jgibson000

I am? Let's see now. You accused me of calling Doherty a liar and pointed to a particular point in a particular message to Jim West's Biblical Studies List as your evidence for my having done this. How then is showing, by both quoting that message and giving the context of the particular words of mine you quoted as evidence of your claim, that I did not say what you said I did a shifting of the argument? Isn't it a direct response to it?

So, your knowedge of Burton is and always has been indirect? This is extremely interesting, especially in the light of the confidence with which you previously told me (and others) on the Biblical Studies List what Burton did and did not say. But be that as it may, whoever informed you that Burton carries out the particular argument regarding GENNAW and GINOMAI that you have claimed he did --whether on p. 218 or, for that matter, anywhere else -- seems not to have read Burton either, since, as you'll see below, he does no such thing at any point in his comments on Gal. 4:4.

Forgive me for saying this, but to say that in his statements above, which are, notably, selectively quoted, Burton "favours Doherty's view" that in Gal. 4:4 Paul claims that Jesus was born in a heavenly realm is not only absurdly silly (did Burton know what Doherty said?) but it is to wholly misunderstand (if not misrepresent) what Burton's actually says in his comments on Gal. 4:4.

In the first place, the first quotation above leaves out the material which comes before and after it which (see below) makes it impossible to view Burton as claiming that Paul did not believe Jesus had an earthly birth.

In the second place, while it is true that Burton notes that the phrase GEGOMENON EK GUNAIKOS has been argued as excluding paternity by Sieffert, he does so within the context of an explicit assertion on his part that the Greek expression cannot legitimately be interpreted as saying what Seiffert wants to have it say.

Burton's exact words are:

"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.). See, e. g., job 141,BROTOS GENNHTOS GUNAIKOS. Mt. 11:11, EN GENNHTOIS GUNAIKWN."

And as is clear from what appears below, Burton's focus in the third quotation above is by no means to claim or even tointimate how within GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS lies a statement on Paul's part (let alone an expression of a belief) that Jesus was not born, let alone that his birth was in a non earthly realm. It is rather -- and only -- to note that Gal. 4:4 cannot be used, without further ado, as evidence in support of the "doctrine" of the "virginal" conception of Jesus.

Here (below) is the full text of Burton's comments on Gal 4:4.

Anyone who compares it with what Ted/Jacob or Dorherty says it says will note not only (1) that, contrary to what Ted/Jacob has been "informed", the particular argument regarding GENNAW and GINOMAI that Ted/Jacob and Dorherty say Burton makes within his comments on Gal 4:4 (that had Paul wanted to say that Jesus had an earthly birth, he would have used GENNAW rather than GINOMAI, since GINOMAI does not mean "to be born" [see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biblic...s/message/8775) is simply not there, but (2) that Burton in no way "favours" Doherty's interpretation of Gal. 4:4 or says anything like what Ted/Jacob and Doherty say he says on this matter.

In fact what becomes amazingly clear is how much they've engaged in blatant misrepresentation and selective quotation of Burton's words to make the case that Burton is on their side.

Jeffrey

***
[p. 216]
4. HOTE DE HLQEN TO PLHRWMA TOU CRONOU, EXAPESTEILEN hO QEOS TON hUION AUTOU, GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS, GENOMENON hUPO NOMON, "But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, made subject to law." That the time of all important events, and so pre-eminently that of the coming of the Christ, was fixed in the purpose of God, was probably a common thought of early Christianity (Mk. 1:14 Jn. 2:4 7:8, 30, etc. Acts 17:26 Eph. 1:10; cf. Tob. 14:5). It was evidently shared by the apostle (Rom. 3:6 5:6). Whether he thought of the time as fixed by the necessity that certain things must first be accomplished, or that the world reach a certain condition (Cf. 2 Thes.. 2:3ff-), or as appointed to occur after the lapse of a certain definite period (cf. Dan. 9:24ff) is not here or elsewhere in the epistles clearly indicated.. Cf. Bous. Rel. d. Jud.2, pp. 278.ff. That it was associated in his mind with the two ages (cf. on 1:4) is probable, yet the fulness of the time did not mark the beginning of the new age, since the former was past, the latter still future. The words EXAPESTEILEN hO QEOS TON hUION AUTOU, though in themselves capable of refer-

