Ted Hoffman

krosero,
Sorry I haven't responded to your earlier post, which I intend to respond to more meaningfully. Let me say this: this is not just about what Doherty thinks. Carrier's knowledge in Greek is superior and Carrier agrees with Doherty and disagrees with Gibson. See Carrier's Greek credentians in my biblicalstudies post.

The point is, where multiple interpretations for a word exists, scholars choose meanings that fit their HJ paradigms. That is all. It has got nothing to do with Greek, but paradigms or explanatory frameworks.

To clarify the confusion surrounding gennao, genomenon, ginomai etc,let me cite Doherty in full:
Gibson's claims are incorrect.
Three questions: 1. What expression means "born" and 2. what word does Burton say is ambiguous? 3. GENNHQENTA is unambiguous compared to what word?

Ted Hoffman

I apologize for using "Gibson" again. Sorry. Looks like I have to unlearn it.

Ted Hoffman

I think you are right. Saying "Burton favours Doherty's interpretation", is misleading. But I say this for the reasons you have presented, not for the same reasons that Jeffrey was advancing. Jeffrey's objection to my assertion was that because these authors wrote before Doherty, one cannot validly say that theys "support" Doherty because there was no Doherty to support when they wrote. I disagree with that kind of reasoning because, IMO, it is antithetical to the very definition of what scholarship is. Scholarship moves forward, and develops by developing works based on earlier works. This means current scholars stand on the shoulders of past scholars, thus, past works that are consonant with latter works, are said to be supporting these latter efforts.

Now, back to you. I agree that if the tenor, or interpretive framework of a particular scholar is divergent from Doherty's work, then it is misleading to state that that scholar "favours" or "supports" Doherty's interpretation because, for example, if for argument's sake, one meets a scholar like Barrett in a conference and asks him: "Prof. Barrett, do you support Doherty's interpretation of kata sarka?", he would probably say "No, Paul must have meant an earthly birth, not a non-earthly one. I do not support a mythical interpretation of that phrase, even though, as you know, I note in my book that it is possible to interpret it in that fashion"

So, I think, the correct thing to do is to state, as Doherty does in in p.83 and p.122 of tJP, for example, that Barrett, merely suggests that interpretation as a possible one but does not favour or support it. Support has a broader meaning than Barrett's words, for example, warrant. When a scholar clearly departs from a particular option amongst many, and chooses a different option, one cant say that that scholar "supports" the option that he/she has clearly abandoned.

What this means is that I have made misleading statements about Doherty's thesis vis a vis the support that the works of some scholars can lend to Doherty's thesis. For this, I apologize because I had not contemplated this matter in the somewhat nuanced terms that you have raised and I take full responsibility. Thanks.

And the possibility of me unwittingly misreading a scholar? Very possible. In fact I have done it wrt both Doherty and Carrier. I however try my best not to do that. But it cannot be a presumption. Where it is the case, it must be demonstrated.

Wrt Knibb, Doherty can speak for himself. I dont have a copy of Knibb. If you post the relevant passages, maybe we can evaluate what Doherty argues?

Amaleq13

Has this note been quoted in this thread? I must have missed it because I did not know that Barrett allowed for such an interpretation.

krosero

I appreciate your looking at this whole issue so calmly, TedH.

But Barrett does not note in his book anything about a non-earthly interpretation. If you caught him at a conference, the only thing we can say in advance is that he would agree that others can take , rightly or wrongly, his phrase "in the sphere of the flesh" and interpret that English phrase as lending support to an unearthly birth. He may very well have chosen to use those particular English words as a way to reinforce the idea of a birth on the surface of the earth; or he may have chosen to use those words as a way to make the earthliness of the birth less emphasized or less concrete-sounding. How do we know which one it is, in advance? Doherty doesn't tell us in his book or elsewhere the means by which Barrett reached his translation. The only thing Doherty offers us vis a vis Barrett's methods is the old saw about HJ scholars being limited in their work by their theology. There's nothing about Barrett choosing that translation, for instance, because linguistic factors call for it.

