avi

spin, I fear that you have failed to recognize the extent of my ignorance, for, I have not yet been able to understand even your English, let alone the Greek....

I cannot grasp the concept of "making something, or someone, through the flesh."

A blacksmith makes an instrument, using fire, or "through the heat"--sounds a trifle stilted, but, I could live with it...

A child is born through the vaginal orifice, I guess one could argue that this place of exit corresponds to "kata sarka", yet, it sounds so peculiar to me.

You wish that I could locate some Greek text to support my view that "kata sarka" describes David, but, I am quite willing to abandon my opinion, if only you, or anyone else, could explain how kata sarka modifies the verb, to be born, (or to be made,) rather than either noun, i.e. Jesus or David. I understand how it must be frustrating for you to understand something so simple as kata sarka, but, for me, it is a huge mountain, because I cannot imagine applying "flesh" or "through the flesh" to the process of giving birth, unless kata sarka is supposed to refer to the female reproductive organs, specifically the uterine myometrium (which is sarka, no doubt about it!!) In such a case, "kata sarka" would be referring neither to David, nor to Jesus, but to Mary....Hmm. Can you understand my confusion? Does kata sarka in Romans 1:3 refer, in your opinion, to the mother of Jesus?

avi

spin

While waiting for avi to step up and justify his position regarding what he has said about the Greek in this thread, here are some examples of adverbial phrases of manner using κατα:

Mt 25:15
εδωκεν ... εκαστω κατα την ιδιαν δυναμιν
(he) gave ... to each according to his ability

Lk 2:39
ετελεσαν απαντα τα κατα τον νομον κυριου
(they) performed all things according to the law of the lord

Rom 2:16
κρινει ο θεος τα κρυπτα των ανθρωπων κατα το ευαγγελιον μου
god will judge the secrets of men according to my gospel

Rom 16:26
φανερωθεντος .. δια τε γραφων προφητικων κατ επιταγην του αιωνιου θεου
he is made manifest through the writings of the prophets according to the commandment of the everlasting god

In each of these there is at least one noun between the phrase and the verb it relates to. Perhaps avi might want to argue with these grammatical relationships, perhaps he'd like to say in his ad hoc manner that he thinks that the κατα phrase actually refers to the noun immediately preceding it. But I doubt that. Ad hoc solutions aren't really solutions at all.

Here's another example, though there are no other arguments attached to the verb, so κατα σαρκα precedes the verb:

2 Cor 10:2b
κατα σαρκα περιπατουντας
walk according to the flesh

In the verse Paul thinks that walking "according the flesh" is a bad thing and a second example:

Rom 8:4
τοις μη κατα σαρκα περιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα
(we) who don't walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit

If avi wants to talk about anything other than the text and the Greek language related to his claims, it's clear that he is trying to take us up the garden path rather than demonstrate his case.


spin

avi

hmm

Is ambulation possible sans muscles?

Yeah. One detects that "Paul" may not have recently visited the VA hospital, where rows and rows of paralyzed soldiers confront those seeking to help combat veterans. That's great, spin, walk with the spirit, forget about the muscles...

The point here, in my view, is that spin has illustrated, beautifully, the fact that kata, "according to", may precede or follow verbs which it seeks to modify, and may appear at the beginning, middle, or end of a sentence.

I was wrong. Somehow, I imagined that kata sarka modified a noun. I must acknowledge error.

Then, let's go back to the beginning:

or, as I would prefer:
who was a descendant of David, according to the flesh.

Of course, this clause makes no sense at all, so let's try again:
who, (i.e. Jesus) was born according to the flesh, as a descendant of David.

Still utterly meaningless. How are people born "according to the flesh"?

I want to try this on for size, and see how it feels:

who was born in stereotypic fashion, as a descendant of David.

I can live with that. It is the birth process that is kata sarka, not the fertilization process, as I had imagined. Of course, my (wrong) approach, did offer one advantage: It explained HOW Jesus could be a descendant of David. Now, with kata sarka referring, instead, to the act of being born, rather than the act of conception, as I had argued, Romans 1:3 leaves us in the dark as to the rationale for claiming kinship with David. The assertion is there, but not the logic.

I wish Paul could have met spin....



avi

spin

You're willing to invent cockamamie meanings for phrases you don't understand, yet you won't work with the text to see what the writer was attempting to communicate.

This is an idiosyncratic paraphrase, not a translation. When you deal with a text in translation, you must represent it as accurately as possible and with as little interpretation in the translation as possible. I find it fascinating that you give yourself so much trouble over a phrase that makes sense in English. If you can understand the content the play title, "The Way of All Flesh", you should have no trouble with "according to the flesh".

And did you note the verb that I used, "was made", not simply "was" here, or "came to be".

Failed your literature exam at the end of high?

I must admit, if you go through a few more permutations you might eventually and accidentally fall over and hit your head with a reasonable and representative paraphrase.

Yup.

And that's something that Paul took with him.


spin

Rick Sumner

Skimming the thread I'm cautiously optimistic that avi realizes that you're correct, and I would not support it, but for posterity's sake I'll address this anyway, with apologies for my comments coming so late in the thread, and so far from the misapplication of my words.

The specific issue I was addressing in the comments was, of course, the declaration that kata sarka was a vague or mysterious choice of words by Paul. It might be vague or mysterious to us, it doesn't make much sense for Paul to use it much if his audience isn't going to know what he meant.

No, avi's reading is not how I would take kata sarka.

