Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - RE: 2 Cor 5:16b

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley AT compuserve.com>
  • To: "Corpus-paul" <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: 2 Cor 5:16b
  • Date: Sat, 2 Oct 1999 02:01:29 -0400


From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <jgibson000 AT mailhost.chi.ameritech.net>

>>Over on XTalk, one of our C-P members, Dave Hindley, has not only raised
the issue of the meaning of 2 Cor 5:16b (arguing that it implies that
whatever Jesus was in the flesh [i.e., in history] was of no concern to
the author of the verse); he has also gone on to assert that the passage
is an interpolation.

My response to the argument regarding what the verse implies was the
following:

> Does this verse really say that Paul has no concern for the Historical
Jesus? Given one of Paul's uses of SARX isn't it possible that what he is
asserting here is that he no longer thinks, as he certainly once did (and
in so doing persecuted the church), of the Messiah as having to be a
warrior?

It is a long way from KATA SARKA (according to (the) "flesh") which
modifies a way of thinking about something (i.e., the nature of
Messiahship) to not being concerned about what the historical Jesus was
like. <

But having said this, I realize that I'm relatively ignorant on the
scholarship on this verse. I'd like to ask, then, What is the consensus,
if any, regarding what "Paul" is saying here? Is it anything like what I
argue?<<

To evaluate the use of SARX in the Pauline Corpus would require, at the
very least, analysis of the following 91 occurrences:

1 Co. 1:26
1 Co. 1:29
1 Co. 10:18
1 Co. 15:39
1 Co. 15:50
1 Co. 3:1
1 Co. 3:3
1 Co. 5:5
1 Co. 6:16
1 Co. 7:28
1 Co. 9:11
1 Tim. 3:16
2 Co. 1:12
2 Co. 1:17
2 Co. 10:2
2 Co. 10:3
2 Co. 10:3
2 Co. 10:4
2 Co. 11:18
2 Co. 12:7
2 Co. 3:3
2 Co. 4:11
2 Co. 5:16
2 Co. 7:1
2 Co. 7:5
Col. 1:22
Col. 1:24
Col. 2:1
Col. 2:11
Col. 2:13
Col. 2:18
Col. 2:23
Col. 2:5
Col. 3:22
Eph. 2:11
Eph. 2:14
Eph. 2:3
Eph. 5:29
Eph. 5:31
Eph. 6:12
Eph. 6:5
Gal. 1:16
Gal. 2:16
Gal. 2:20
Gal. 3:3
Gal. 4:13
Gal. 4:14
Gal. 4:23
Gal. 4:29
Gal. 5:13
Gal. 5:16
Gal. 5:17
Gal. 5:17
Gal. 5:19
Gal. 5:24
Gal. 6:12
Gal. 6:13
Gal. 6:8
Gal. 6:8
Phil. 1:22
Phil. 1:24
Phil. 3:3
Phil. 3:4
Phlm. 1:16
Rom. 1:3
Rom. 11:14
Rom. 13:14
Rom. 15:27
Rom. 2:28
Rom. 3:20
Rom. 4:1
Rom. 6:19
Rom. 7:14
Rom. 7:18
Rom. 7:25
Rom. 7:5
Rom. 8:12
Rom. 8:12
Rom. 8:13
Rom. 8:3
Rom. 8:3
Rom. 8:4
Rom. 8:5
Rom. 8:5
Rom. 8:6
Rom. 8:7
Rom. 8:8
Rom. 8:9
Rom. 9:3
Rom. 9:5
Rom. 9:8

As for scholarship, I took a look into _Dictionary of Paul and His
Letters_ (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993) and found this verse
discussed on the following pages:

48 Constitutes one of several allusions to Damascus road experience (Rom
10:2-4; 1 Cor 9:16-17; 2 Cor 3:4-4:6; 5:16; Eph 3;1-13; Col 1:23-29), and

50 Refers to Paul's scorn for the cross-less "other" gospel preached by
his opponents (2 Cor 2:13; 5:16; 11:4). Article "Apostle" P. W. Barnett.

102 "Paul had once regarded Jesus from a purely human point of view (2
Cor 5:16) - a failure, perhaps a fool and certainly not the Jewish
Messiah - but after the damascus road experience he did so no longer. He
now viewed Jesus as the Son of God." Article "Christology", Ben
Witherington III.

