mikem

In the Jesus Puzzle, Earl Doherty refers to the phrase “according to the flesh� (KATA SARKA) and says it may mean little more than “in the sphere of the flesh�. This would include thesublunary realm in which he says that Paul believed that Jesus was crucified. He calls it “the world of myth itself�.

However, checking the references in the letters of Paul, I cannot find one that remotely suggests a mythical realm.

Paul uses this phrase with a variety of meanings.. Firstly it is either used as a synonym for human.:

Romans 4:1
“What shall we say about Abraham our forefather according to the flesh?�
Romans 9:3
“For I wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ on behalf of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh�
Romans 9:5
“to them belong the Patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ.�

In 9:3, Paul clearly indicates his blood relationship to the Jewish race, then in verse 5 he must mean that Christ too, was of the Jewish race, and therefore human. If he meant something completely different, why does he not say so?

Ephesians 6: 5
“Slaves obey your according to the flesh lords� (See also Colossians 3:22)

The usual translation is worldly masters.

Secondly, it is used to refer to a human point of view:

2 Corinthians 5:16: “From now on we regard no one according to the flesh, even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer�.

On Doherty’s understanding of KATA SARKA, are we to read this as suggesting that we no longer regard Christ as a mythical being?

The phrase “according to the flesh� is also used to refer to our human nature as fallen.

Romans 8: 5 “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh�.

While Doherty might have other arguments to back up his thesis, his references to“according to the flesh� do not support his case. I f anything they undermine it.

GakuseiDon

Doherty is wrong. The "sublunary realm" extended from the moon to the earth. It wasn't "the world of myth itself", and as far as I can see, he has presented no evidence for such a thing. All he has is Plutarch, who describes allegorical processes.

People have simply assumed that Doherty's claims of a "fleshy realm" where the gods did their thing is correct. But it is a modern idea that people are imposing on the text.

On "kata sarka", you may find this thread interesting:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=148821

mikem

Thanks for that. Since Barratt and Cranfield are both orthodox in their theology as far as I am aware anyway, their is no reason why their intepretation of KATA SARKA should support Doherty. In my view to talk of the "realm (or sphere) of the flesh" is simply a way of referring to what pertains to human beings, and is being used metaphorically, not geographically. You have mentioned Plutarch several times - could you perhaps give me a link to a site where I might find his work, and is there any writings you particularly had in mind?

Chris Weimer

If you do a search for the term "Kata Sarka" there are about five threads you should check out. Four of them have "kata sarka" in the title and the other one is "according to the flesh".

Toto

According to the Flesh May 2005 (Haran)

Kata Sarka Aug 2003 Rick Sumner

I just figured out Kata Sarka 2002 Ted Hoffman

Kata Sarka 2002 Ted Hoffman

mikem

Thanks guys. Nice to know someone cares! And that I'm not barking up the wrong gum tree!