Corpus-Paul

["Ray Pickett" <rpickett AT lsps.edu>]

I have been away and am getting into this conversation rather late. However,
there is a classic article by J. L. Martyn entitled "Epistemology at the
Turn of the Ages" which makes a rather persuasive argument for understanding
"kata sarka" and "kata pneuma" as two different ways of knowing in 2 Cor.
5:16. The article is reprinted in his collection of essays THEOLOGICAL
ISSUES IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL.

Martyn's view, as I remeber it, is similar to the one articulated by Mark
below. In terms of the rhetorical context of this passage, I would note that
it seems to correspond to Paul's differentiation in 5:12 between those rival
apostles who boast "en proswpon" (kata sarka) and Paul, who boasts "en
kardia". This contrast seems to pervade the entire section.

Ray Pickett

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark D. Nanos <nanos AT gvi.net>
To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 8:22 AM
Subject: [corpus-paul] Re: 2 Corinthians 5:16


> Jerry Sumney has suggested that "according to the flesh" is a way of
> knowing Jesus as applied to 2 Cor. 5:16 rather than what is known
> about him, or its importance. I think he is right. But I have been
> pondering the idea, and the implications. It seems in this passage
> that the issue is about a way of knowing, with emphasis on the aspect
> of the state of being of the one knowing, not the one being known.
> This is important for evaluation of the context of the rhetoric, such
> as constructions of the issues/rivals/Paul as well as theological
> conclusions that are based upon its interpretation.
>
> It is the change of state of being because one is in Christ that
> changes the perspective, the way of knowing, cf. v. 17: "therefore,
> if anyone is in Christ." This issue is found in the argument
> preceding also. The contrast in v. 12 is between a human status
> oriented assessment of the relative value of the two parties being
> contrasted (i.e., Paul and those in the position of being his rivals
> on the matter at hand), and a divinely controlled counter-evaluation
> that is witnessed in the unseen world of the heart where the spirit
> has worked on the addressees, rather than in the symbols of social
> comparison to which these rivals have appealed, which are manifest to
> everyone, and not just to the hearts of those who have been similarly
> transformed.
>
> I do not follow the linking of zealotry and rightwising by way of
> triumphalism in Jeffrey Gibson's post; zealots may just as well
> aspire to martyrdom, i.e., seemingly losing by the standards of the
> ostensible victors in the battle at hand, but with a view towards
> victory in the larger war. That comment on our assumptions about Paul
> aside, the self-perception of one's standing is related to the
> construction of reality from which one evaluates the appearance of
> things/people, including one's self. It is the rivalry of courts of
> reputation for determining what is really real which seems to be at
> dispute in this passage. Thus it does not seem to me to be about a
> changed view of what a Messiah should be so much as appeal to a
> changed view because of the experience that Jesus is Messiah
> ("therefore, if anyone is in Christ").
>
> I do not find the passage contrasts how Jesus was known by Paul or
> those he portrays as rivals has to do with "when" Jesus was know as
> clearly as does Frank Hughes. Frank's understanding of the phrase
> according to the flesh is determined by his understanding of who
> these rivals are and what they claim. It is not clear to me that
> these others appeal to a knowledge of Jesus during his
> pre-death/resurrection life. The issue about time (when) is
> relativized by the contrasting perception of value/authority (what)
> at the present time, and the basis of that perception (how) is the
> meaning attributed to being in-Christ (why), which gives one a
> different perspective (how: by being part of a new community that has
> been created among those in-Christ that takes precedence thereafter
> over other communal associations and thus authorities).
>
> It seems to me that the relative evaluation of Jesus according to
> flesh or spirit has to do with the perception of his value by the two
> parties here, albeit only as portrayed by one of those parties, Paul.
> The context of the rhetorical issue seems to be concerning the
> authority to which they each appeal in their relationship with the
> Corinthians. Paul's statements could still be made in contrasting two
> parties to this day, without either party appealing to a knowledge of
> Jesus according to the flesh in the sense of having known him on
> earth prior to his death/resurrection. Most Jewish people could be
> described as knowing Jesus according to the flesh, for example, as a
> Jewish martyr of the Roman regime. But this is different than knowing
> him in the spirit, which is dependent upon the meaning attached to
> Jesus' death. In an appeal to historical fact alone both can claim
> authority, but they would be separated where it comes to appeal to
> spiritual experience (in the heart) as a result of how they have
> known Jesus, according to the fleshly or human evaluation of his
> standing, or according to the spiritual evaluation of his standing
> based upon a belief that he has been raised from the dead. Depending
> upon one's own stance the relative weight of the evaluation of the
> other will be determined; that seems to be the point Paul is making.
> Since the addressees are in-Christ as a result of Paul's work among
> them, the resulting shared communal identity modifies other
> perspectives of who they are or are not; and the rivals apparently
> cannot appeal to the same basis for their authority, but to another
> court of reputation.
>
> It should also be kept in view that Paul's evaluation of their
> heart/intentions is polemically constructed, and may not represent
> what they believe their intentions are. They have apparently grounded
> their authority on social standing in a court of reputation that is
> estimated by them to be important to the addressees. The contrast is
> that Paul is able to appeal to the addressees themselves as his court
> of reputation, by way of their own experiences because of his former
> presence among them, and thus not by appealing to some group that
> they have not personally known, as do the rivals, according to Paul.
> Thus Paul can say he lives for the addressees, while these rivals
> live for themselves.
>
> If this approach is correct, then the contrast of v. 16 does not tell
> us that Paul formerly knew Jesus differently than those he
> caricatures as rivals, i.e., in the sense of knowing him before his
> death. The difference is in the appeal to the perception of the
> meaning of Jesus that is different: how (the way that) he is
> regarded/known by the knower (according to a state of being in Christ
> or not).
>
> Regards,
> Mark Nanos
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to corpus-paul as: rpickett AT lsps.edu
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
$subst('Email.Unsub')
>
>