I know my example about California and Death Valley might be too stark, but it's stark because I wanted to make it clear that if one scholar means by "California" one thing, and another scholar means something starkly different, citing the first scholar's use of the word means nothing, at least not without knowing exactly why the first scholar uses the word.

I agree, but following what I just wrote, I think "suggests" is still too strong. Barrett has not suggested an unearthly birth; I think it's a safe assumption that he's an HJ scholar. The unearthly birth, rather, is suggested to mythicists by Barrett's English words. That needs to be made clear.

Very true, and I will try not to presume it. This all comes out of the constant back-and-forth accusations that the other side is in fact blinded by their presuppositions. And I do believe that both sides unwittingly misinterpret, because of their presuppositions.

I wouldn't want to delve so deeply into that case that this thread would lose its focus. So I've said things in this thread and pointed out similarities in the Knibb case, from the Ascension of Isaiah thread thread. Something you wrote here, actually, reminded me of that thread.

You gave us three paragraphs about three different points Burton made, and in a forum like this, I presumed that you were listing the points in favor of your own arguments. I have no way of knowing that Burton disagrees fully with the paternity argument. I know only because Gibson quoted Burton in full: "The phrase GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS can not be interpreted as excluding human paternity, as some interpreters, both ancient and modern, have maintained (cf. Sief. and Zahn ad loc.)."

Burton, as you told us, is not an online text, and has to found with a little extra effort, so it was really important for you to have told us that Burton mentions the paternity argument as something that he rejects. I really thought when you presented it that Burton was considering or favoring it, or not opposing it.

Similarly, when Doherty said in the Ascension thread that Knibb "voices the possibility" that the names "Christ" and "Jesus" are later additions to the document, it sounded to me like an idea that perhaps Knibb was toying with, or partially considering. Then Doherty said in the same post that Knibb "opines" this same argument. So I looked up Knibb's essay -- from The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, Michael Knibb (vol. 2, p.143-176) -- at the library, and found that he seems actually to mention the possibility as something that he rejects, or at the very least as an unlikely possibility. He says that in Ascension 9:5 there is

Above, Ted, you did say that there is no longer a dispute, if there ever was, about Burton disagreeing with the paternity argument. So this was not to pick on something you've moved on from, but just to say that the way you presented the argument was problematic just as Doherty's presentation of Knibb was problematic. How can we know whether a scholar is quoting, affirming, considering, or rejecting a third-party argument unless you tell us?

krosero

After growing more and more confused about what was actually being claimed and counter-claimed concerning Burton, I thought it would be helpful (definitely to me at least) to quote the claims by Doherty and Ted Hoffman one at a time, and to follow each claim with Burton's corresponding words, in order to directly check claims against evidence. I'll be glad if this proves helpful to anyone else here. I've also added my own conclusions about the disagreement, after this little exercise clarified it for me. If I've missed anything, just let me know or add it to the thread.

Claim #1: Burton detaches the birth and the subjection to law from the present.
Claim #2: Burton says that Paul could have used a less ambiguous word for “born�, and he says that the word Paul does use means “to become, to come into existence.� Claim #3: Burton says that paternity has been excluded by certain scholars.

Claim #4: Burton says that Paul’s words by themselves do not indicate a knowledge of a virgin birth.

CLAIM 1

Doherty is not on firm ground when he says that Burton detaches the birth and the subjection to law from the present time in which Christ is being revealed. Burton says that Paul shared with others like him the idea of such things being fixed in time. He says that Paul nowhere indicates to us whether he believes this in the sense that certain things must occur first, or that the world must reach a certain condition, or that a definite period must first elapse: but Paul does believe in the critical event happening “in the fullness of time,� and at the critical present juncture in salvation history. Doherty snips Paul’s comments about time by quoting it as, “. . .God sent his own Son, born of woman, born under the Law� (he does not snip it in his book, where he also adds that Burton himself does not detach the birth from the present time).

