jjramsey

If you are conceding this much, then you are pretty much conceding everything. "As far as flesh is concerned" and "in the realm of fleshly spirits" are mutually exclusive meanings. Unless Paul was being deliberately ambiguous, he could not have meant both.

But you lack evidence that Paul himself thought this way.

Eph. 2:13 reads that "you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." This makes clear that the context of this is sacrifice. It is the abuse--and ultimately the death--of Christ's flesh that is abolishing the Law. This is certainly metaphysical, but it hardly rules out that the flesh being abused was that of a human.

Often, but not always, and though N.T. Wright has many flaws, he did point out that Paul tended to use soma and sarx rather differently. He did this in the context of noting that unlike the church fathers, Paul distinguished between the resurrection body (soma), which believers would get at the general resurrection, and the flesh (sarx) that would not inherit the kingdom of God. Paul, of course, uses soma in contexts besides the general resurrection; however, this established that one cannot assume an easy identification of "soma" and "sarx" in Paul's work.

And again, the context makes clear that the sacrifice motif is in play, as it was in Ephesians.

The problem is that this "stereotyped terminology" is not a clear reference to the philosophy of which you speak, and instead points toward something else.

Clivedurdle

Isn't this more to do with balance of probabilities?

There are so many themes that look similar to - and identical to - the normal run of the mill beliefs of the time, and so little (any?) evidence of historicity that a conclusion of myth is logical and rational?

Imagine a table with two columns, What is in the HJ one? Pilate, kata sarka, born of a woman, gospels. Anything else? Xianity itself?

But xianity has a clear history of propaganda and attacking alternate views.

Clivedurdle

It is very important because this belief system has huge political and economic power and does directly effect people's lives daily - condoms and aids is the classic example.

I think the mythicist case- it is actually probably wider than that as it includes sociology, anthropology, economics, politics and history - is now on a par with evolution. We have had a paradigm shift but it has not yet "caught" - but maybe it has - fundamentalism and pentecostalism are religious reactions to the enlightenment project.

The text book of these ways of thinking probably does not yet exist, but when it is written it will be the basis of all theology and biblical studies courses. Look back at the Aberdeen link earlier - the conflict exists in the two very different approaches to this subject there - and the fact that the tools used for all other religions do not seem to be used on xianity!

dog-on

The Paul of Acts is most likely unhistorical. I agree. The real question relates to the Paul of the letters. The hypothesis being that the letters themselves are the product of the Marcionites and Paul as a construction of Marcion. Can the letters be a product of the 2nd century?

What is the current scholarship with regards to later interpolation in "Paul's" letters?

S.C.Carlson

Scholars are generally skeptical of interpolations in Paul's letters that are not already so indicated for in the critical Greek text (Nestle-Aland). However, William O. Walker is a mainstream scholar who has recently argued strongly in favor for later interpolations so, to some extent, the question is still somewhat open. Toto can give more details about Walker's book and an IIDB thread that discusses it.

Stephen

Amaleq13

Here is the thread Toto created about Walker's efforts:

Interpolations in the Pauline Letters by William O. Walker, Jr.