170 2 Cor 5:16, 19, 21. Paul once rejected Christ on the basis of his
suffering because of his non-spiritual point of view, but after being
created anew Paul saw both Christ and others in light of God's purpose of
reconciliation.
190 2 Cor 5:16-17 may provide a glimpse of the beginning of a new
creation. Article "Creed" J R Levison.

276 One interpretation of 2 Cor 5:16 "championed by W Bousset and
Bultman, and followed by numerous continental scholars [however, no
citation is given either in text or bibliography], […] understands this
verse as meaning that for Paul the historical Jesus was an irrelevance
compared with the crucial significance of the exalted Christ of faith."
This is claimed to be incorrect because points of contact with sayings of
Jesus can be found, and so Paul is rather "contrasting his pre-conversion
understanding of Jesus with the totally new outlook which has become his
as a Christian." Article "Exaltation and Enthronement" J F Maile.

304 "People, even Christ himself, can be evaluated from [the] false
perspective [of the world and humanity's value systems] (KATA SARKA, 2 Cor
5:16)". Article "Flesh," Sect 1:5, R J Erikson.

305 Striking Formal Contextual Features: "Several correlations between
formal grammatical structure and "semantic field assignment" are notable:
(1) When Paul uses KATA SARKA […] + VERB (e.g., 2 Cor 1:17; 5:16), the
semantic field is that of moral negativity […]. On the other hand when he
uses KATA SARKA + NOUN (e.g., Rom 4;1; 9:3), the semantic field is that of
moral neutrality […]. This was noticed by Bultmann ([Theology of the New
Testament, vol. 1:]236-37) and is confirmed here (cf. KATA ANTHRWPON, "in
an ordinary fashion," 1 Cor 3:3). (2) Every occurrence of SARX as morally
negative […] lacks the article. This is probably due to the stereotyped
prepositional phrases Paul employs. All formal contexts have either the
shape KATA SARKA […] + VERB (e.g., 2 Cor 10:2, 3) or EN SARKI […] + VERB
(e.g., Phil 3;3,4; Gal 6:12). (3) All uses of SARX in the broad sense of
"humanity" […], except one, are formed on LXX style: PASA SARX […]. (4)
Those uses of SARX which refer to human rebelliousness […] almost
invariably appear with the article. To this category also belongs nearly
every instance where SARX is construed as the subject or direct object of
a verb (the verb usually being in the form of an abstract noun), unless it
is qualified by a possessive personal pronoun, in which case it refers to
the human body." Article "Flesh" R J Erikson.

500 2 Cor 5:16 became "central in Jesus-Paul debate, particularly since
Bultmann interpreted it in support of his view that Paul had little
interest in the life of the earthly Jesus [R Bultmann, "The Significance
of the Historical Jesus for the Theology of Paul," in Faith and
Understanding I (New York: Harper & Row:, 1996 [1929]) 220-46; idem,
"Jesus and Paul," in Existence and Faith (London: Hoddler and Stoughton,
1961 [1936]) 183-201; idem, "The Primitive Christian Kerygma and the
Historical Jesus " (1960), in The Historical Jesus and the Kerygmatic
Christ, ed. C E Braaten and R A Harrisville (New York/Nashville: Abingdon,
1964) 15-42]." The resulting detailed discussions regarding whether KATA
SARKA should go with the noun or the verb ignores the fact that what is
said of Christ in the latter half of the verse is said of all people in
the first half. Article "Jesus and Paul" J M G Barclay.

736 In recent decades, Bultmann's "tendentious interpretation of 2 Cor
5:16, has been discredited in the view of many scholars." He cites G N
Stanton Jesus of Nazareth in Testament Preaching (SNTSMS 27; Cambridge:
University press, 1974) 113; and E E Lemcio The Past of Jesus in the
Gospels (SNTSMS 68; Cambridge: University Press, 1991). Article
"Preaching, Kerygma" R H Mounce.

909 Argument that the "term "union with Christ" reflects the extensive
Pauline teaching regarding Christ dwelling in and with the believer, and
the believer being in and with Christ […]. But this must be understood
from the dual vantage points of the incarnate and risen presence of God in
Christ(cf. 2 cor 5:16), and in the believing community." Article
"Spirituality" R P Meye.

Overall, it does not appear that the scholars represented (except
Witherington) made a connection between the concept of a "Warrior Messiah"
(or "Jewish Messiah") with the use of the phrase KATA SARKA in the
epistles of Paul.

On the issue of interpolations, let me defer this issue to another time
unless there is unusual interest in what I mean by this term and the
process by which I determined what might be an interpolation. Thanks!

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page