andrewcriddle

FWIW in Acts 2:30 TO KATA SARKA ANASTHSEIN TON ChRISTON is almost certainly a later interpolation it is missing in Sinaiticus Vaticanus Alexandrinus etc.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

Are you aware of anyone employing this flesh/spirit dichotomy except Paul, who's meaning is largely the point under current debate? Bearing in mind, of course, that those obviously reliant on Paul can't be considered as having much merit.

He doesn't need to be his legalistic heir in terms of an earthly kingdom. He needs to be his legalistic heir in terms of Messianic prophecy.

John notes that it's a problem (7.42). So does Mark (12.35-37). And Barnabas (12.10). Luke and Matthew make up clearly fabricated genealogies to reconcile the problem. What we're left with is an awful lot of early authors who seem to have been greatly concerned with it--a far cry from your suggestion that "No-one seems to have expected. . ."

It would seem that it did. I already pointed out Luke, who takes pains to point out that it was thought Jesus was Joseph's son. Matthew makes up a genealogy for Joseph, carrying the implication that Jesus received it via adoption. Again, lineage is always patriarchal. We don't just get to presume that early authors intended it otherwise because it works better for us.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

CJD

Is this how you'd understand Rom 1:3–4 as well? That Paul, revealing no awareness of the virgin birth, simply writes of the "gospel concerning his son, who was born of the Davidic line"? One thing is for sure, I wouldn't press the flesh/spirit thing in the direction of physical humanness on one side and nonphysical soul or spirit on the other. For Paul, flesh clearly means human nature seen as corruptible and dying, rebelling and sinning. But, so Paul, being human itself is good and god-given. This particular pericope, then, doesn't lend itself to a human nature/divine nature confessional statement so much as it is a simple reference to God's redemptive activity in and through his people (i.e., "from David") and in whom his people find their identity and salvation.

Best,

CJD

Rick Sumner

I'm not sure, to be honest. It could lend weight to the suggestion made by many that vv. such as Mk.12.35-37 and Jn.7.42 attest to a non-Davidic Jesus. It could also be argued that Paul believed in the virgin birth.

Which is what makes what appears to be the literal following of what he was saying (that Jesus was the literal and true son of David, with Paul's flesh/spirit dichotomy meaning real flesh and real spirit--it's not the way he usually employs it, as you note) so unusual. So much so that many--a great many--follow Bultmann in viewing Rom.1.3 is a pre-Pauline form of address--that Paul is simply parroting other disciples and their greeting to Rome.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Ted Hoffman

This is a very refreshing way of interpreting it. Perceptive.

GakuseiDon

Why is that? Why assume that Ignatius misunderstood Paul? We are looking at trying to determine what Paul meant, not trying to find independent confirmation of a historical event.

If A, writing in the same language and in the same culture 50 years after B, uses the same expressions as B, do we normally assume that A means something different than B?

None of them address the problem of "virgin birth" with "descendent of David". Barnabas doesn't even refer to a virgin birth. There is no virgin birth in Mark. John never mentions it as a problem.

Justin and Irenaeus make clear statements that Jesus was a descendent of David through Mary. It works for me. I agree that GLuke and GMatthew carry the implication that Jesus was a descendent via adoption. Ignatius (probably) falls somewhere in-between, time-wise. He seems (to me at least) to have Jesus as a descendent of David, virgin birth or not. If the consensus is that Ignatius considered this by adoption, I'll go with that.

So, even if Ignatius says that Christ was descended from David (with no "kata sarka" in sight), we still can't assume that Ignatius meant that Christ was literally descended from David?

CJD

Well, I wouldn't know where to go if asked to explicate Paul's view of the virgin birth. At any rate, I can't agree with those who would argue that the Mark reference attests to such a thing, if for no other reason than the Davidic sonship motif seems inextricably bound to messianic expectations and it would be unlikely that anyone, including Jesus, could overturn it so succinctly. I think it merely records Jesus attempting to reevaluate publicly what messianic Davidic sonship actually entails (king-priest and enthronement).

Two things here:

1) Even if the phrase is taken to mean human descent on the one hand, it does not follow that the phrase kata pneuma hagiôsunês is a reference to the ethereal so much as it is a way to demarcate the difference between the spirit that raised Jesus and the spirit (of the Christ) who indwells believers. Further, so Paul, if the Christ comes according to the flesh, i.e., born physically into the corrupt and rebelling realm of Adam, he does so in order to rescue his people from that old humanity, that old way of doing things, to a new humanity, "who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit" (8:4). It is redemption in the physical, earthly realm, and has nothing to do with some dualistic gnostic notion that derides human physicality.

2) Even if the 1:3–4 is taken to be the famous, yet hypothetical, "pre-Pauline formula," we must first note that it does not require reading it according to that old, tired dichotomy proposed by Bultmann and others. Second, while it is quite possible that Paul quoted a formula known to his readers, we must assume (unless substantial reasons exist to the contrary) that the author used it to express exactly what he intented to say at that time. The christology of this passage provides the subtext for so many other passages of this letter — so much so that this pericope cannot and should not be treated as an isolated passage attached loosely to a greeting in a letter.

Best,

CJD

Rick Sumner

I don't think that Ignatius misunderstood Paul. I think Ignatius and Paul are saying more or less exactly the same thing. But it's Paul we're trying to determine the meaning for, not Ignatius, and thus we don't get to presume Paul's meaning to determine the other.

ed. to add:
Besides which, Ignatius doesn't employ a sarx/pneuma dichotomy in the verse in question. Neither does Clement in the other example, except by virtue of an effort at a play on words.

You're missing my point. All of them emphasize the importance of a Davidic lineage. Those that do accept the virgin birth (Luke and Matthew), take pains to make it clear that Jesus was nonetheless of the Davidic line by adoption, not by blood. Why would Ignatius think anything different?

It does in those instances, at any rate, because they said so.

A descendent how though? Without your literal interpretation of kata sarka, there is no reason to think that he meant it by blood, and good reason to think otherwise--again, lineage is patriarchal by default. If Ignatius meant something else, we should expect him to say so. Except he doesn't.

The consensus can be wrong as easily as the minority.

I'd suggest that no, we can't. But the addition of kata sarka provides some clue as to what the phrase means.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Except that John, with absolutely no effort to clarify or correct, points out that naysayers thought it a problem that Jesus wasn't Davidic. If John was aware of another tradition, one would think he would say so. Barnabas, in the aforementioned verse, makes use of the same weak apologetic Mark does.

I think we do well not to presume too readily what Mark would or would not do, and focus instead on what seems to be said in the text.

Yet the verse says nothing of the sort. You'd need to argue for this interpretation with more than a suggestion of what you think Mark would or would not do.

I agree.

Nobody said it did. All I've said is that kata sarka does not seem to refer to a literal, fleshly lineage.

The seemingly different usage of the sarx/pneuma dichotomy is one of the chief arguments for it being a pre-Pauline formula. If we don't take it as such, we've lost a chief reason for holding the position in the first place.

This is debatable--it seems reasonable to suggest that the "substantial reasons" in question could be accounted for by Paul's need to establish credibility with a church he has not previously had contact with. It might best be a question for another thread though.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Thanks for the info.

Regards,
Rick Sumner