EarlDoherty

Yes he could, and they are not mutually exclusive meanings. You fail to understand that in the philosophy of the time, the realm of flesh, when used in application to the idea of corruptibility, changeability, decay, etc. (not in regard to every meaning or usage of the word sarx), meant everything below the moon. Within that region lay earth itself, humans who inhabited it, but also the aer or firmament above the earth and below the moon, which demons inhabited. The demons were spirit beings, but regarded as having a type of corporeality different from that of humans. (I’ve appealed here to the TDNT, not simply to interpretations of Middle Platonic pagan writers.) I failed to persuade GakuseiDon, and no doubt will fail to persuade you, that the activities of the demon spirits belonged to the realm of flesh. This means that both material and spiritual activities went on in that sublunar realm. Thus, Christ’s salvatory acts, including the actions of the demons in hanging him on a tree (as in the Ascension of Isaiah), when he had descended to that sublunar realm and adopted a form of non-human ‘flesh’ (again, see the TDNT), could be spoken of as “kata sarka”.
What “evidence” are you demanding? A clear statement to this effect? If we had that, we wouldn’t be here. The “evidence” lies in the texts itself and the interpretation of those texts, analysed against the background thinking of the time, and in light of the very weak “evidence” that Paul thought in terms of a recent human man. I could equally claim that you “lack evidence that Paul himself thought” in terms of such a man. You would then turn around and say that your “evidence” lies in the Pauline texts and your interpretation of those texts set against the background of the Gospels. It becomes a matter of weighing and deciding between the two. It may never be resolved to everyone’s satisfaction. You choose to say “to-may-toe” and I choose “to-mah-toe”.
Perhaps not, but the point is, I’m suggesting that it is highly unlikely. I very much agree that the context is the sacrifice of Christ, but if that sacrifice can be seen as taking place in a spiritual dimension, then it does not require that the flesh being abused be human, on earth. Note that Hebrews 10:20’s “curtain of flesh” refers to the heavenly sanctuary, where that epistle places the “sacrifice” of Christ (not on an earthly Calvary), so it would appear that the term is being used entirely in regard to spiritual ‘flesh’.
Perhaps not, because both terms are used in a wide variety of contexts. But how about a passage like Col. 1:22: “reconciled you through (Christ’s) death in his body of flesh.” They’re pretty closely linked there. And in 1 Cor. 15:44f, Paul speaks of Christ’s “body” in entirely spiritual terms, contrasting it with Adam’s physical body and identifying it as out of heaven. What is missing in this passage is any implication that Christ had ever had a physical body (despite the universal reading of such an idea into the text). When Paul declares that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven,” he is clearly referring to human bodies; one cannot simply carry that over to a similar definition of Christ’s body, especially since the passage as a whole clearly indicates otherwise when read without Gospel-colored glasses.
As you see it and interpret it. I see it pointing in an entirely different direction.

All the best,
Earl Doherty

Clivedurdle

Do not Jesus and God also belong to the world of flesh, the difference is that human flesh is corruptible that will become incorruptible because of the sacrifice of jesus who did not become as flesh but became corruptible flesh without it tainting him - actually both types of flesh?

And the Eucharist is the sign of all this, the magical alchemic act that was believed to make all this happen?

(I know this reads like someone else, but think about it! The new testament clearly talks about incorruptible flesh, and the creed is that Jesus was without sin. Take that literally please, not as some theological wash but as the actual belief!)

Steven Carr

It seems nobody is willing to type out the professional historians explanations of the silences that Doherty points out.

Perhaps nobody can remember just where in the standard literature the explanations are....

jjramsey

No, I understand this very well. The problem is that saying "as far as flesh is concerned" is completely different from saying "underneath the sphere of the moon where the fleshly spirits dwell." The former is a reference to the characteristics or condition of something, and the latter is a reference to a concrete location where certain things are happening.

The demons certainly were in the sublunar realm, and they were considered fleshly. On that you, GakuseiDon, and I agree. The problem is that the linguistic evidence that Paul used kata sarka to refer to this realm is poor, so it is not accurate to state that descending to the sublunar realm and adopting a form of non-human "flesh" could be spoken of as kata sarka.

Not necessarily. However, at the very least, if Paul did have the theology of which you spoke, then it should be difficult to parse Paul's writings without recourse to Middle Platonic ideas. For example, if Paul wanted to say "in the realm of fleshly spirits," then he could, and probably would, use phrasing that other Middle Platonists used for such a realm. We wouldn't be discussing kata sarka.

Except Hebrews 10:20 doesn't say "curtain of flesh." Rather, it reads, "he opened for us through the curtain (that is, through his flesh)." Again, the context is sacrificial; Jesus's sacrifice (flesh) becomes the doorway (curtain) into the sanctuary. This is a metaphor, straight up.

Note that Paul (or pseudo-Paul, perhaps, since this is Colossians that we are talking about) is saying body of flesh, as if the body could have been made of other stuff. This does not point to "body" implying "flesh."

Actually, Paul's line of argument implies that Christ did have a body of flesh before being resurrected. He is pointing to Christ as the first instance (or first fruits) of the kind of resurrection that is to come (1 Cor. 15:23). If those who are to be resurrected (i.e. the dead among the Corinthians) had perishable bodies when they died, Paul's logic implies that Christ had a perishable body when he died.

He is clearly referring to fleshly human bodies as we know them, but 1 Cor. 15:50ff implies that the resurrected bodies will be made imperishable.