Rick Sumner

Anyone who has read Earl Doherty's _The Jesus Puzzle_, or for that mattter read his site, is familiar with his proposed rendering of "kata sarka" (Rom.1.3, 1.9 et al.)

Doherty goes on to note that:

On the Jesus Mysteries E-List he expounded on this further:

Which leads to my question. I'm curious as to just how frequently in Hellenist writings one might have to think of "sarx" meaning "nothing more than in *relation* to the sphere of the flesh." Perhaps more specifically, are there any instances outside Christian writings where such a sentiment might be considered? Perhaps to up the ante a little, are there any where it is used opposite pneuma in which it would be necessary? Or, at least if not necessary, probable?

Regards,
Rick

Iasion

Greetings Rick,

I have collected some uses of "kata sarka" etc. here :

http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentin...katasarka.html


Some of these references do contrast the earthly with the spiritual :



Aristides -
Cicero -

Iasion

Vorkosigan

I think the whole 'what-is-the-right-translation-of-kata-sarka' debate really glides past the larger issue that Earl identified here: if Paul really meant that Jesus was straightforwardly the descendent of David, Greek had ample vocabulary to clearly express that relationship. So why do he and other 'early' authors chose a phrase that is obscurantist and mystical? That's the real issue. The fact that we are arguing over the translation is a point in Earl's favor.

Also, R. Brown pointed out that there was a historical case of a high priest being given a bogus lineage because his original lineage was not right: Zadok (II Chronicles). Jesus is frequently (1 Clem, Heb) depicted in the role of High Priest. A description of that office and its perogatives and history is at the Jewish Encyclopedia On Line. So it seems that Jesus, the High Priest, might well have taken on another lineage, just as Solomon appointed Zadok and claimed he was of Eleazar's lineage, so God appointed Jesus out of the lineage of David.

Hey Peter! Did you know the Jewish Encyclopedia is online?
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/
A great resource.

Vorkosigan

Bernard Muller

Yes, you must be referring to the expression:
Ro1:3 YLT "... concerning His Son, (who is **come** of the seed of David according to the flesh,"
as also in:
Php2:7-8 "... [Jesus] taking the form of a bondservant, and **coming** in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death ..."
Gal4:4 YLT "... God sent forth His Son, **come** of a woman, come under the law [as a Jew]"
Ro9:4-5a "who are Israelites ... of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ **came** ..."

Yes, Paul is consistent about using "come" (root:ginomai) instead of "born".
How to explain it? For Paul, Jesus is pre-existent, so using "born" would be confusing, even contradictory.

Best regards, Bernard

Rick Sumner

Thanks. All of these would seem to indicate that flesh is always used to refer to literal flesh, though, which doesn't do much for Doherty's case.

Regards,
Rick

Rick Sumner

That quite simply isn't true. It is exceedingly likely that Paul's audience knew exactly what he meant by kata sarka, and if they understood it to mean literal flesh, then he did use ample vocabulary to explicitly state that Jesus was the son of David. Your argument necessitates the presupposition that Paul's audience would have either found the phrase cryptic, or understood it in Doherty's context. I see no reason to think the former is the case. Perhaps you can find relevant citations for the latter, as per my original question.

And it ignores the nature of my question, which is, of course, whether any of the debate over kata sarka's translation is justified in the first place, or simply a case of twisting the evidence to suit your cause.

You state that "kata sarka" was "obscurist and mystical." With that in mind, you should have no problem finding excerpts from non-Christian writings to indicate just how "obscurist and mystical" everyone thought the phrase was in Hellenist writings. I don't see any, from Iasion's list. It's pretty explicit, actually--nothing "obscurist" about it.

Regards,
Rick

Iasion

Greetings Rick,

No they don't.


Consider this quote :

Paul to Romans, 8:3 -
'' ..in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.''

According to you, this means :
"...in us, who do not walk in a physical body..."

That is clearly nonsense when taken literally.

This use of "kata sarka" is NOT literal but allegorical, the passage means something like :
'' ..in us, who walk not in the worldly, but after the Spirit.''


Consider 1 Cor 10:18 :
"Consider Israel after the flesh. Don't those who eat the sacrifices have communion with the altar?"

According to you, this means :
"Consider the physical body of Israel..."

That is clearly nonsense when taken literally.

