Amaleq13

I don't understand how you are defining "context" but it doesn't appear to agree with how Doherty is using it. His use makes sense to me but yours does not. Ignoring any alleged broader claims, Doherty's primary argument is that the phrase is consistently used in a particular way within the context of early Christian documents. How is that not a legitimate use of "context"?

If I understand Doherty correctly, he isn't claiming that a different use is "precluded". He is arguing that, within the identified, specific context, there is no good reason to conclude that a different use is ever actually intended with regard to the pre-crucifixion Jesus. I would be interested in his response to contrary examples.

That makes no sense to me. Doherty's argument focuses on the use of the term within a specific context. The relevance of the specific context is rather obvious. What are you suggesting he needs to do?

To continue the analogy, the relevant context would be "Cartman's speeches on South Park" but you seem to think that requires some sort of extra argument beyond being obvious. If Doherty were arguing that Cartman always uses the term with this meaning then a single example to the contrary would be sufficient. It wouldn't be relevant to refer to how other characters use it or how other shows use it.

I'm clearly not following your thinking because it seems pretty obvious to me that it is centrally important to Doherty's thesis. If you are not arguing against Doherty's core claim but, instead, addressing some comment that seems to extend the consistent usage beyond the specific context, it seems to me a waste of your time. Even if you establish that Doherty is incorrect that the word is used in the same way outside early Christian texts

I think Doherty acknowledges that Ignatius speaks of a Jesus who existed on earth but I thought Doherty was focusing on pre-Gospel texts.

Rick Sumner

Me and Doherty are using "context" in exactly the same way--what the word means when used in the manner it is being used, regardless of who is saying it. Your definition of "context" is somewhat unorthodox.

His "identified, specific context" isn't early Christian writings, which is the one you'd like to use.

Because you're missing what Doherty means by "context." He provided something of a discussion of it in this thread. Who is saying it is irrelevant.


I wasn't responding to Doherty, I was responding to you. You asked for references in early Christian literature. I gave you one (albeit, as I editted to note later, one that doesn't quite work, because Ignatius can't have meant what I suggested he did). Did you mean "all early Christian literature except Ignatius?" That's called an ad hoc--there is no evidence except the evidence. For what it's worth, my example was incorrect. For what it's also worth, it's incorrect because it doesn't fit its context (Ignatius supports the virgin birth), not because of who wrote it--who wrote it is ultimately irrelevant. What Doherty has is the right answer for what I find to be less than compelling reasons. What you're putting forth is the right answer for entirely wrong reasons.

Out of curiousity, I editted that post nearly two hours ago (long, long before you responded), minutes after I wrote it--how are you responding to an uneditted version now?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Editted to add: Perhaps I can make it more clear what the distinction between what Doherty means, and what you mean is. Doherty means that, because of the way early Christian writers use the term kata sarka, then it has the meaning he suggests. But it has that meaning because of the context they use it in, not because they are early Christian writers.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

It doesn't seem that way to me because I understand what he means when he uses the word and your recent use seems less clear. I think I am beginning to understand, however, but I'm beginnning to suspect that Ted Hoffman is correct and you don't really have an argument. There are two ways the word "context" can be used. Context can refer to the words surrounding a particular phrase or it can have a more broad meaning and refer to the setting or circumstances. You seemed to me to be referring to the latter and that is how I was responding. The broad setting for Doherty's interpretation of the phrase is the earliest Christian texts as he identifies them.

You have criticized him for claiming that the phrase always carries the same meaning even beyond these early Christian texts (ie an even broader context). He seems to have suggested that in this thread but has also denied making that assertion. Since it really isn't central to his thesis, it seems like a pointless criticism. Even if he is wrong about that claim, it doesn't change his thesis.

What the word means is the "definition", not the context. The context is comprised of all the words that surround the word in question and determines its meaning. Who is saying it is part of the other definition of context (ie the setting).

I clearly stated "pre-gospel texts". Given that you have read Doherty and he repeatedly identifies the texts he is discussing, I'm not sure why you would be confused. On his website, he argues that traces of this pre-gospel belief can be found in 2nd century texts but his primary thesis focuses on texts that he dates as early as Paul's letters.

I started my response before you edited but didn't complete it until after you had made the changes. I didn't realize my meeting took that long. Sorry for the confusion.

It happened again so this is new:

I understood what Doherty was saying but I haven't argued otherwise. I haven't been talking about "why" or "how" (ie context definition 1) the phrase is used, I've been talking about "where" and "who" (ie context definition 2).

Rick Sumner

See above, Doherty's argument (as he clearly outlined here, in fact), is based entirely on the context (in this case, the context of the Pauline epistles and their placement of Jesus within the spiritual realm). That has nothing to do with whether or not they're early Christian writings, it just happens that that context appears in early Christian writings. His position would hold if they were early Hindu writings that used the term in a similar fashion--who wrote them is irrelevant.

And I'm wondering whether you want a discussion, or just to see who can issue the most compelling rhetoric?

No. I have criticized him for presuming that they invariably carry the same meaning within the Christian texts. If the term is sometimes ambiguous, and we know (from other sources) that it can have multiple meanings, then we have no way of being certain what is being said during those ambiguous usages of the term. In the case of Romans 1:3 (in case you missed not one, but two, posts to that effect), Doherty happens to be correct. He may be correct throughout the entirety of the Pauline corpus. At this point, I'm not arguing that he's wrong, I'm arguing that your reasoning is flawed.

You're still missing what's being said.

No you didn't. Feel free to review your initial post. "Early Christian writings." If you'd care to add the qualifier now, then by all means please do so. But don't attempt to pass it off as though it were there all along, creating the impression that your oversight was my mistake.

