jgibson000

One is that KATA SARKA can mean "according to a particular standard of judgement and a particular orientation to life that is grounded in the values of the world", two, that KATA SARKA goes with the verb GINWSKEIN, not the noun CRISTON, and three, that what Paul is calling to mind here is that he once evaluated Jesus as well as who the Lord's anointed should be and what he should do from the standpoint of the (zealotic?) values that lead him originally to think that the Christian vision of who and what the messiah was was something that he had to stomp out.

In other words, there's nothing spoken of about natures here. Rather the subject is a contrarst between values and orientations.

On this, see section E.2.5 (KATA SARKA with Verb) in the entry on SARX by E. Schweizer in TDNT. the entry on SARX in BDAG, and the remarks of Plummer and of F.F. Bruce on 2 Cor 5:16 in their commentaries on 2 Corinthians.

Jeffrey Gibson

Solo

Do a little research into the effects of sensory deprivation, and you will see why Simon Magus was so interested in what Peter and John had, and that it was a bit stronger cup of tea than he got from Philip for free.

Hippolytus recounted a legend according to which Simon desired to be remembered as someone who himself was buried and resurrected. He had a grave dug for himself by his men. According to Hippolytus: they, then, executed the injunction given; whereas he remained (in that grave) until this day, for he was not the Christ. The fascinating aspect to this tale hinges on this: if Simon lived through the ordeal, he could have said: I am a great power because I have survived being buried for three days. But evidently that was not on his mind. Simon, or much more likely someone wanting to tell a story about Simon, had a different idea. Simon would enter the grave alive to obtain resurrection. But Christians did not believe that Jesus entered the tomb alive to be resurrected. So, where did this idea come from ? Hebrews 11:35 ?

Jiri

Ben C Smith

I agree with Jeffrey that Paul is contrasting two different messianic conceptions. Knowing Christ according to the flesh would mean conceiving of the messiah in the usual Jewish manner; he will overthrow Rome and establish Zion, et cetera. Knowing Christ not according to the flesh, well, that takes some explaining, and Paul spends a lot of time explaining it in several places in his genuine epistles.

But the important thing for our purposes is that by his own account Paul is not going to spend much time on what the messiah would have done had he come and ushered in the kingdom for Israel on the spot; that is knowing the messiah according to the flesh, a Jewish messiah for Jews and Jewish concerns (compare Romans 9.3-5). What happened instead, according to Paul, is that Christ died and rose again (see the passage immediately preceding our key verse), and that is what enabled eschatological gentile salvation, which is what Paul sees as the pressing issue of his own day.

So if the gospels are even somewhat correct that Jesus was a Jew, and that he preached to and taught Jews, and that he several times even contrasted his own ethical instruction with living like a gentile, we can be assured that Paul is not going to go into that very much. What he is interested in is what enabled gentile salvation, and that, according to all the sources that say anything about it at all, was not his ministry but his death and resurrection. It appears from the gospels, for example, that Jesus was mainly a Jew for Jews, and that the gentiles were at best a peripheral issue for him (see especially Mark 7.27!). But they were absolutely central for Paul, and he is telling us here that, when he speaks about the messiah, he will be speaking about the messiah who reconciled the world (not just Israel) as he goes on to mention just three verses later (2 Corinthians 5.19!).

Or so it seems to me.

Ben.

EarlDoherty

Jiri, if you are going to debate on this forum, I would suggest that you have at least a passing familiarity with scholarly opinion on various key topics and passages, one of which is the meaning of 2 Corinthians 5:16:

Hell, I’ll even call on Jeffrey who obligingly answered someone’s else’s query as to whether your understanding of the passage, Jiri, had any arguments against it:

Get it now, Jiri? ….I guess we’ll see.

Earl Doherty

EarlDoherty

Ben, I don’t doubt your humility, but you needn’t be so humble as not to offer your views and arguments as to why Titus 1:2-3 in no way demands or prompts us to expect a reference to an HJ between God’s promises and their fulfillment in the missionary movement represented by Paul. I would truly like to see a good argument in that regard. For the life of me, I can’t think of one. I have to say that this smacks of simple avoidance. Since I have offered several arguments in favor of interpolation of 1 Timothy 6:13, backed by several very good observations by recognized scholars for finding it a difficult fit within its context, I should think that if you are going to dismiss my contention that the glaring silence in Titus 1:3 outweighs the presence of a problematic (for authenticity) passage like 1 Tim. 6:13, you need to offer something in the way of argument to upset my claim of imbalance.

So why should we not expect or request a reference to an HJ in Titus 1:2-3? Let’s put it into chart form:

STEP ONE: It is eternal life that God…promised long ages ago…
STEP TWO: …now, in his own good time, he has declared himself in the proclamation which was entrusted to me (Paul) by ordinance of God our Savior.

