S.C.Carlson

You had argued "all of the common meanings of kata with the accusative support Doherty's reading" (emphasis added), which is why it was relevant for me to point out the other common meanings that you did not cite. If you didn't mean "all" when you wrote "all," well, I think you should consider revising your analysis, because your argument is going to have to change and it's not readily apparent to me how the revised argument would work.

LSJ, of course, is focused on classical authors, but we can actually count how often these examples occur in TLG.

For example, KATA TAXOS occurs 66 times up to 200BC, and 135 times between 199BC and AD200.
For KATA KRATOS, the figures are 136 and 316, respectively.
For KATA MEROS, the figures are 510 and 1313, respectively.
For KATA THN TEXNHN: 23 and 56, respectively
For KATA FUSIN: 903 and 2287, respectively.

(For KATA SARKA, the counts are 11 and 70, respectively.)

Thus, according to TLG, all of these examples are very common in the Koine period. especially in comparison to pre-200BC.

Stephen

Richard Carrier

Now you are crossing the line. Harris has CC'd me on everything he has sent you, and we've been discussing you privately as well. I have not received anything from him in which Harris says what you claim (that "having now seen it, he thinks...it does not display a first rate knowlege of classical and koine Greek"). Please forward me the email in which he gave this impression to you.

Please tell me who wrote this. I know several of the professors in the Classics Department at Columbia, and this quote doesn't sound like the demeanor of anyone I know there, nor does it sound like an appropriate demeanor for a professor in general.

I'd also like to know what this person was responding to--your quote references some "original message that set you on edge"...what message?

jakejonesiv

An ABE is more formal than I am likely to have time get to any time soon. But, as the only one here so far arguing for any type of Docetic explanation, I will venture a few comments.

I have been arguing for an Ahistorical Docetic explanation. If one accepts this view, then IMHO it excels at ABE #1, but since it is more radical than Doherty (no historical Jesus or Paul), it falls short on the 5th criteria; "must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs." I take exception to #5, viewing it as an invitaion not to examine any assumptions.

But there is a fourth view that RC has mentioned, that has had little or no discussion: Paul was actually a Docetic historicist: Jesus was a phantom who nonetheless acted out in history, even though his actions were an illusion.
If Tertullian is to be believed, Marcion taught that in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Jesus came down out of heaven to the Galilean city of Capernaum. Adv. Marcion Book IV, Chapter 7.

This would seem to correspond to a Docetic historicist view point. Granting for the sake of argument Paul's alleged existence, would that explain the nebulous way that he spoke of Jesus? Maybe. Since all of Jesus actions in the world were illusion, there was little or no need to comment on them. It would explain the docetic statements that Jesus only appeared to be a man, and was in the likeness of flesh.

However, it does no better at explaining the vague references to Jesus' birth, Jewish linage and flesh (all this kata sarka confusion included) than Doherty. IMHO, these are best explained as proto-orthodox corruptions of the scriptures. These are the very Pauline verses discussed by Erhman in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture where he shows how the orthodox "sweetened" them against the doceticists. This is a good place to start. It shows for whom these intruging passages were valuable. Of course, Erhman can't comment on if they were interpoloated. This would have happened before our earliest extant copies. But the comparison with the reconstructed Marconite version shows us that this is a possibility.

This has a very elegant motivation. It was to counter the docetic conception of Jesus with that of someone who was by nature a man (and divine at the same timebut I digress). Why? In order for Apostolic succession to work, you need a historical founder, a docetic phantom just won't do. If you read the church fathers who wrote ream after ream against Marcion, this is what it boils down to. It was an issue taken very seriously, and would justify, in the orthodox view, a little tampering with scripture to make the "Truth" more clear. (Can I get an ABE Amen for this?).

I am a little suprised that no one can see this. KATA SARKA is the vocabulary of the proto-orthodox, not Marcion, not Paul. The catholic church (think of the creeds!) has always been more aligned with Platonism.

Jake Jones IV

jgibson000

Have you actually asked him whether or not he thinks so?

Did I say there was an e-mail? It was his silence in response to my second e-mail to him -- an e-mail in which I quoted in full what you wrote and stated that what you wrote was in my eyes something that no one with a good understanding of Greek would write -- that gave me the impression that he thinks that what you wrote on KATA does not display the talents that he says you posses.