[p. 217] ring to the sending of Jesus as God's Son out among men from the seclusion of his private life (cf. Acts 9:30; 11:22; Jn. 1:6) must yet, in view of the apostle's belief in the pre-existence of Jesus, as set forth in I Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:6ff; Col.1:15, 16, and of the parallelism of v.6, be interpreted as having reference to the sending of the Son from his pre-existent state (EN MORFH QEOU, Phil. 2:6) into the world. This is also confirmed by the two expressions that follow, both of which (see below) are evidently added to indicate the humiliation (cf. Phil. 2:7-8) to which the Son was in the sending forth subjected, the descent to the level of those whom he came to redeem. For if EXAPESTEILEN referred simply to a sending forth among men, as a prophet is sent forth under divine commission, these expressions would mark his condition previous to that sending forth, and there would be no suggestion of humiliation, but, rather, the contrary. Yet on the other hand, EXAPESTEILEN need not, probably should not, be limited to the entrance into the world by and at birth, but should rather be understood as extending to, and including, the appearance of Jesus among men as one sent from God. On the expression TON hUION AUTOU, equivalent to TON hUION TOU QEOU, see detached note on _Titles and Predicates of Jesus_, V D, P. 408, for discussion of the evidence that the phrase here refers to the pre-existent Son and that it has special reference to the Son as the object of divine love, in the enjoyment of filial fellowship with God, Cf. also vv. 6, 7. 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.). See, e. g., job 141,BROTOS GENNHTOS GUNAIKOS. Mt. 11:11, EN GENNHTOIS GUNAIKWN.. It could be reasonably supposed to imply birth from a virgin only in case it were otherwise established that the apostle knew and accepted the dogma or narrative that Jesus was so born, and not even
then would it be certain that this phrase was intended to refer to this aspect of Jesus' birth. But of such knowledge or acceptance the writings of the apostle give no hint. GUNAIKOS is probably, like NOMON in the following phrase, not indefinite,

[p.218]
but qualitative, and the phrase is best translated "born of woman." On hUPO NOMON, cf. 3:23. There is no occasion to take it here in any other sense than that which it has there, "under law as a system of legalism." See note on 3:13. It was from this subjection that Christ came to deliver men. See 5:18 and cf. 5:13, 14, as showing that those who are in Christ still remain under law as an ethical principle. Cf. also 1 Cor. 9:20; Rom. 6:14, 15. In applying this phrase to Jesus the passage resembles Phil. 2:8, but differs in that there it is to God and here to law that he is said to be subject. That Paul carried his conception of Jesus' subjection to law to the point of supposing that he was in his own thinking a legalist is wholly improbable; the subjection to law was, doubtless, rather in the fact of his living under legalistic judaism, obliged to keep its rules and conform to its usages. The motive for the insertion of the phrase is doubtless to emphasise the cost at which the Son effected his redemptive work; Cf. 2 Cor. 8:9.

TO PLHRWMA is evidently used in the active sense, "that which fills," TOU CRONOU being an objective genitive; the whole period which must elapse before the event being incomplete till its last increment is added, the last moment, which fills it, is called PLHROMA. It is, in the language of the illustration, hH PROQESMIA TOU PATROS (v. .2).

The words GENOMENON hUPO NOMON should probably be taken in the sense "made subject to law" rather than "born under law," for, though GENOMENON EK GUNAIKOS evidently refers to birth, that reference is neither conveyed by, nor imparted to, the participle [in the second of these two GENOMENON phrases] , but lies wholly in the limiting phrase. This idea is, therefore, not of necessity carried over into the second phrase. Had the apostle desired to express the idea "born" in both phrases, he could have done so unambiguously by the use of GENNHQENTA. Concerning the time of the subjection to law, whether at birth or subsequently, GENOMENON says nothing decisive. Both participles are best understood as attributive participles used substantively (BMT 423) in apposition, therefore, with TON hUION AUTON, the omission of the article giving to each phrase a qualitative force which may be expressed in English by translating "his Son, one born of woman, one made subject to law." The employment of the aorist presents the birth and the subjection to law as in each case a simple fact, and leaves the temporal relation to EXAPESTEILEN to be inferred solely from the nature of the facts referred to (BMT 142, 143), The thought is not very different if the participles be taken as

[p. 219]
adverbial participles of attendant circumstances (BMT 449, 450). But the phrases are best accounted for as intended 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.

jgibson000

Let's note three things that you seem to be ignoring here in your exculpation of yourself:

(1) that just because someone has no motivation to misrepreset another's position does not mean that he/she does not do so;

(2) that in the history of misreprensentation, "having an ignorant audience awaiting to be spoon fed" is hardly the only thing that motivates or causes one to do so, and

(3) that one frequently often fools oneself on the matter of how much one is above or absent of motivation.