God promised eternal life in the time of the prophets (or even earlier)…then he declared eternal life through Paul. This is “following the passage of his own good time” (or, "at the proper time"), which by any use of language, in any language, clearly implies that he did not do any “declaring” in the interim. Further, the term is used broadly enough to imply simply “action” of any sort. Surely you, and everyone else, can see what is missing between Step One and Step Two. Did Jesus not declare eternal life? Could the writer of Titus have been ignorant of that? Would he not at the very least have regarded the life and career of Jesus as God taking action on his promises? As God declaring eternal life through the incarnation of his Son? Would any early Christian writer have passed over the genuinely to be expected Step Two? Only if he knew of no such step.

You speak of glancing at my Sound of Silence website feature. But you’re not going to “get into that debate.” You will forgive me if I take that as an avoidance of such a debate. You say:

I would have to agree that if you not only find none of the 200 “convincing” (such as Titus 1:2-3 above), nor find it at all odd that there are in fact 200 of them (nor would you find it odd even if there were “a thousand” of them, you say), with not a single clear reference to an historical Jesus anywhere to be found (I said “clear,” so that we would all agree to go home and do something more productive), then you and I truly do live in different conceptual universes. There are many ways I could style that difference, but it would serve no purpose.

However, I still think I have a right to challenge you to give us concrete examples of how your particular universe would argue against my particular universe, as illustrated in my 200 examples. Then we could debate the merits of that fundamental conceptual difference. Ted made an effort to do that some time back, but I judged it as really a matter of arguing “Your Honor, my client was framed” in a succession of unlikely cases. However, I am willing to reconsider. But I am going to suggest that we do this from the opposite direction. Since they are my silences, I reserve the right to be the one to pick out those I consider representative and strongest. I suggest that I offer ten of these in succession, and you (or both you and Ted) can offer reasons why each of them “in no way requires, demands, or even politely requests the kind of reference you seek,” and we can discuss the relative merits of our respective cases. We can do it one at a time, at whatever pace we find convenient.

My first choice is Titus 1:2-3. For my arguments, I’ll repeat what I said above:

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Ben C Smith

It is, course, an avoidance as a simple matter of fact. But I already gave you my reason(s) for the avoidance.

When you politely bowed out of an impending Ascension of Isaiah debate by PM, I neither questioned your motives nor accused you of skirting the issue. Now I have politely bowed out of this debate, and you are free to read whatever motives you wish into that action. I gave you several, but you are free to doubt them all without further ado.

Perhaps some other time. Again, I mean no offense, and when I vaguely offered my overall assessment in my last post to you I was not trying to snipe at your position on my way out of town; I really was just trying to explain why I do not wish to engage in this matter, at least not right now.

Ben.

JoeWallack

JW:
The Emperor Julian wrote:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/ju...ans_1_text.htm

"Therefore, since this is so, why do you grovel among tombs? Do you wish to hear the reason? It is not I who will tell you, but the prophet Isaiah : "They lodge among tombs and in caves for the sake of dream visions." 141 You observe, then, how ancient among the Jews was this work of witchcraft, namely, sleeping among tombs for the sake of dream visions. And indeed it is likely that your apostles, after their teacher's death, practised this and handed it down to you from the beginning, I mean to those who first adopted your faith, and that they themselves performed their spells more skilfully than you do, and displayed openly to those who came after them the places in which they performed this witchcraft and abomination."

JW:
First of all, thanks to Mr. Pearse for his excellent site (kind of like the Christian Peter Kirby). Hoffman comments in his related book:

"(it is not at all clear that Christians would have utilized cemeteries for the purpose of receiving visions and revelations from the dead, though likely that eucharists were celebrated secretly at gravesites, cf. Eunapius, Lives 424)"

JW:
Fortunately, a Position that Jeff Gibson does not need to take seriously, is that Christianity started with a Historical resurrected Jesus Visitation (and what really goats my sacrificial goat about Jeff is that he can be Reverent towards a Christianity which is Impossible and Irreverent towards a MJ which is Possible).

A Position that Jeff does need to take seriously is that some early Christians camped out at where they thought Jesus bought the Sower's Farm to receive Visions of the recently/long departed (to parts unknown) and that said Visions contributed to some extent in the Visitation Myths of Subsequent Christianity. That these Christians didn't know where Jesus bought it actually contributed to the Empty Tomb Story (Understand Dear Reader?).