I'll tell you who it is if you share with us what Professor Harris has said to you with respect to the specific question of the validity of what you wrote in your review of Doherty on KATA and KATA SARKA and whether he thinks that what you wrote on KATA and KATA SARKA is indeed something that someone with a good understanding of Greek would write and/or that the Professor I quoted is wrong in what he says about your claims.

He was responding to my posting to him -- and to other specialists in Classical and Koine Greek -- the link to your public review of Doherty and the particular passage on KATA that appears in that review. Search the Classics List Archives.

Jeffrey

Richard Carrier

Herein I reply to Ted then Chris then Carlson, but for the attention of all.

I will repeat my earlier post, which should already have resolved any such confusion, so I cannot understand why you remain confused:

You ignored what I said in this paragraph, so apparently I must "explain as if to a child" (to quote the villain in Galaxy Quest).

You put in bold the sentence from my review, "The preposition kata with the accusative literally means 'down' or 'down to' and implies motion, usually over or through its object, hence it literally reads 'down through flesh' or 'down to flesh' or even 'towards flesh'." Where in that sentence do I say "all" the meanings of kata involve this meaning? Nowhere. Instead, my very next sentence reads: "It very frequently, by extension, means 'at' or 'in the region of', and this is how Doherty reads it. It only takes on the sense 'in accordance with' in reference to fitness or conformity..." Any mention of motion there, in either sentence? No. Hence, it should be obvious that I started with the literal meaning, then moved to the metaphorical and idiomatic meanings. Do I really have to put a note in there that says, "Warning! I am now moving from the literal meaning to other meanings"?

Note that "by" is already a meaning I stated in my review of Doherty. And what I have basically said to Chris in our private discussion is that I still don't understand what, for example, "come to be from the sperm of David by the flesh" means. Or to put it another way, how is this a natural way to speak of someone descending from an ancestor or becoming incarnate on earth? This still seems an odd way to emphasize an earthly incarnation.

Neither do I nor Doherty. I don't understand where the idea came into anyone's head that either of us has said it necessarily implies motion in these passages. Indeed, I outright say in my review, "It very frequently, by extension, means 'at' or 'in the region of', and this is how Doherty reads it." Where does anyone see any reference to "motion" in that sentence? Motion is the root and literal meaning of the preposition with the accusative (as with many prepositions in Greek), but I do not say the nonliteral meanings also involve motion--indeed, my words plainly declare the contrary. But apparently, not plainly enough. For more on the oddity of this strange assumption about what we've said, see my post in Did Jesus come down from heaven to take on flesh?.

How is my argument going to have to change? You are basically asking me to add one sentence, "Oh, there are several other meanings of kata, but they are not contextually relevant to the passages in question." Please explain to me how that sentence would change my argument.

The construction, yes. We were talking about the connotation, not the construction. The phrase KATA FUSIN, for example, is indeed extremely common in Greek, but it usually means in a primary sense "according to nature" in the senses articulated under IV, rather than a periphrastic "naturally," which is the sense being referenced in VIII. However, I can see there is overlap in meaning in cases like this, so one could interpret such a construction in either way and translate liberally either way, since it means in those cases the same thing (or near enough for English translation). But in that respect, I already include VIII when I discuss IV in my review of Doherty. It is only connotations of VIII that do not already overlap with IV (I don't imagine Paul is saying "fleshily," for example) that I find uncommon in Koine.

Now, through all this, I am thinking about rewriting the contentious paragraph to prevent less capable readers from so horribly misinterpreting what I wrote. This is what I'm thinking of replacing it with (I've also removed everything that wasn't germane to the thesis, in an attempt to keep the paragraph from growing too long--and to remove irrelevant distractions, as this thread has proven is a problem):

The actual phrase used, kata sarka, is indeed odd if it is supposed to emphasize an earthly sojourn. 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, but I find it hard to understand what Paul would have meant to emphasize with this, especially when we should expect something like en sarki instead. 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 all the most common, relevant meanings of kata with the accusative do at least fit Doherty's theory that Jesus descended and took on "the likeness of flesh" (Romans 8:3), in which case kata sarka would mean "in the realm of flesh." However, 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.

