Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 09-22-2011, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

I think that the Pauline corpus was heavily redacted and then brought into the fold, with the Pastorals and Luke/Acts to keep it company.

It certainly seems to be a possibility. I might even say likely. Though I would also like to hear the other side of the case, or cases (is there ever less than a multitude?) :]

It pretty much rests on attestation, at least regarding possible dating.

archibald · 09-22-2011, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

It pretty much rests on attestation, at least regarding possible dating.

I'm afraid that statement just makes me curious for more. :]

But I do not expect you to spoon feed me.

Incidentally, I have started a new thread here, in which I'm hoping some kind persons will make a suggestion:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306677

dog-on · 09-22-2011, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by archibald

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

It pretty much rests on attestation, at least regarding possible dating.

I'm afraid that statement just makes me curious for more. :]

But I do not expect you to spoon feed me.

Incidentally, I have started a new thread here, in which I'm hoping some kind persons will make a suggestion:

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306677

Yes, the whole endeavor, much like anything having to do with this subject, can become quite convoluted.

Basically, one starts with the early witnesses, perhaps with someone such as Clement and starts looking for attestations to the current NT books. What you will find is, imo, are more questionable references moving toward less questionable references, the later into the 2nd century you get.

Of course, you need to also deal with the references to references, like Ireneaus back to Papias, where no surviving MS to confirm the reference exists and what should be made out of things like that.

Additionally, you need to determine which dating you are more comfortable with, as 1 Clement, for example, is argued to have been written anywhere from the late first century to the middle of the second century, depending on which scholar floats your boat.

However, when everything is taken into account, I think that the most parsimonius conclusion is to place the Pauline corpus, in it's near final redaction, sometime in the mid second century, though this again is simply based on the certain assumptions I happen to make.

Vorkosigan · 09-22-2011, 04:02 AM

Don, what is the prima facie meaning of "according to the flesh"? I mean:

"but he who is of the maid-servant, according to flesh hath been, and he who is of the free-woman, through the promise;"

Clearly, the son of the slave was born naturally, but the son of the free woman.... magically?

There's no prima facie meaning of "Christ" either.

As Toto already pointed out to you, there is no prima facie meaning of "according to the flesh." You keep wasting everyone's time with this pointless stupidity.

Why in the name of the Great Chthulu would Paul bother to point out that the Israelites are his countryman according to the flesh? Is there another way he could have been their countryman, since he was born a Jew according to legend? Clearly "according to the flesh" by any "prima facie" meaning of the phrase can't mean what you think it means, or else it is mindlessly stupid and redundant.

Vorkosigan

GakuseiDon · 09-22-2011, 04:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Don, what is the prima facie meaning of "according to the flesh"? I mean:

"but he who is of the maid-servant, according to flesh hath been, and he who is of the free-woman, through the promise;"

Clearly, the son of the slave was born naturally, but the son of the free woman.... magically?

There's no prima facie meaning of "Christ" either.

I think you are confusing "literal reading" with "prima facie reading". Or something.

Do you have a problem with giving a prima facie reading of "but he who is of the maid-servant, according to flesh hath been, and he who is of the free-woman, through the promise"? Or are you saying you don't understand it? Or what are you saying?

I'm asking for the possible readings from the following passage:

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

As Toto already pointed out to you, there is no prima facie meaning of "according to the flesh." You keep wasting everyone's time with this pointless stupidity.

I have been asking for the prima facie reading of the passage in Rom 9:3.
Toto --> :hylidae: --> theological shark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Why in the name of the Great Chthulu would Paul bother to point out that the Israelites are his countryman according to the flesh? Is there another way he could have been their countryman, since he was born a Jew according to legend?

Perhaps he wants to highlight the biological relationship, to contrast it with a spiritual relationship? I think I read somewhere in Paul where he contrasts flesh and spirit. :banghead:

Are you saying you don't understand Paul here, Vork? That there is no prima facie reading? Or what are you saying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Clearly "according to the flesh" by any "prima facie" meaning of the phrase can't mean what you think it means, or else it is mindlessly stupid and redundant.

I think the prima facie reading of the passage is this: Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

What is your view of the passage, Vork?

archibald · 09-22-2011, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Toto, thanks for your time. I'll leave you with Stephan's posts (which I agree are interesting).

Perhaps something has come out of it. But I'm not sure what you point was in raising the meaning of kata sarka yet again.