Burton speaks again of time when he says that the subjection to the law cannot be fixed “at birth or subsequently�, but clearly Burton is fixing it in the present time since Christ’s revelation to the world (i.e., since his birth). Burton’s only question is whether the subjection might have occurred after birth.

Now, Burton hedges a little as to whether the birth and the subjection are “adverbs� of the sending. Doherty does not mention this hedging, and he uses only Burton’s conclusion that the birth and the subjection appear “not so much to express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to characterise the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law in which he performed his mission.�

Not to get lost on an aside, but a direct description of the Son as relating to humanity by coming out of a woman is a direct contradiction of mythicism – more than a plain word for “birth� would be, since the latter could always be said to be celestial. Instead we have Paul, per Burton, describing Christ’s relationship to humanity by saying that Christ came out of woman.

Whatever Doherty means to accomplish with Burton, this looks like a horse that won’t run (or whatever similar phrase you might choose).

CLAIM 2

Doherty is correct that Burton finds a certain ambiguity in the reference to birth. Burton speaks about the ambiguity of the whole phrase, while Doherty specifies that the ambiguity is in the word GENOMENON. Doherty adds that Paul could have used a form of the unambiguous GENNAO instead, while Burton suggests the unambiguous GENNHQENTA. Maybe this is a contradiction, maybe not.

The Greek is confusing to me since I don’t know it. But what’s even more confusing is that in Doherty’s last post, he identifies Burton’s suggested (unambiguous) GENNHQENTA as a form of the verb GINOMAI. Yet Doherty and TedH had been arguing that Paul actually uses the (ambiguous) word, GINOMAI. So in one place Paul should be using GINOMAI, in another place he already is using it.

Then when we turn to the original, he doesn’t seem to be using it: GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, GENOMENON HUPO NOMON (born of woman, under the law).

Please step in, anyone who wants to help.

Now in Doherty’s original argument, Paul does use the ambiguous word GINOMAI, which has a broader meaning of “to become, to come into existence". That statement, placed where it is in Doherty’s argument, looks like Burton’s next thought, rather than Doherty’s. And TedH certainly presents it as Burton’s thought; so Ted's statement is evidence that Doherty’s presentation is misleading.

All this matters because Burton says nothing directly about the word Paul uses; and Doherty’s presentation gives the impression that Burton wants to make Christ’s birth into something almost abstract, when all that Burton had said was that the concept of birth can be found in the context and the “limiting phrase� rather than directly in the participle.

CLAIMS 3 AND 4

TedH fails to tells us that Burton rejects the exclusion of paternity (i.e., the virgin birth). Ted places the paternity argument in a sequence under the words “Burton favours Doherty’s interpretation as we see below�.

I think it took guts for TedH to admit being misleading. I don’t think that Doherty has lied, either intentionally or in effect. I’d suggest rather that his references to other scholars can be sloppy and misleading.

Ted Hoffman

Cite the relevant passages from Barrett and lets see what we have.

Amaleq13

I'm supposed to find a statement you attributed to Barrett's book? That makes no sense.

You stated:Where in Barrett's book does he acknowledge it is possible to interpret it in that fashion?

jgibson000

He doesn't. Here's the full text of his comments on Rom. 1:3. As you read through them I ask you to note two things.

(1) that when Barrett speaks of "according to" as a possible way of translating KATAT and then denies that this is what KATA means in the expression KATA SARKA, what he is doing is only denying that KATA is used here to mean "as is viewed from a particular pespective" (as in the Gospel "according to" or from the point of view of Matthew), and

(2) that when Barrett speaks of KATA as meaning "in the sphere of", he is neither in any way admitting (even obliqely) nor, more importantly, in any way giving any grounds for thinking that he admits or implies that the locative/spatial sense that Doherty (and Carrier) see him as saying (if only indirectly) is there, is actually in any way there, even as a possibility, since it is clear from the rest of what Barrett says in his comments on the verse that he is stating unequivocably that what Paul is doing here with KATA is that he is using it, as it was used elsewhere in Hellenistic Greek

(a fact -- cf. BDAG and LSJ -- of which Doherty and Carrier seem to be blissfully but inexcusably unaware (especially how they both, though more so Carrier than Doherty) use (indeed crib from) LSJ as the basis both of their claims about the semantic range of KATA and of their apodictic pronouncements on the meaning of KATA SARKA),

specifically and only as a marker of norm of similarity or homogeneity, and even more specifically as meaning "with respect to, in relation to".

