; and I'm open to hearing what you have to say about it. But as it stands now, I have not been convinced that there is any problem in Romans 1:3 for the historicist model.

Chris Weimer

This thread has been quite some journey, eh folks? I went through the entire thread for review to see where exactly we went wrong. You see, I talked to Dr. Gibson and Mr. Carrier privately, and I think this is all one big misunderstanding. (Yeah, that's what they all say.) I didn't even realize my own role in this shenanigans.

I counted three major discussions in this thread. The first was whether Earl Doherty accurately represented his sources views. The second was whether Richard Carrier selectively chose his sources to fit Earl Doherty's thesis. The third was about kata sarka.

Having talked to both Richard and Jeffrey, I can honestly say that everyone here shares part of the blame.

The first debate about Earl was admittedly a bit confusing. Burton1, Burton2, Barrett? Whatever. I don't think it mattered all that much.

However, the insults were flung by many parties, and accusations were abound. Personally, I didn't see itas any worse than many other IIDB debates, and many early on agreed with that statement. (Can they technically agree being that I write this after they wrote theirs?) Regardless, shame on everyone for the insults, but it wasn't horrible. I don't want to single out anyone, but some were especially accusing Jeffrey of things I just didn't see, and many others didn't see, such as calling Earl a liar and being vitriol.

Now on to Richard Carrier. Reading Carrier then differs from how I read him now, after he personally clarified what he meant. The possibility for misreading Carrier's claims exists, and I think this is what both I and Jeffrey had done. But when Ted Hoffman brought up credentials, the conversation took a turn for the worse. Credentials are irrelevant, a red herring, and can be seen as an ad hominem. Jeffrey did note this as soon as it was brought up, but apparently it was pursued. On claims of "cooking" the evidence, Jeffrey explicitly denied that he meant fraudulence, yet others, even in light of his clarification, still persisted with that line.

Heck, even I said that Richard was stretching the definition a bit to fit this instance. I was the one who suggested to Gibson that the best way to deal with it was to deal with the other usages in Paul (you can only see where that went). When accused of accusing Richard to "illegitimately" adding something to the definition, I was confused. This was mostly due to me not reading the thread in its entirety (thus missing this initial accusation) and responding to accusations of Jeffrey fishing around for others to attack Richard's usage.

To be fair, Richard did selectively use what he thought to be in favor of Doherty, but there was nothing illegitimate or fradulent about it. This is normal scholarship, to show the evidence that agrees. Especially after Richard clarified to me what he meant, I now see it as perfectly acceptable. I would have gone about it a different way, but it's there.

And then with Jeffrey contacting Richard's advisor, please note that it was Richard who brought this up. Jeffrey was, in my opinion, a bit out of line here, taking the matters personal. However, his reasoning seems justified. He didn't email his advisor to claim that Richard was incompetent. Au contraire, he was asking if he was competent in Greek. From what he said, it was entirely a personal thing. Makes sense considering that Jeffrey didn't bring it up.

After this, we moved on to the kata sarka (re-re-re-redux) debate, and here we stand now.

So what do we learn from all this?

We are not bad people, if only a little strange, so there's no need to insult someone or sling ad homines. Credentials are irrelevant, we look at the evidence. And can't we all please put this mess behind us, agree to hold different opinions as long as we look at the evidence itself and not the person holding the evidence, and move on to the real debate?

I hope this post clears some things up. No one is intentially being the "bad-guy" here, even if everyone seems to think so. No one has lost all credibility here, even if we all distrust each other a bit. And surely no one has lost any real sleep (except me, who has spent a bit writing this, even though I work in the morning).

So what do you say?

best and most humble regards, in pace optima - valete mi amici.

Chris Weimer

Amaleq13

In that credentials reflect specialized training and experience with the relevant evidence, I would have to disagree if an accurate understanding of the evidence requires specialized training and experience. It seems to me that this is precisely what we have here with regard to kata sarka and precisely why the views of those with the necessary training and experience are important.

With regard to questions of tone, however, I see a significant difference in the tone of Carrier vs Carlson as opposed to Carrier vs Gibson and it is apparent to me that this is primarily due to the language and arguments Jeffrey has chosen to use though Richard has certainly not refrained from some "tit for tat". Warranted or not, it doesn't help advance the issue.

I would be thrilled if the rest of this discussion followed the former rather than the latter and I look forward to hearing the opinions of those who have at least the same level of training and experience as Richard including but not limited to whether they believe his reading of standard linguistic sources is in some way illegitimate.

Chris Weimer

I disagree. Kata sarka requires no special training outside of merely knowing Greek and general familiarity of the text. Special training always helps, don't get me wrong, but at least how I see it, kata sarka is best understood by other Pauline uses of it, kata + acc. is best understood by other uses of it, and Romans 1.3 is best understood by how Paul thinks. (Also, as Ben Smith has done, how the ancients took it.)

I'm not going to claim Jeffrey has been an angel. However, I must note that it wasn't ever Jeffrey v. Carrier, it was Jeffrey v. Hoffman first. Carrier was an extension of that. But it doesn't matter ultimately. My point was that everyone played a part in the events that transpired, and none of it was good.

Would I then be disqualified in this? I have not even graduated yet, but I think at least I am able to read the Greek and discern for myself what it says. This isn't neurosurgery.

Let me clarify once and for all exactly my position on Carrier. I disagree with Earl Doherty's interpretation that he means "in the realm of the flesh". Technically, yes, this is a possible reading, however unlikely. The objection raised is whether this reading should be adopted.

rlogan

you are not alone in the universe....

I see this as a solid argument.

Exactly so. This is a 2d century problem.



My command of languages is lacking and so I can see this going either way.

Amaleq13

I should have been more clear. I was referring to the second issue you identified above: "The second was whether Richard Carrier selectively chose his sources to fit Earl Doherty's thesis."

Since Carrier's conclusion was, at least in part, based on his experience, I would be most interested in the views of those who have at least as much.

IIUC, you agree with Carrier because he is saying the same thing (ie the reading is possible). He goes on to suggest that the rest of Doherty's argument makes it "likely" but that extends beyond what is being discussed, I think.

That is the third issue but I'm focusing the second.

Carrier says it is a legitimate interpretation. Gibson says he is "cooking" his sources to obtain that conclusion.