Hopefully that will correct the main misapprehensions here (and end for good all the pointless digressions about etymology, too).

jjramsey

Whoa. I'd be careful of arguments from silence. Also, you did give the impression that the advisor actually responded:

It's not as if you saw his stony silence in person. You don't know what he thinks. And I say this as someone who finds the MJers unconvincing.

Richard Carrier

You certainly implied he'd told you something to justify your claims, and I'm sure that's what most on this list inferred. But now you say you are just guessing. Are you kidding? In other words, from the fact that he has yet to reply to an email, you deduce: (a) that he has by now read the article and thus "has now seen it"; (b) that not only has he read it, but "he thinks" my article "does not display a first rate knowlege of classical and koine Greek" and (c) that "he thinks" I misrepresented (which is a euphemism here for "lied about") what KATA with the accusative means. If you think those are logical deductions, we are through here. You clearly have no respect for decency or reason. Up to now you have conducted yourself in a rude, childish, irrational, and wholly unprofessional manner.

(If there is anyone on this thread who thinks I am out of line for saying so, please speak up. But those who agree, please also speak up, so I can know whether or not I'm overreacting.)

You now dodge my request for the identity of the "professor" you quote (thus you claim to cite an authority while cleverly never having to identify who that "authority" is--do I smell a rat here?) by asking me to first impress upon my advisor to read my article and this anonymous quote and comment! Why don't you forward your "professor's" email to Harris, so Harris can know who wrote that email and the two as professionals can discuss the matter. Otherwise, what do you think this is, a coffee clatch?

Iasion

Hmmm...

Gibson e-mails Carrier's advisor Harris,
Harris says "Richard Carrier has a first-rate knowledge of classical and koine Greek."
Gibson e-mails Harris again,
Harris does not reply.
Gibson concludes this silence means Harris now believes the exact opposite.
Wow.

Then,
Gibson quotes "another professor in the Classics Department at Columbia"
who allegedly claims that Carrier's Greek is poor.

But,
when challenged, Gibson refuses to name the person!

How rude,
how dishonest,
how disgusting.

(To Dr Carrier - you are totally correct. Gibson's posts are dishonest and rude. In contrast, your posts are knowledgeable and informative, and your manner is measured and professional - keep up the good work :-)


Iasion

Chris Weimer

Paul's going to have a mysterious side to him. This is, perhaps, the basis of mysticism, especially radicals who claim to have had visions of dead people. Do we really expect coherency? There are plenty of instances in Paul where he could have been clear, but isn't.

Perhaps I should have focused on kata sarka elsewhere in the NT.

Romans 8.4 is another place where we see the kata sarka/kata pneuma agreement.

"ινα το δικαιωμα του νομου πληÏ?ωθηι εν ημιν τοις μη κατα σαÏ?κα πεÏ?ιπατουσιν αλλα κατα πνευμα.

That the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled in us who walk not by the flesh but by the spirit."

Am I not the only one who sees the obvious "flesh is bad/spirit is good" here? I can't even posit an "in the realm of" here, unless Paul is saying only the dead may see righteousness, but Paul is fairly clear that the Law is pertinent to those living. Cf. Romans 2.12.

Furthermore, Romans 8.12/8.13 show the clearest example yet of how Paul is interpreting it. To live by the flesh, or to live according to humanly manners, will end you up in death, but to live by the spirit, or by spiritual manners, will allow you to live.

If I recall correctly, I think I remember seeing Doherty mention the implications of the downwards movement behind kata from the spiritual world to the fleshy world. I think he even may have said that here. However, I do find it a moot point now. Even without motion, I still find the reading of "in the place of" to be rather odd here, especially how Paul uses kata sarka elsewhere.

best regards,

Chris Weimer

jgibson000

If you'll go back and actually read what I wrote, I made no claim about Harris reversing his position on Richard's knowledge of Greek. My statements in this regard have always focused on whether his advisor --or others who know Greek -- think that Richard's comments about KATA in his review of Doherty are any good and display the knowledge that Professor Harris says he has.

These are two different questions entirely. And one can say no to the latter without calling into question the truth of the former.

Actually what this professor commented on was Richard's claims about KATA and whether or not Professor Harris has read them -- something which Richard suspiciously refuses to tell us.

So if you are going to chastise me, at least get the grounds -- and the premises of your argument -- straight before you do so.

Jeffrey