In the light of this, to say that in his Commentary on Romans Barrett acknowledges that it is possible to interpret the KATA in Rom 1:3 in the fashion that Doherty thinks it can (and should) be interpreted is both to misread and to misrepresent Barrett.

Jeffrey
**********

The Good News is about his Son, in whom all the Old Testament promises were fulfilled (2 Cor. 1:20), and the saving acts were wrought. A brief (perhaps credal) formula expounds the nature of the Son of God in this verse and the next. It consists of two lines in antithetical parallelism. He was

in the sphere of the flesh, born of the family of David;

in the sphere of the Holy Spirit, appointed Son of God-'

The preposition (KATA) here rendered 'in the sphere of' could also be rendered 'according to', and 'according to the flesh' is a common Pauline phrase; in this verse, however, Paul does not mean that on a fleshly (human) judgement Jesus was a descendant of David, but that in the realm denoted by the word flesh (humanity) he was truly a descendant of David. Similarly, 'in the sphere of the Holy Spirit' does not introduce a truer evaluation of Jesus' person, but a second evaluation also true in another (divine) sphere. (For the translation 'Holy Spirit' see below, p. 19.)

That Jesus was of Davidic descent is attested in various parts of the New Testament (e.g. Matt. 1:1; Acts 2:30; Rev. 5:5), but nowhere else by Paul (but cf. xv. 12). It is a probable view that he mentions the matter here because he is quoting a formula which he did not himself compose; and not impossible that he quotes it in order to commend his orthodoxy to persons who he knew would recognize the formula. Evidently he saw no reason to question the fact; it was part of the conviction that Christ had fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament (e.g. 2 Sam. vii. iz; Isa. xi. i); but for him a more significant statement of the Old Testament background out of which the Christ emerged was that he was 'born under the law' (Gal. 4: 4; cf Rom. 15:8, with the note).

Jesus, then, as a man was a descendant of David; but 'in the sphere of the Holy Spirit he was appointed Son of God'. This translation is not universally accepted. For 'in the sphere of' seeabove. 'The Holy Spirit' is literally 'spirit of holiness', and this has been taken to refer not to the Holy Spirit, but to Jesus' own (human) spirit, marked as it was by the attribute of holiness. It is true that, though Paul frequently refers to the Holy Spirit, he nowhere else uses this descriptive genitive, which is probably of Semitic origin; but this fact is explained if we accept the view that the Christological formula is pre-Pauline. Further, the word here translated 'appointed' is sometimes translated 'defined', or 'declared' (to be). This rendering has the evident advantage that it avoids the charge of adoptionism which can be brought against 'appointed' (see below), but there is little else to be said for it. Hellenistic evidence and New Testament usage both favour 'appointed' (e.g. Acts x- 42; xvii- 30

We now have before us an antithetical Christological couplet, which we have some reason for regarding as pre-Pauline. It is important to note what it contains.

The very fact of the antithesis is significant. It is implied that there are two things to be said about Christ, not indeed contradictory but complementary to and different from each other. Christ belongs to two spheres or orders of existence, denoted respectively by flesh and Spirit; in these he can be described as Son of David and as Son of God. He was born as Son of David, appointed Son of God. We have no grounds for taking any other than the most natural view, namely, that the birth preceded the appointment.

Ted Hoffman

Amaleq, I think I answer your question in Krosero's post below. Feel free to ask for clarification if I am still unclear.
Jeffrey, as usual, quotes Barrett correctly, but fails to get Doherty's argument. I think the post below should clarify things.