Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 05-16-2005, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Did people who would describe King Arthur, Odysseus, or the Buddha as such believe that they were spiritual beings? If not, then Doherty's suggested difference is a rather large one.

Nope, and I agree.

best,
Peter Kirby

GakuseiDon · 05-17-2005, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Ignatius informs us in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans that Jesus was both born of a virgin, and descended from David kata sarka. Both of these statements cannot possibly be true, because lineage is patriarchal, a point I would be hard-pressed to believe Ignatius wasn't aware of--particularly given how consistently an alternate interpretation of the phrase kata sarka can be employed in other instances, particularly those mentioning Jesus' lineage. He seems to have used the phrase for precisely that reason.

I don't understand what you mean by "both of these statements cannot be true", Rick. Is "according to the flesh" only able to denote patriarchal lineage?

It looks like that Ignatius is emphasizing the "flesh" part. Ignatius writes:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...ns-longer.html

Quote:

For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh,3 and the Son of God according to the will and power4 of God; that He was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John, in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled5 by Him; and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed [to the cross] for us in His flesh.

Did any later apologists have a problem with Jesus being a descendent "according to the flesh" and a virgin at the same time?

(Ed to add) Justin Martyr writes:
http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...guetrypho.html

Quote:

Now it is evident to all, that in the race of Abraham according to the flesh no one has been born of a virgin, or is said to have been born[of a virgin], save this our Christ...

He said then that He was the Son of man, either because of His birth by the Virgin, who was, as I said, of the family of David and Jacob, and Isaac, and Abraham...

Ignatius, from how he expresses it, appears to have had the same idea as Justin: that Mary was the descendent of David.

Haran · 05-17-2005, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Ignatius informs us in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans that Jesus was both born of a virgin, and descended from David kata sarka. Both of these statements cannot possibly be true...

As GakuseiDon points out, they can both be thought of as true. Of course, 'born of a virgin' would point to Jesus' spiritual/Godly side while having descended from David, 'according to the flesh', points to his human side.

Quote:

Clement (1Clem.31-32) informs us that a great many people descended from Jacob, the twelve tribes, the priests and Levites, the kings and princes, and of course, Jesus. Yet Jesus is the only one described as descended "according to the flesh." Why?

This would likely have been to emphasize Jesus' human side as opposed to those who, at that time, were deemphasizing Jesus' human side (if not denying this side completely) and emphasizing Jesus' spiritual side.

So, again, I think too much is read into the phrase by some today. This takes me back to my original post. The Latin phrase 'secundum carnem', the translation of 'kata sarka' chosen by contemporaries of koine Greek speakers seems to lend weight to the more simple, less esoteric idea and English translation of 'according to the flesh'.

Rick Sumner · 05-17-2005, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I don't understand what you mean by "both of these statements cannot be true", Rick. Is "according to the flesh" only able to denote patriarchal lineage?

Not at all. There was just no such thing as royal matriarchal lineage in Judaism, or in Graeco-Roman politics, for that matter.

Quote:

Ignatius, from how he expresses it, appears to have had the same idea as Justin: that Mary was the descendent of David.

Doesn't it seem that the reason nobody clearly employs this apologetic before Justin is that. . .Justin made it up?

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner · 05-17-2005, 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

As GakuseiDon points out, they can both be thought of as true. Of course, 'born of a virgin' would point to Jesus' spiritual/Godly side while having descended from David, 'according to the flesh', points to his human side.

Lineage is determined by the father. Jesus' father was not in the line of David (at least not in the mind of Ignatius), and thus Jesus can't be the literal son of David "according to the flesh."

Quote:

So, again, I think too much is read into the phrase by some today. This takes me back to my original post. The Latin phrase 'secundum carnem', the translation of 'kata sarka' chosen by contemporaries of koine Greek speakers seems to lend weight to the more simple, less esoteric idea and English translation of 'according to the flesh'.

It doesn't lend any weight in either direction. I used to be an TA dealing with adult ESL students. I can tell you with absolutely certainty (and I'm sure Vorkosigan can confirm), that absolutely nothing translates more poorly than idiom. If it's a Greek idiom, then what it was used as in Latin is utterly irrelevant.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-17-2005, 08:01 AM

Kata primarily denotes downward movement or movement from above. Doherty is right that "down to the flesh" is the most literal translation for kata sarka but that doesn't really help us divine Paul's intention very precisely. Liddell and Scott has a huge entry on kata which includes such connotations as "in the region of," "in the fashion of," and "in accordance to" and (IIRC) "over."