Ben would appear to be wrong about these Types of visions originally being received by those who knew Jesus. Our earliest known Source of resurrected Jesus Vision, Paul, did not know Jesus. In addition, Paul has some implication that this was not a significant belief of the Christianity he was familiar with as he explicitly indicates that his knowledge of Jesus was not received from any man. Our next best source "Mark" Confirms that the people who knew Jesus did not have any Visitations of a resurrected Jesus.



Joseph

EXCEPTION, n.
A thing which takes the liberty to differ from other things of its class, as an honest man, a truthful woman, etc. "The exception proves the rule" is an expression constantly upon the lips of the ignorant, who parrot it from one another with never a thought of its absurdity. In the Latin, "Exceptio probat regulam" means that the exception tests the rule, puts it to the proof, not confirms it. The malefactor who drew the meaning from this excellent dictum and substituted a contrary one of his own exerted an evil power which appears to be immortal.

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

jgibson000

I think, Earl, that you need to take your own advice on this one, as well as re-read what Barrett actually says, since you have both misused and misread him..

Let's first turn to a commentator the words of whom on 2. Cor. 5:16 you seem to be unfamilar, i.e., Plummer.

St Paul seems to be referring to some charge which had been made against him, that he had known Christ according to the flesh, and he admits that at one time this was true. Then what does St Paul mean when he admits that he once knew Christ KATA SARKA? The phrase KATA SARKA occurs often, in very different contexts, and no explanation of it will suit them all. In each case the context must decide (1.17, 10 2, 3; 1 Cor. 1. 26, 1018:; Gal. 4. 23 ; Rom. 4:1, 8: 4, 5, 12, 9: 3, 5 ; etc.). Our answer to the question will depend upon the period in St Paul's career at which this erroneous appreciation of Christ is placed.

Almost certainly he is alluding to some time previous to his conversion. On that hypothesis various explanations have been suggested. (i) At that time he knew Christ as an heretical and turbulent teacher, who was justly condemned by the Sanhedrin and crucified by the Romans. Consequently, he persecuted His adherents and caused them to be imprisoned and slain. This explanation seems to be the best. (p. 177)

Let's also consider what Ralph Martin has to say in his commentrary on 2 Cor.

One aspect of that new age is that believers have a true insight into the author of that salvation. He is seen -- Paul's verb is GINWSKW, "to know," akin to the Hebrew yada, but in v 16a EIDENAI has no appreciable difference of meaning. Both are used of knowing God or Christ with an intimacy and personal quality that leads to fellowship (see H. Seesemann, TDNT 5:12 1; J. Dupont, Gnosls , 186).

There is a subtle play, however, on the two parts of the v, obvious not from the change in verb but in the adverbial modifier KATA SARKA, which attaches to EGNWKAMEN ...GINWSKOMEN rather than to CRISTON (but see Bultmann, 156: the CROSTOS KATA SARKAis for him Christ in his worldly accessibility, before his death and resurrection [citing Phil 2:7]). Much turns on whether the particle EI KAI introduces a real or an unreal condition. The latter would be Paul's way of constructing a hypothetical case for argument's sake (as in Gal 5:11). But that seems unlikely here. Rather he is conceding a knowledge of the earthly Jesus as real-to himself as to his opponents who made a lot of such privilege (Hering; compare 10:7).

Or F.F. Bruce in his 1 & 2 Corinthians:

Life in the old creation is lived 'according to the flesh' (Gk kata sarka). The adjective human in RSV from a human point of view might well have been replaced by 'worldly' (cf. NEB: 'With us therefore worldly standards have ceased to count in our estimate of any man'). Life in the new creation brings with it quite different standards and criteria. Paul has already shown (I C. I. I 8ff.) how an appreciation of Christ crucified involves a transvaluation of values and in particular the turning upside down of secular canons of wisdom and power. No man presents the same appearance when viewed from the vantage-point of the new order ('according to the Spirit') as he does when seen 'according to the flesh'; and this is pre-eminently true of one's assessment of Christ. Before his conversion Paul had a clear picture of Christ in his mind; now he knows it was a wrong picture. This is equally true whether he means (as he probably does) that he had a wrong conception of the Messiah ('even if we have known a Messiah according to the flesh', e.g. a political Messiah) or that he had a wrong conception ofJesus of Nazareth (which he would readily have bcknowledged, although this is the less likely sense here); in either case it was 'worldly standards' that had counted with him then, but as it is, 'even if once they counted in our understanding of Christ, they do so now no longer' (NEB). He is not contrasting his own post-Easter knowledge of Christ with the knowledge that the Twelve had of him before the cross, neither is he deprecating an interest in the Jesus of history as something improper, or at least spiritually irrelevant, for a Christian

You also seem to be wholly unfamiliar with he study of J.W. Fraser "Paul's Knowledge of Jesus: II Corinthians V. 16 Once More," NTS 17 (1970-71), 293-313.