That said, it doesn't even need to imply actual sonship, literal seed. Apparently perceived seed is good enough. Since Clement believes in both the virgin birth, and refers to Jesus as David's son "kata sarka."

It's an argument Doherty missed. So far as I know, continues to miss. It still won't hold up for the meaning he needs, but it does offer something he doesn't have now--a clear instance of kata sarka indicating something that was not literally true.

I doubt it would be enough to make the case solidly, but that's neither here nor there. The fact remains that he probably should have squeezed that in.

As an interesting aside, it's often proclaimed that Paul did not know of the virgin birth because of Rom.1.3. That argument is clearly bunk, as Clement demonstrates.

Of course, I'd argue that the virgin birth is identifiably Matthean redaction, making that case moot, but we can't demonstrate Paul's ignorance from the epistles, which has, in the past, been used as something of an easy way out.

avi

Thanks for your comment, Rick. I would be interested, if you know of it, to read Clement's actual Greek text.

So, are you stating here, that Clement too, had imagined that "kata sarka" referred to David, rather than Mary? (to prevent howls and shrieks from the peanut gallery, allow me to clean that up: let's change that to "kata sarka referred to the act of procreation, rather than the act of birth", since spin has convinced me, now, that kata sarka must modify a verb, not a noun, as I had erroneously maintained, earlier.

I am still enamored with the former notion (kata sarka relating here to procreation, rather than birth), only because it strikes me as utterly logical, in view of David's "sperm". Well, I suppose that "sperma" is still in dispute, I mean we don't have absolute resolution yet, on the issue of whether or not sperma can represent the male genetic material itself, or if, on the contrary, it must be translated exclusively and explicitly as descendants (and not haploid male gametes)--or, what you, Rick, and spin, and Jeffrey like to call "seed", contrary to the proper usage of that botanical term.

The verb, as I understand it, and perhaps I am, as is typically the case, wrong, is not actually related to giving birth, but rather to being made, or constructed, or created, and that would again, in my view at least, point to the idea of David's sperm being responsible for the construction of the zygote we have come to call Jesus.

I know it must seem as though I have learned nothing, on this unwieldy thread, since I am right back to the position I held at the outset of this topic, but, both spin and Jeffrey have taught me a lot, and Rick, you have opened my eyes,

with your suggestion that Clement may likewise have considered David as the source of the male gamete....

I think it is remarkable that a single verse could be so complex, and so difficult to translate, and imagine, we haven't yet begun to analyze it in context...

Have you any opinion, Rick, as to why Codex Sinaiticus has a different arrangement, with both David (spelled "dad") and Kata Sarka appearing instead in verse 4, rather than 3. Would the different placement of these words change your estimation of their intended meaning, two millenia ago?

Thank you again, for your submission, very interesting....


avi

avi

I perused Clement I and II at Ben's site, and then checked Peter Kirby's site as well.

Read a couple of English translations, didn't find anything relating to David or Kata Sarka. Maybe I am not reading the text carefully enough...

1Clement42 discusses Jesus' origin, coming from God. 1Clement47 exhorts the Corinthians to read the Epistle of Paul. Finally, 1Clement49:6 suggests that Jesus sacrificed his flesh for our flesh, and his soul for our soul???? (a divine creature needs a soul?).

Though I did not find what I sought, I did encounter a couple of interesting passages:

Evidently the early Christians, following the Jewish imperative, regarded females as servants and incubators.

Nice. Arius, arise! Clement, pope of Rome, has just fatally impaled the notion of a Trinity. Jesus is supposed to inherit the eqnikos, as if he were not God himself, with power over all mortals. I wonder if Clement included Greeks among the eqnikos?

Summary:
Lessons from spin:
1. kata sarka is an adverbial phrase which (a) must modify verbs, not nouns, and (b) may preceed or follow the verb modified, and (c) may have one or more nouns, interspersed, between the verb and adverb.
2. sperma refers to offspring, or descendants (which spin prefers, in harmony with the 90% who mispronounce NUKULER, to write, "seed".)

3. It remains unclear, or uncertain, or in dispute, perhaps, whether or not sperma refers as well to the male haploid gametes, as I argue, while recognizing that Aristotle inaccurately considered male gametes as diploid, with females contributing nourishment only, not genetic information, i.e. in harmony with the English word, "seed".

4. In view of the verb employed in Romans 1:3, genomenou, "to be made", it seems still possible, to me, if no one else, that "Paul" intended in this epistle, to suggest that David literally furnished the male gametes needed for Jesus' conception. Such a feat, requiring the re-emergence of one dead for half a milenium, is evidently not beyond the power of an omnipotent god.

5. It remains unclear to me, whether or not Paul intends for his readers to believe in a "virgin" birth, since Galatians 4:4 ("born of a woman, born under the law") attests to the fact that Jesus' birth proceeded in the traditional fashion.

avi

Rick Sumner

1Clem 32.2. It's actually Jacob, not David (with apologies, it's been awhile). But the point against Pauline knowledge of the virgin birth still holds.

I'll comment on the rest of your post later, pressed for time at present.

Toto

I think Rick meant Clement of Alexandria. Clement of Rome (I Clement) is not the same as Clement of Alexandria.

Check earlychristianwritings.

avi

Thanks Rick, thank you Toto.

Here is 1Clement of Rome:
Sorry, but Clement of Alexandria also had none, or minimal, exposure to the idea expressed in Romans 1:3--at least that's my impression based on a casual perusal...

avi