I'm responding to you at this point, not Doherty, because the argument you're reiterating isn't Doherty's. If you'd like clarification, Doherty touched upon aspects of his argument in this thread. None of those aspects suggested that it was important to his reading that it be early Christian writings, only that it so happened that his reading only occurred in them.

I'm aware of what his website does. Again, I'm arguing against your argument, which is different than the one Doherty explicitly outlined on this very thread.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

According to Doherty, it doesn't "just happen" but is a direct result of the nature of the beliefs of the early Christians. They use this phrase because of their beliefs about the central figure in their faith. Therefore, who is using the term is clearly relevant to his thesis. That is why I was confused when you started referring to usage outside this group. It seemed to me you were arguing beyond his claims.

Certainty is for those with faith. Given Carrier's observation that the orthodox interpretation is essentially unintelligible, we obviously need an alternative. Doherty offers an answer and, in opposition, you offer...what? That Doherty's answer is not necessarily correct? He admits that in this thread. If there is no instance where his interpretation becomes unintelligible as with the orthodox view, what is the basis for your objection? Perhaps a specific example of an "ambiguous usage" will help but it seems to me that you have to offer a specific alternative interpretation to have an actual criticism. Simply saying it might mean something else when you don't have any idea what that "something else" is seems pretty pointless.

Then what is the basis of your criticism? That there might be some, so-far, unknown meaning intended?

Stick with Doherty, you seem to understand him better. I think I've made it clear that we were using "context" differently. The way I was using it is entirely consistent with Doherty's thesis. In fact, it is the whole point of his thesis.

It is in the portion you quoted, Rick. I clarified what was meant by "early Christian writings" and you responded by quoting the sentence that contained the clarification. Unfortunately for you, your response apparently ignored the clarification and addressed the earlier statement. I didn't think the clarification was necessary because I was assuming familiarity with Doherty's thesis. After all, you did not ask for clarification when he referred earlier in this thread to "early Christian epistles".

You quoted this:

"I think Doherty acknowledges that Ignatius speaks of a Jesus who existed on earth but I thought Doherty was focusing on pre-Gospel texts."(bold added)

and responded:

"Did you mean "all early Christian literature except Ignatius?"

You are forgiven for your oversight.

Rick Sumner

What I want you to do at this point is go back, and review who is responding to what at what time. It goes in this order:

1) You made a statement ("Early Christian writings").

2) I responded (Ignatius).

3) You changed it to "pre-gospel writings"

4) I noted that your initial statement requested "Early Christian writings," and pointed out what was pretty clearly ad hoc goalpost shifting.

5) You denied the goalpost shifting, by claiming that you had "clearly" stated "pre-gospel writings."

The problem, of course, is that stating "pre-gospel writings" was the goalpost shifting. Intentional or otherwise, the mistake was yours. One must wonder how we're going to move toward other questions, when even simple exchanges get put through such obfuscation, rather than a simple acknowledgement of what is clearly your error.

As for the remainder of your post, I can only point you back toward what Doherty himself said in this very thread. We aren't using "context" differently, you're misunderstanding what Doherty is arguing, or utterly misunderstanding what I mean when I refer to context and its bearing on semantic range (which is the argument you're responding to in the first place).

Doherty is reasoning as follows 1) Intermediate (and immediate, regarding the exchange with Gibson) context (Paul's high christology, notion that the supernatural interacts with the "sphere of the flesh.") 2) Broader context (other instances of kata sarka as clearly referring to the "sphere of the flesh") 3) "Sphere of the flesh" as translation of kata sarka consistently in early Christian literature.

You are putting the conclusion as the context upon which the argument is based. This is erroneous. One simply can't start there and arrive at anything remotely resembling a firm conclusion. It is a "context" in the sense that a setting of a story is a "context." It's not a context in the sense that it's a premise upon which the argument is based.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Amaleq13

I did and that is how I confirmed that you ignored the clarification in making your comment. The precise point you do this is your number 4. You ignore what should have been an unnecessary clarification in order to offer a pedantic criticism. No goalposts were shifted. I had assumed you were familiar with Doherty's thesis and understood what he meant when he referred to "early Christian epistles" when I continued to use the concept. Like I said before, you didn't ask for clarification when he said it so my assumption seems justified.

I'm really not interested in getting dragged into yet another tangential meta-discussion with you, Rick. I'm also not interested in correcting your misunderstanding of what I have said regarding the confusion about "context". I'm only interested in your responses to my questions about your criticism of Doherty.

Ted Hoffman

Amaleq,

Besides your Buddha-like patience, I must commend you for your clarity of thought and expression since I last posted on this thread. You have brought out several nuances to the discussion that I had overlooked or assumed I was aware of.

You were right to delete the irrelevant section of my post. I have a tendency to resort to non-measured responses when I interpret certain postings, correctly or incorrectly, as bloated mentality used to camouflage incompetence. Even though subsequent postings clearly corroborate my assesment, I should have been more tactful. I will be vigilant about such postings in future.

Keep on slumming: you are doing a great job. :thumbs:

Amaleq13

Thank you for the kind words, TH.

As you know, I've had doubts about Doherty's thesis but reconsidering Carrier's comments about kata sarka have actually reduced them. I would still like to see something that pushes his interpretation beyond "consistent but not necessarily accurate" but Carrier's comment that the orthodox interpretation is essentially unintelligible (did he say that in his original critique? If so, I must not have grasped the import) has really made an impression. I cannot imagine why Paul would deliberately choose such a vague phrase if he had in mind a Jesus made of flesh and living on earth. This is especially puzzling given that a more specific term was readily available and only a variation of the one used. That's why I was hoping someone might suggest a viable alternative.

What else could Paul have been thinking when he deliberately chose this phrase?

andrewcriddle

Could you just remind us what suggested alternative phrase or term you're referring to ?

Thanks

Andrew Criddle