Corpus-Paul

["Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT comcast.net>]

If you follow the Internet Infidels Discussion board,  you'll know that
I've been spending some time over the holidays taking on a few of the
big whigs of the Jesus Myth school (Earl Doherty and Richard Carrier) by
noting that they have a distinct tendency to cook and misrepresent the
evidence they appeal to in making various arguments for their views.

When asked by IIDB members to support this claim, I pointed to the
particular section, quoted below, in Richard Carrier's review of Earl
Doherty's _The Jesus Puzzle_ [see
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.shtml)
where Carrier discusses the meaning of KATA and applies his conclusions
on this matter to the question of what KATA SARKA means in Rom. 1:3, 
and then noted that the linguistic analysis put forward there not only
shows a woeful incompetence in matters Greek, but is a text book example
of someone cooking the evidence of the source one has used for the data
one discusses -- in this case, the entry on KATA in LSJ
(http://tinyurl.com/7hbks), which I also pointed to (and quoted in
full)-- in order to support a particular (and apparently a preconceived)
conclusion.

Curiously, some denied that the LSJ article on KATA was the source that
Carrier had employed as the basis of his remarks.  More importantly, and
even more curiously, those who admitted that LSJ **was** the source and
basis of Carrier's remarks claimed that they were unable to see what. to
my eyes, is transparent when one holds up and compares what Carrier says
about KATA against/with what is said about KATA in LSJ, namely, that
Carrier's remarks are those no one skilled in Greek would make, that
they were contradicted by much of the data contained in the very source
he uses as the basis for his remarks, and that to make his case, Carrier
has not only neglected to tell anyone this; he has also distorted,
misread, and/or misrepresented the evidence from LSJ that he does quote
and appeal to.

And so I have been asked to support my claims that the linguistic
analysis put forward in Carrier's discussion of KATA and KATA SARKA in
Rom. 1:3 does indeed shows a woeful incompetence in matters Greek and is
indeed a text book example of someone cooking the evidence of the source
one has used for the data one discusses

Now I know how I am going to do this. I'll be pointing out such things
as how the issue is skewed from the beginning in a misrepresentation on
Carrier's part of what it is that scholars have actually claimed Paul's
point in Rom 1:3 was (that Jesus has Davidic ancestry, how Carrier has
engaged in the root fallacy, and how he ignores of all the evidence in
LSJ that both conflicts with what he says and demonstrates that KATA
with the accusative did not have only one basic ("literal") meaning or
implication.

But I'd like to see how others here would demonstrate what is wrong in
Carrier's "argument".  I'd like to see both how you would show both that
he has indeed cooked his evidence and and how you would note that the
way he argues and presents the "data" shows that he has no idea what he
is talking about.

Would you then do me the favour of stating this on list?

With thanks in advance.

Yours,

Jeffrey

**********
Central to Doherty's thesis is his reinterpretation of the nature of the
Incarnation as held by the earliest Christians (including Paul and some
other epistle authors), such as by rereading the strange yet
oft-repeated reference to kata sarka, "according to the flesh" (as
usually translated). Doherty does confuse readers, I think, when he
denies the Incarnation here and there, equating that word with the
earthly sojourn. However, his theory actually entails that Jesus did
undergo incarnation--just not on earth. So though you might get the
opposite impression from Doherty 's rhetoric (and he needs to reword
several passages to remove the confusion), his theory is entirely
compatible with Jesus "becoming a man of flesh and blood," that is, in
the sublunar sphere of heaven, since, as Doherty explains several times,
he had to in order to die and fulfill the law (only flesh can die, and
be subject to the law, and blood was necessary for atonement).

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 implies motion, usually over or
through its object, hence it literally reads "down through flesh" or
"down to flesh" or even "towards flesh." 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 (via using kata as "down to" a purpose rather
than a place), and thus can also mean "by flesh," "for flesh,"
"concerning flesh," or "in conformity with flesh." I have only seen it
mean "according to" when followed by a cited author (e.g. "according to
Euripedes," i.e. "down through, or in the region of Euripedes"), so it
is unconventional to translate it as most Bibles do (a point against the
usual reading and in favor of Doherty's). Even the "usual reading" is
barely intelligible in the orthodox sense, especially since on that
theory we should expect en sarki instead. The word kata can also have a
comparative meaning, "corresponding with, after the fashion of," in
other words "like flesh." In short, all of the common meanings of kata
with the accusative support Doherty's reading: Jesus descended to and
took on the likeness of flesh. It does not entail that he walked the
earth.

--
Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon)
1500 W. Pratt Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois
e-mail jgibson000 AT comcast.net