Quote:

. . . The preposition kata with the accusative literally means "down" or "down to" and often implies motion, usually over or through its object, which would literally read "down through flesh" or "down to flesh" or even "towards flesh." But outside the context of motion, it frequently means "at" or "in the region of," and this is how Doherty reads it. It can also mean "in accordance with" in reference to fitness or conformity, and in this sense kata sarka can mean "by flesh," "for flesh," "concerning flesh," "in conformity with flesh," and the like, meanings that don't relate to the location or origin of the flesh. Presumably this is what biblical translators have in mind with "according to the flesh," but I find it hard to understand what Paul would have meant to emphasize with this, other than what Doherty already has in mind. For example, the word kata can also have a comparative meaning, "corresponding with, after the fashion of," in other words "like flesh." And it has other meanings not relevant here. But the most common, relevant meanings of kata with the accusative do at least fit Doherty's theory that Jesus descended to and took on "the likeness of flesh" (Romans 8:3), in which case kata sarka would mean "in the realm of flesh." Nevertheless, though kata sarka does not entail that Jesus walked the earth, it is still compatible with such an idea. But many other strange details noted by Doherty are used to argue otherwise, and I think he makes a good case for his reading, based on far more than this.

From the archives 2003

Right. So Doherty would say that the writer meant that his fellow countrymen were in the region of flesh. Glad that the obvious reading has been clarified then. :constern01:

archibald · 09-22-2011, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Why in the name of the Great Chthulu would Paul bother to point out that the Israelites are his countryman according to the flesh? Is there another way he could have been their countryman, since he was born a Jew according to legend?

Vorkosigan

I don't know. You tell me.

archibald · 09-22-2011, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I think the prima facie reading of the passage is this: Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

:thumbs:

(except it may or may not have been 'Paul')

Iskander · 09-22-2011, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Are you aware of how many historians have actually looked at the case for the historicity of Jesus? Hardly any in recent years. The historical Jesus guild (which is actually doing theology and calling it history) just keeps repeating that everyone agrees that the question is settled that Jesus existed, although none of them can actually explain why.

But isn't that because a prima-facie reading of Paul and the Gospels gives that idea? I thought that everyone agreed that was the reason people thought that Jesus was historical?

For the following passage, what is the prima-facie conclusion about Jesus?

Rom 9:3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my countrymen according to the flesh,
4 who are Israelites, to whom [pertain] the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the service [of God], and the promises;
5 of whom [are] the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ [came], who is over all

I'm not sure that anyone needs to explain why the Christ referred in the passage above is regarded by Paul as someone historical. That's simply the prima-facie reason.

Now, deeper inspection may cast doubt upon that conclusion. But that deeper inspection hasn't hit modern scholarship, for better or for worse. So to say that no-one can explain why the question of Jesus' historicity is settled is remarkable. It's what the evidence that we have tells us.

I think archibald is right, Toto. The number of your statements that are nonsensical are increasing. Remember when you claimed something along the lines that the only criticisms people ever raised against Doherty was that he wasn't a credentialled scholar? Weird stuff.

Why don't we look at the Romans passage above and give a range of options on what it might mean, from a prima-facie perspective?

I'll go first: the prima-facie reading is that Paul believes that Jesus Christ was a Jew, who is a descendent of those Israelites who were part of a covenant with God from the time of Moses, just as Paul is also such a descendent.

What other prima-facie readings are there?

Quote:

For the following passage, what is the prima-facie conclusion about Jesus?

Working definition of: prima facie, based on what at first seems to be true, although it may be proved false later

The expression, prima facie is, to me, the interpretation of the text at first reading.

In my first reading: The speaker is not speaking to me, but to some other people and the speaker is talking on a subject of no importance to me.

He says to members of an alien tribe that he is one of them, by birth, and willing to suffer for the sake of his kinsmen who in some way they happen to have a religious tradition and recognisable ancestors (patriarchs) ---and he mentions a ‘Christ’ as one the members of the community; a member by birth, as the speaker also is. (According to the flesh = by birth).

TedM · 09-22-2011, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Why in the name of the Great Chthulu would Paul bother to point out that the Israelites are his countryman according to the flesh? Is there another way he could have been their countryman, since he was born a Jew according to legend?

Vorkosigan

Other translations use the word 'kinsmen' instead of 'countryman'. Paul, often referring to his fellow Christians as kinsmen--in the form of brothers--may have seen a need to distinguish between his kinsmen of the spirit to whom he was spiritually connected and his kinsmen of the flesh to whom he was biologically connected. oops, I see Don already made the same point.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-22-2011, 04:02 AM	#64
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Don, what is the prima facie meaning of "according to the flesh"? I mean: "but he who is of the maid-servant, according to flesh hath been, and he who is of the free-woman, through the promise;" Clearly, the son of the slave was born naturally, but the son of the free woman.... magically? There's no prima facie meaning of "Christ" either. As Toto already pointed out to you, there is no prima facie meaning of "according to the flesh." You keep wasting everyone's time with this pointless stupidity. Why in the name of the Great Chthulu would Paul bother to point out that the Israelites are his countryman according to the flesh? Is there another way he could have been their countryman, since he was born a Jew according to legend? Clearly "according to the flesh" by any "prima facie" meaning of the phrase can't mean what you think it means, or else it is mindlessly stupid and redundant. Vorkosigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.