.

Then I'd be grateful if you did so with respect to your claims (1) that I called Doherty a liar (which I did not), (2) that you've stated Burton's position on the meaning and import of Gal. 4:4 thoroughly and truthfully (which you did not), and (3) that you engaged in selective quotation in your most recent attempt to adduce what Burton wrote on Gal. 4:4 as "favoring" Doherty's views on what the verse says (which, as I've demonstrated, you most certainly did).

Jeffrey

krosero

I'm going to butt in here, though not about the specifics of the controversy concerning Barrett, Burton, Cranfield, et al. That controversy rests in large part on interpretations of ancient Greek, which I do not know, and it should be sorted out by those who made the interpretations and possible misinterpretations.

I do want to point out that in a recent thread about The Ascension of Isaiah, I thought that Doherty was mispresenting Michael Knibb's opinion of that document. In the opening post, Doherty wrote that Knibb suggested something ("voices the possibility") about the Ascension not originally containing the names "Jesus" and "Christ"; and later in that post Doherty wrote that Knibb "opines" this thing. I saw two contradictory statements, so I asked him about it. I did not suspect deliberate deception, given Doherty's first statement, which was more nuanced than the second. I'm in agreement with what Amaleq said here earlier, that "in his rush to move on to his own interpretation", Doherty can take what appears to be a mere suggestion from a scholar and fail to make clear in another place that he is either just referring to a scholar's suggestion, or borrowing a scholar's wording rather than the scholar's full meaning or ultimate conclusion.

But deliberate misrepresentation is not the only way to misinterpret a scholar. You can misrepresent him just by misunderstanding him (which is what I think happened with Knibb).

So TedH, though a lot of this thread has centered on lying and deliberate misinterpretation, and you've addressed all that by saying that you don't deliberately misrepresent (and I believe it), let me suggest that you have not addressed the possibility of how a scholar might be unwittingly misread. Surely scholars have to consider any possible way they might end up misinterpreting the writings of others, and I doubt you have not thought about the problem.

And I'm going to quote you here, though it's not necessarily to pick on you; this is something I would say to anyone. When you say that "Burton favours Doherty's interpretation", I suggest that "interpretation" is a very problematic word to use. Doherty has used the wording of other scholar's translations, all HJ scholars, to support his MJ reading. I don't say that this is always invalid. But the line of disagreement should be kept clear, and I don't think Doherty is the best at doing so. Scholars are going to object when you or Doherty say that they support his "interpretation." If you mean that Burton or anyone else shares Doherty's "wording", that would be more precise. That would leave open what is obvious, namely that the same words can mean two different things for two authors. "Born" is "born" whether in heaven or on earth, but those are two very different births.

The only other language I know is Spanish. If it is said that other people agree with me in saying that Pepe "went" (the verb ir) from this place to that place, okay. But if they're saying that he "went" from one place in the sky to another place in the sky, and I meant an earthly journey, I would reply that their "interpretation" is not mine at all; in fact, for that interpretation I would use another wording altogether; I'd use the verb for flying (volar).

A translation, a wording, an interpretation: all of these are somewhat similar, and they overlap to some degree. I suggest that if you and Doherty want to get on good terms with other scholars, don't say that they share Doherty's "interpretation" or "meaning", because HJ and MJ interpretations and meanings are radically different. Say that they share "wording", perhaps, or be unmistakeably clear about what interpretations and meanings are shared. My two cents, for what it's worth.

I apologize to anyone if I have misinterpreted their views in this very complicated thread.

Ted Hoffman

Gibson, I have a copy of Burton before me. Before I address everything you have written regarding Burton, which was secondary, I repeat my primary contention as I repeated above:
Now, cite Doherty, or retract the following claim:
I repeat:
Doherty concludes, from the interpretation of kata sarka that he favours, that Paul's beliefs do not entail that Christ reincarnated on an earthly plane. He never states that Barrett shares the same conclusion. To claim that Doherty does so, is untrue and is a mockery of the mythicist position.