In Latin, secundum means "following directly behind," "following," "after," "after the fashion of," or "in accordance to."

Note that both kata and secundum can be read as connoting something akin to imitation. "In the fashion of the flesh," "after the fashion of the flesh"...... "just LIKE the flesh?"

I must think about this some more.

John A. Broussard · 05-17-2005, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Lineage is determined by the father. Jesus' father was not in the line of David (at least not in the mind of Ignatius), and thus Jesus can't be the literal son of David "according to the flesh."

I heard somewhere that Jesus was adopted by Joseph and Mary. According to the source (and I can't remember where in the world it was) Jesus was the offspring of a woman who died in childbirth and of a male relative who also died shortly after Jesus was born. This would explain all the mystery surrounding his origin, put him squarely in David's line, and solve all these problems of lineage.

Amaleq13 · 05-17-2005, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Haran

Whereas "according to/after/etc. the flesh" seem like relatively straightforward and understandable translations, translations such as "in the sphere of the flesh" seem intentionally and unnecessarily esoteric.

IIUC, there is an explicitly straightforward phrase that could have been chosen but wasn't.

Quote:

The phrase seems relatively straightforward to me. Do you believe this verse is referring to some ethereal sphere of the flesh, or do you think (as I do) that it simply means something along the lines of "masters of your earthly body" (ie. "according to/after the flesh")?

I see nothing "straightforward" about the phrase "according to the flesh" and the fact that it requires explanation seems to me to suggest otherwise. Neither "according to" nor "in the sphere of" is a straightforward assertion that the body is question is made of the same substance as every human. It can mean that but, IIRC from previous threads on the subject, it is not the most straightforward choice an author of the time could have made to express the idea.

Ted Hoffman · 05-17-2005, 09:18 AM

Quote:

Thus we have a very strong case in the instance of Ignatius, a reasonably strong case in the case of Luke, and a reasonable, though not as strong as the others (given the lack of reference to the virgin birth), that all three of these authors are using the phrase in exactly the manner Doherty suggests.

Now, who is it that I once told that the time was quickly approaching, when I wouldn't have to be the only one arguing with massive crowds about why Doherty's interpretation of kata sarka, archons, born of woman etc is the correct one?

andrewcriddle · 05-17-2005, 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Sumner

Ignatius informs us in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans that Jesus was both born of a virgin, and descended from David kata sarka. Both of these statements cannot possibly be true, because lineage is patriarchal, a point I would be hard-pressed to believe Ignatius wasn't aware of--particularly given how consistently an alternate interpretation of the phrase kata sarka can be employed in other instances, particularly those mentioning Jesus' lineage. He seems to have used the phrase for precisely that reason.

I think it is clear that Ignatius (or whoever wrote 'to the Smyrnaeans') knew Matthew's gospel. In Matthew Jesus is clearly regrded as the son of David by virtue of the legal paternity of Joseph.

ie as Joseph's recognised son he is a son of David in the same way as Joseph is.

IIUC this is good Jewish law Mishnah Baba Batra 8:6 'He who says "this is my son" is believed' with Tosefta 7:3 'If people took for granted concerning someone that he was not his son and at the time of death he said "He is my son" he is believed' imply that recognition as son by your putative father is irrefutable by any other evidence.

But whether it is good Jewish Law or not, it is what Matthew believes. He emphasises that Jesus is humanly speaking son of David while also saying he is not Joseph's biological son.

Ignatius IMO is just saying the same.

Andrew Criddle

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

05-17-2005, 08:01 AM	#16
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Kata primarily denotes downward movement or movement from above. Doherty is right that "down to the flesh" is the most literal translation for kata sarka but that doesn't really help us divine Paul's intention very precisely. Liddell and Scott has a huge entry on kata which includes such connotations as "in the region of," "in the fashion of," and "in accordance to" and (IIRC) "over." In Latin, secundum means "following directly behind," "following," "after," "after the fashion of," or "in accordance to." Note that both kata and secundum can be read as connoting something akin to imitation. "In the fashion of the flesh," "after the fashion of the flesh"...... "just LIKE the flesh?" I must think about this some more.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.