Similarly, at 10:17, "one body" cannot refer literally to "we, who are many" being literally in one physical body.

These passages show obvious non-literal uses.


Consider to Diognetus :
"They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven."

This could not be more clear that "after the flesh" does NOT mean in the physical body, but is allegorical - according to you, this passage means :
"They are in the physical body, but they do not live in the physical body"


Also, Ignatius
''I write not unto you after the flesh, but after the mind of God.''(Romans 8:3)"

According to you, this means :
"I do not write to you physically..."

But that is nonsense taken literally, as Ignatius IS writing physically. This is clearly an allegoric usage.


And Synesius -
'' For this spirit is precisely the the border land between un-reason and reason, between BODY and the bodiless. It is a common frontier of both through which things divine are joined to lower things''. (137A).

Here, Synesius is not talking about any specific literal body, but clearly making an analogy -

Body = un-reason = lower things
Bodiless = reason = divine


This clearly and specifically supports Doherty's argument - that "kata sarka" is often used to mean "physically", and not a specific reference to a literal physical body.


Iasion

Rick Sumner

Apologies, I should have been more specific--"of or pertaining to real flesh" would have been more apt.

But it makes sense to presume that he's saying "walk not after the lowest heavenly sphere"? Paul's referring to human actions, done in a human course of events, and contrasting this to the divine.

Besides which, I asked for non-Christian references

Doherty said the same thing, using the same wording, on the Jesus Mysteries E-list. But it's not quite apt, as it fails to observe that "worldly" doubtlessly refers to the real world, not some spiritual realm. "Walk not after the ways of men," might make more sense.

Again, apologies, I should have been more specific. But are we to presume that Paul was referring to Israel in "the lowest heavenly sphere"? That makes less than no sense. That still isn't making Doherty's case. It's also still not non-Christian

Not similar at all. The word used here is "soma." Not sarx.

They are in the flesh, but they do not live according to the standards of flesh. That pretty clearly has nothing to do with a "lowest heavenly sphere."

Clearly it is. But it's not Doherty's allegorical usage. I write not to you with the mind of men, or in the style of men, or according to the standards of men, I write to you in the spirit of God.

He certainly isn't writing not "in the sphere of the lowest heavenly level." Nor does the verse have anything to do with any "lowest heavenly sphere."


I think you're missing the point of Synesius. The body, a physical thing, is lower than the spirit, a higher thing. Doherty himself observes that this is view is prevalent throughout Hellenist literature.

It does not support Doherty's position that kata sarka should be viewed as not pertaining to flesh. All of these refer to earthly, human standards. "Lowest heavenly spheres" have nothing to do with them.

To rephrase my initial question:

Are there any verses in which Doherty's interpretation--"in the lowest heavenly sphere" --are either necessary, or at the very least, viable, outside of the Christian tradition.

None of these match the latter criteria, of being viable--much less the former, of being necessary.

Regards,
Rick

[Ed. for spelling]

Bernard Muller

From Galatians 4

23 "But he [that was] of the maid servant was born according to flesh, and he [that was] of the free woman through the promise."

29 "But as then he that was born according to flesh persecuted him [that was born] according to Spirit, so also [it is] now."

The second verse alludes to a somewhat godly conception for Isaac "according to Spirit", but the son of Hagar, Ishmael, "born *according to flesh* (kata sarka)" is positively fathered by Abraham (according to Ge16:1-4).

Let's compare that with Romans 1:3
"concerning his Son (come of David's seed according to flesh)"

All quotes above from Darby.

And then also Paul claimed Christ to be from Abraham's seed:
Gal3:16b "... He [God] does not say, "And to seeds [of Abraham]," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ."

Later, Paul's claimed his Christians (definitively earthly humans) are also Abraham's seeds:
Gal3:29 "And if you [the recipients of the epistle] are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

Best regards, Bernard

Peter Kirby

This is a good point, Bernard. Paul does speak here of Jesus as being descended from Abraham. This is valid evidence that requires better evidence to trump it, based on other verses of Paul that seem to say the opposite, if there are such.

Theorists such as G. A. Wells and Alvar Ellegard recognize this and so they would see Jesus, not as an exclusively divine being, but as a man who lived some time ago relative to Paul.

best,
Peter Kirby