Ben C Smith

As I was casually skimming some of the pleasant banter on these two threads dealing with the expression κατα σαÏ?κα in Romans 1.3...:

Dancing with Katie Sarka Under the Moon.
Doherty, Gibson and Barrett, Oh My.

...it occurred to me, since expert knowledge of obscure Greek prepositional phrases has gradually come of age on those threads, to look at how native Greek speakers understood this verse. The e-Catena at Early Christian Writings produces a number of hits for Romans 1.3, including the following....

Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans 1.1b-2a:

...being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord that he was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and was the son of God according to the will and power of God, that he was truly born of a virgin, was baptized by John in order that all righteousness might be fulfilled by him, and was truly, under Pontius Pilate and Herod the tetrarch, nailed for us in his flesh.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.22.1, writing against those who suppose that Jesus did not take on fleshiness from his virgin mother:

The apostle Paul, moreover, in the epistle to the Galatians declares plainly: God sent his son, made of a woman. And again in that to the Romans he says: Concerning his son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated as the son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Origin, Commentary on John 10.4, writing of seeming contradictions in the scriptures:

The statement is true that he was descended from David, as the apostle says, born of the seed of David according to the flesh, if we apply this to the bodily part of him; but the same statement is untrue if we understand his being born of the seed of David of his diviner power; for he was declared to be the son of God with power.

These passages appear to be directly relevant to the question of what κατα σαÏ?κα denotes or connotes in Romans 1.3, since the first two appear in a context of proving that Jesus Christ was in the flesh and the last in a context that distinguishes what was proper to his flesh and what was proper to his spirit.

Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Origen were Greek speakers from within about a century and a half of Paul. In these passages they all appear to use Romans 1.3 as a prooftext for the carnality of Jesus (against docetic or gnostic viewpoints). Nor do I think any of these fathers held any notion of a sphere or realm in which Jesus could have taken on flesh except earth itself.

My question, then, is simple: If these three speakers of Greek, obviously taking Paul at his word, saw Romans 1.3 as a prooftext for the earthly carnality of Jesus Christ, is it realistic to disqualify Romans 1.3 as evidence that Paul himself, another speaker of Greek, was aware of the earthly carnality of Jesus Christ? Is it not most natural to take κατα σαÏ?κα as indicating that Paul thought Jesus was a human being of the genealogical line of David, just as Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Origen appear to have done?

Ben.

Gooch's dad

Ben, I think you've just put a whole bunch of nails in the coffin of the MJ argument, at least the bit that relies on kata sarka and what Paul meant when he wrote this phrase.

Thanks, I enjoyed reading that.

Chris Weimer

Seconded. I might want to caution though that Paul's use and other 1st century uses of kata sarka should be fist in thinking how its to be used here, and then when that evidence aligns nicely with the christian fathers, expect a conclusion.

So together, kata sarka is sealed.

TedM

I think that is the most natural interpretation. The question then becomes--Did Paul have knowledge of that Jesus' life, or was he simply believing in it from what he derived from scripture/insight/visions alone?

ted

Clivedurdle

Doesn't this make the HJ position worse, because everyone is dependent on Paul (or Marcion?) so we have a tautology with no references to a human?

TedM

The quote by Ignatius wasn't soley dependant upon Paul, as it mentions the virgin, baptism by John, and crucifixion under Pontius Pilate and Herod. All three assume Paul is writing about a human on earth. Is there evidence elsewhere that people thought Paul wasn't(in this verse)? If not, maybe their interpretation is more likely reflective of the one meant by Paul. Have I missed your point?

Amaleq13

I'm confused.

Why would we expect anyone reading Paul after accepting the Gospel story(ies) as history to interpret his vocabulary any differently?

Or, to put it another way, how does one eliminate the clear possibility that these men were interpreting Paul through their belief in the Gospel story(ies)?

Clivedurdle

I see all the virgin, pontius pilate, resurrection stuff as credal, liturgical. Isn't Paul agreed to be before the gospels, (possibly all after Marcion though!) so where is the independent starting point? There isn't one!

TedM

One doesn't. Their interpretation may be influenced by an orthodox bias.
On the other hand, if the phrase typically was known to mean something else, one might expect them not to use it as support, and to possibly have attempted to 'explain' why Paul used such an misleading term. Their silence on the matter might be seen as reflecting a lack of awareness of any possible contradicting interpretation to their own. No way to prove this of course.

ted

Ben C Smith

I agree with Chris Weimer here; this is not a complete argument on its own. It supplements the prima facie reading and linguistic evidence from other sources.

Ben.