Haran

I am amazed at the way the Greek underlying this seemingly straightforward phrase, "according to the flesh", seems to get bent into something rather obtuse in order to support various theories.

I have seen it implied before that kata, the Greek word behind 'according to' is a misleading and incorrect translation applied by modern Christian scholars.

It seems to me that Latin speaking ancients who were contemporaries of those who actually used this Greek phrase would have understood it and translated it accordingly.

The Latin texts I am aware of use the phrase 'secundum carnem'. I am not particularly familiar with Latin, and could therefore be wrong (someone please correct me if so), but it seems that this phrase means 'according to the flesh' and would have to be stretched more than the Greek to mean 'in the sphere of the flesh', as some would have it.

Just a quick observation, and I have not studied the Old Latin or Vulgate manuscripts in detail, so please tell me if there are variations in this phrase...

Toto

I don't find "according to the flesh" straightforward. Idiomatic English would have "in the flesh" but this has never been the translation. The Greek word kata is often translated "down" or "down from".

The Latin translations of Paul's Greek text were not made by contemporaries of Paul, and may just reflect the theological stance of the Latin speakers who translated Paul.

secundum is defined:

Julian

It isn't just a question of what the words translate to or, necessarily, their intrinsic meaning. It is the idea that is expressed by them that is important, and the context within which they are used. Doherty has written quite a few pages on this and the meaning seems far from clear.

Julian

GakuseiDon

Yes, but Doherty also has a problem with "born of a woman".

Roland

Can't fictional and mythological figures also be described as being "born of a woman"? Isn't that how someone would describe, say, Hercules?

Peter Kirby

It's also the way that someone would describe King Arthur, Odysseus, or the Buddha. Doherty's position is that Paul's Jesus is different that such figures in that he is a spiritual being, a god that acts (only) on a heavenly plane.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13

He doesn't have a problem with the phrase at all. He just argues that, in the context of everything else Paul says about his Sacrificed Savior, it should not be taken literally.

Haran

Perhaps there is a better way of making it understandable in English, but this is not really what I am getting at. The underlying Greek, kata, can be reasonably translated "according to" (and is in many, many places), and my point is to show that it seems to have also been understood this way by contemporaries of those who actually used koine Greek (i.e. the Latin translators).

I do not believe that translating kata as secundum was a theological stance. It happens in many other places where there is no need for such a stance. It appears to have been a relatively common translation for the word.

I have no problem with "according to the flesh", "after the flesh", or "with respect to the flesh". As you noted in the lexicon entry you provided, "according to" and "after" are among the uses, and they are the common uses in most cases for the context that we are talking about. 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.

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")?

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.

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?

Luke, another confirmed believer in the virgin birth, also uses the phrase to described Jesus' lineage (Acts 2.30). Yet, as noted above regarding Ignatius, virgins don't give birth to Davidic heirs.

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. I'm not aware of any uses of it when referring to lineage that quite so strongly point to the converse interpretation.

Unfortunately, this doesn't do much to answer any of the greater questions to which it pertains. It would appear to be unquestionable that Ignatius excepted an historical Jesus, one who really suffered under Pilate and so on, yet who was nonetheless a Davidic heir only "according to the flesh." Thus those who seem to have used the phrase exactly as Doherty suggests (using a metaphorical lineage to account for the lack of a real Davidic pedigree), nonetheless accepted an historical Jesus.

In the case of Paul, it could be argued that he was familiar with the virgin birth on the basis of his usage, though this of course needn't be the case. It is at least equally possible, on the basis of this passage at least, that Doherty is correct. A third possibility is that Paul is simply apologizing for what scholars have long argued on the basis of other passages (eg. Jn.7.42)--that Jesus was not Davidic, and thus could only be so "according to the flesh."

Regards,
Rick Sumner

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.

Regards,
Rick Sumner