Now let's return to Barrett to see how you have misued and misread him.

First of all, you selectively quoted him. Here is the full quote from Barrett:

The meaning of these words has been discussed at very great length. The vital step is to see that, even though Paul may have had them in mind from the beginning, they are given almost parenthetically, and are a special case of what is said in verse 16 a. Once we estimated men in general (not Christians only, as Wendland suggests) in a way that can be described as according to the flesh; we now do so no longer. Similarly we once estimated Christ in this way; we now do so no longer. When the disputed words are approached thus it is clear at once that according to the flesh must be treated as adverbial (qualifying the verb to know) and not as adjectival (governing the noun Christ). Men in general have not ceased to have a historical existence, and 'he is not saying that we can no longer know Christ's flesh [emphasis mine], but rather that we are not to judge Him after the flesh' (Calvin). It is fleshly knowledge that Paul repudiates; this means that the view, based on a false interpretation of this verse, that Paul had no interest in the Jesus of history, must be dismissed [emphasis mine]. It is however necessary to take seriously Bultmann's view (Theol., p. 234; E.T. i. 239) that 'a Christ known KATA SARKA-ra' aapKa [according to the flesh] is precisely a XPLOIT09 KaTa' Gla'pKa [Christ according to the flesh]', and Schoeps' (Paulus, p. 107; E.T., p. io8; cf. T.GJ., P. 427), 'Jesus according to the flesh belongs to the past'. Windisch too agrees that in 'fleshly' knowing subject and object cannot ultimately be distinguished (his note, on p. 18S, is important); similarly Cerfaux, Christ, P. 211 ; E. T., p. 278. The trouble with Bultmann's remark is that it is by no means clear what 'Christ according to the flesh' means. Bultmann, and the same is true of Schoeps, seems to understand it to mean 'the Jesus of history'. In fact, if Paul had understood the expression at all (he does not use it at Rom. ix. S), he might well have understood it to mean the military kind of Messiah whom some Jewish groups imagined in order to satisfy their own nationalist longings-that is, a Messiah anthropocentrically conceived.

Secondly you have misread him.

How you get that Barrett is here somehow stating that Paul did not believe in an historical Jesus is beyond me.

And now that youve called on me, we can see that your understanding of the passge is also flawed.


Yes, and look what we have seen: that you have not done yourself what you chastize others for allgedly not having done, that you do engage, as I've claimed, in selective quotation to make your poins, and that you do, as I've also claimed, misread and misinterpret the sources you quote.

Jeffrey Gibson

TedM

Sorry for being so dense, but the "a particular orientation to life that is grounded in the values of the world" sounds a lot like "according to our sinful natures" to me. IOW I'm not sure how this option negates the possibility that Paul is contrasting the pre-believer/believer viewpoint of Christ, which can equally be applied to a human Christ or a celestial Christ. The pre-believer 'knows' Christ according to the flesh, while the believer does not because he no longer has the values of the world.

ted

Solo

Ah....C.K. Barrett, who ingeniously argued in his commentaries on John that the news of Lazarus' illness reached Jesus when the patient was in fact dead already, thus sparing him the embarrassment of (Jn) 11:37. Earl, we have all our purposes, I suppose, and they sometimes cross in mysterious ways. So, what else do you and C.K. Barrett agree on ?.... Oh never mind, I really don't care if you or C.K. Barrett have a patent on interpreting the scripts, or how much you think you are being supported by mainstream scholarship. I don't care if I am.

At any rate, to the debate here:

The context of Paul's sermon is clear; the Corinthian church misbehaves and it breaks his heart. Paul hates the sin but he loves his sinners and appeals to their better nature.

So, to understand 2 Cor 5:16 one needs to analyze why, in this context, Paul would want to bring in the matter of his change of knowing Christ and his knowing other people.

He does not bad-mouth his former self, Saul, for persecuting the Nazarenes. As a matter of fact in Ph 3:6 he considers Saul "blameless" under the law, and be extension his zeal in curbing the menace, something of a mark of moral fibre. Paul says "he had confidence in flesh".

That this "righteous" man then would then change his opinion of some theological abstract, strangely paralleled with all humanity, on the basis of scholarly study of the LXX seems wholly improbable to me. Something happened inside Saul that made him reconsider. That "something" obviously had to be recognized by the community (although evidently Paul's status of apostle was very much in contention).

I am quite ok with Jeffrey's view of "kata sarka" addressing the act of knowing and not Christ. Doesn't change a thing on Paul's consistent view of HJ as a sinner, one of the verses actually being used as a punchline in the chapter (5:21).

I am off with kids to PEI tomorrow...see you in a bit :wave:

best,
Jiri