GakuseiDon

Just to provide some context here. Some snippets from Doherty's book. My bolded emphasis:

p. 103:

Thus it was wholly conceivable for Paul's Christ in that spiritual world to descend into the realm of the demon spirits. Here he would be in the sphere of flesh, which fits the early writers' almost universal use of such sterotyped phrases as "in flesh", "according to the flesh." (C. K. Barrett, as noted earlier, translates kata sarka in Romans 1:3 as "in the sphere of the flesh")

p. 122:

In this way, we can understand the concept of Christ being "in flesh" (en sarki, kata sarka, etc.) a stereotyped phrase which appears with surprising regularity in the epistles. It signifies either that Christ took on the spiritual counterpart of flesh, its "likeness," when he descended to the lower celestial sphere (as in the Ascension of Isaiah 9 or the hym of Philippians 2:6-11), or as Barrett has suggested, that he entered the "sphere of the flesh," which included the realm of the demon spirits in the firmament.

Ted Hoffman, from Doherty's book, can you quote exactly how Doherty and Barrett disagree? Or is your point mainly on the semantic differences between "suggest" and "conclude"?

An "earthly plane" is a very interesting choice of words to describe what Paul's beliefs could have been, especially since Doherty has Christ crucified in the "sphere of the flesh". I think you mean "on earth". And for "reincarnated", I think you mean "incarnated".

jgibson000

So far as I can see, I never said he did. What I said was that Doherty claims that he and Barrett were one on the meaning of KATA SARKA, as your quotation of me above shows. To say, as you yourself note I did, that "Doherty claims that Barrett has come to the same conclusion that Doherty has come to regarding the meaning and import of Paul's use of KATA SARKA in Romans 1" is not the same thing as saying that Barrett adopts the mythicist position, as you seem to be claiming. The issue here is and has always been whether Doherty has correctly understood Barrett's statement about what KATA SARKA means in Romans 1.

One simple question, Ted/Jacb: Does Doherty use Barrett and what he says Barrret says on KATA SARKA to buttress his own interpretation of what KATA SARKA means, yes or no?

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

I think that it is funny that you can deny what is so plain to all. The keywords are meaning, import and conclusion. I am fine with meaning because that is interpretation. I am disputing your assertion that D claims that he and B share the same conclusion. And you know it. But you choose to weasel around with words like "meaning" and "mythicist position". No matter. If it works for you, cool.
If you mean buttress in the sense of "use to lend credibility to", the answer is "yes". If buttress in the sense of "use as a basis", the answer is "hell no".

Burton next.

jgibson000

Well, let's see if it is, as you claim, so plain to "all". It certainly wansn't plain to anyone on the Biblical Studies list, where you made the same claim. And if the messages from GDon in this thread count for anything, there's noted evidence to the contrary.

So let's ask the rest of the list members who are contributing to this thread how many of them see me saying what you say I said and how many of them see you distorting my words.

May I have a show of hands please?

Well, again I wonder who list members see as the one doing the weaseling here, especially in the light of your admission below that Doherty uses Barrett in order to butresss his consclusion about the meaning of KATA SARKA. How could, and why would, Doherty do so unless he thinks that Barrett holds to the view about the meaning of KATA SARKA that Doherty is espousing?

Really? I wonder, given how Doherty quotes Barrett and only refers to him when he is making his claim about what KATA SARKON means, if anyone else sees this as true.

By the way, I'd prefer it, as I've already noted to others, that when you address me, you'd address me as Jeffrey rather that with the abrupt "Gibson". And now that I've said this, I will take it that you are being intentionally pugnacious and gratuitously hostile if you do not refrain from doing so.

Jeffrey

Ted Hoffman

I will use Jeffrey from now henceforth. It is not my fault that Gibson is abrupt. And I never named you Gibson, so spare me the drama. If I knew you had a preference wrt how you are to be addressed, I would have complied.
Because Barrett suggested it as a valid way of interpreting kata sarka but did not himself adopt it because it conflicted with his theological beliefs. Doherty was not hamstrung by the same comittments as Barrett and so Doherty adopted it.
Comprendre?

jgibson000

You didn't? What's this then?


Are these not your words?

Of course you would have!

Leaving aside how you have just impugned the scholarly integrity of Barrett, not to mention the question of how you know what motives stand behind Barrett saying what he said on KATA SARKA and how you've just engaged in the genetic fallacy, one needs to note -- as can be seen by examining what Barret actually says in his remarks on the semantic range of KATA SARKA -- that Barrett never ever suggested that what Doherty takes him as sayng KATA SAKA means is a valid way of interpreting that phrase. Doherty has totally misunderstood what Barrett was saying about the semantic range that KATA SARKA possessed.

Jeffrey