Corpus-Paul

["David C. Hindley" <DHindley AT compuserve.com>]

In a post I submitetd yesterday, I noted two articles in _Dictionary of 
Paul and His Letters_ that dealt with the grammatical use of KATA SARKA in 
2 Cor 5:16. Since this was one of the points that Jeffrey questioned, I 
thought I might take the subject up here.

The citations, again, were these:

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.

Laying the passage open in front of me and studying it for a few moments 
with consideration to the articles above, it looks to me as though the 
question of whether KATA SARKA should be associated with the noun or verb 
comes down to a matter of interpretation!

The problem is complicated by the fact that 16a (WSTE HMEIS APO TOU NUN 
OUDENA OIDAMEN KATA SARKA) and 16b (EI KAI EGNWKAMEN KATA SARKA CRISTON, 
ALLA NUN OUKETI GINWSKOMEN) form two functionally independent grammatical 
units. Either one could stand alone and be perfectly comprehensible.

IF the "correlations" cited above by Erikson are valid, and not a product 
of the interpretive process, I would concur that 16a appears to refer to 
mankind in general, while 16b refers to Christ. But if so, why did Paul 
need to present this concept in such an awkward two part sentence? The use 
of rhetoric has been suggested on C-P as a possible explanation for these 
kinds of contrasting statements. While I am still trying to come up to 
speed regarding the form and application of rhetoric in 1st century 
literature, it still troubles me that Paul's rhetoric was so ineffectual if 
used at all.

What I would suggest is that here, as in many other places in the Pauline 
corpus, we have a comment (16b) inserted to offer an interpretation (we 
would today call it "spin") of an existing text (15a). I would prefer to 
work from the assumption that contrasting themes in such close proximity 
are evidence for a plurality of authors.

Jeffrey Gibson said; 

>>Also, I'd like to know if there any evidence at all that this verse is 
really an interpolation? I could see how someone might want to **argue** 
that it is IF the verse means anything like what David seems to think it 
means. But to my eyes, this only begs the question.<<

How are you defining "evidence"? <President Clinton *has* had an effect on 
biblical studies after all!> I am not speaking of an interpolation that 
will necessarily be evident from variants in the text (and I do realize 
that there are no major variants for this passage). By definition an 
interpolation is something that has been inserted into an existing text. 
This can be detected by a number of processes.

I do apply a model, but it has been the product of a long and difficult 
development process and would not be very easy to summarize in a nutshell. 
Let me just say that the process I used was to mark text that interrupted 
arguments or themes. Then I analyzed both the marked text and the unmarked 
text to seek out any unique characteristics and themes, and several were 
identified. Based on the developed characteristics and themes, I further 
extended the list of possible interpolations.

While I have compiled lists of passages where comments appear to have been 
inserted to modify statements (as above, along with a couple other 
categories), I am currently not in a position to lay them out as 
systematically as I would prefer. In the not too distant future I plan to 
construct a web page where I will post the details and offer an explanation 
of my methodology.

Even so, if the subject arouses strong interest I would be willing to 
discuss specifics.

Regards,

Dave Hindley
Cleveland, Ohio, USA