The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
gryan
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by gryan » Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:43 am

Uses of the word "flesh" [Gk search term: σάρκ]

In Marcion's Galatians


2:20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved [Marcion: redeemed] me, and gave himself up for me.

4:19 My little children, of whom I am again in travail until Christ is formed in you— 20 but I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my tone, for I am perplexed about you. 21 Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, don’t you listen to the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the servant, and one by the free woman. 23 However, the son by the servant was born according to the flesh, but the son by the free woman was born through promise. 24 These things contain an allegory, for these are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children [Marcion: into the synagogue of the Jews in accordance with the Law,] into bondage, the other one giving birth which is Hagar, [Marcion locates Ephesians 1.21 at approximately this point] Ephesians 1.21 far above all rule, authority, power, dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in that which is to come. [Marcion now returns to Galatians 4] 25 For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to the Jerusalem that exists now, for she is in bondage with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, which [Marcion: for she] is the mother of us all [Jason BeDuhn adds here, but does not defend: "that sacred assembly to which we have promised ourselves"]. 27 For it is written, “Rejoice, you barren who don’t bear. Break out and shout, you who don’t travail. For the desolate have more children than her who has a husband.” 28 Now we, brothers, as Isaac was, are children of promise. 29 But as then, he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 However what does the Scripture say? “Throw out the servant and her son, for the son of the servant will not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So then, brothers, we are not children of a servant, but of the free woman.

5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are obvious, which are: adultery, sexual immorality, uncleanness, lustfulness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, strife, jealousies, outbursts of anger, rivalries, divisions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these; of which I forewarn you, even as I also forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit God’s Kingdom. 22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, 23 gentleness, and self-control. Against such things there is no law. 24 Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.

And in Marcion's GLuke:

36 As they said these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were terrified and filled with fear, and supposed that they had seen a spirit [Marcion: phantom]. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. ~Touch me and see~, for a spirit doesn’t have ~flesh and~ bones, as you see that I have.” 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 While they still didn’t believe for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Do you have anything there to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 He took them, and ate in front of them. 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you, while I was still with you, that all things which are written in the law of Moses, the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds, that they might understand the Scriptures. 46 He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name to all the nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

----------------

Of particular interest for my thesis:

From Marcion's Galatians
2:20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved [Marcion: redeemed] me, and gave himself up for me.

5:24 Those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and lusts.

Cf. Marcion's 2 Cor 4:11
For we who live are always delivered to death for Jesus’ sake, that the life also of Jesus [Marcion: Christ] may be revealed in our mortal flesh.

From Marcion's GLuke
36 As they said these things, Jesus himself stood among them, and said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were terrified and filled with fear, and supposed that they had seen a spirit [Marcion: phantom]. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled? Why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 See my hands and my feet, that it is truly me. ~Touch me and see~, for a spirit doesn’t have ~flesh and~ bones, as you see that I have.” 40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. 41 While they still didn’t believe for joy, and wondered, he said to them, “Do you have anything there to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 He took them, and ate in front of them.

Thesis: Originally, when these texts were read by those who, as we say, "got it," life after "co-crucifixion"--transformed existence in the "now" and "in the flesh"--provided the phenomenological (intersubjective) basis for the narrative of resurrection in a body of "flesh and bones" (originally understood as real manifestation of the divine life, in the "now" and "in the flesh," but not a literal, objective resuscitation of a dead body).

This soon forgotten understanding of the original texts of the NT (cited above) was the origin of the words of the Apostle's creed, "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh (σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν).

Thoughts?

User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by mlinssen » Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:18 am

John is a special case, as he addresses all the concepts of the NT but without the literal words, usually

3Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, except anyone be born from above,a he is not able to see the kingdom of God.”
4Nicodemus says to Him, “How is a man able to be born, being old? Is he able to enter into the womb of his mother a second time, and to be born?”
5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless anyone be born of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God.
6That having been born of the flesh is flesh, and that having been born of the Spirit is spirit.
7Do not wonder that I said to you, ‘It is necessary for you all to be born from above.’
8The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know from where it comes and where it goes. Thus is everyone having been born of the Spirit.”
9Nicodemus answered and said to Him, “How are these things able to be?”
10Jesus answered and said to him, “You are the teacher of Israel, and do you not know these things?
11Truly, truly, I say to you that we speak that which we know, and we bear witness to that which we have seen, and you people do not receive our witness.
12If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
13And no one has gone up into heaven except the One having come down out of heaven, the Son of Man.b
14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus it behooves the Son of Man to be lifted up,
15so that everyone believing in Him may have eternal life.

John is truly beautiful.
Yet even he talks of a spiritual rebirth, and yes I agree with you.
Think about it: the entire goal of Churchianity is to monopolise salvation: it is only through their door that you can enter "bliss".
Spiritual rebirth? That can be achieved without Churchianity, even without Christianity - so that's bad for the customer base. Real reincarnation at the coming of Christ? Now that creates a sole dependency on the Church, and the Church alone

It is about power, lock-in. Every religion starts fairly spiritually, and ends up heavily institutionalised. It always is only about power and control, that is the goal.
People desiring to be bodily resurrected after real physical death? LOL, that's a splendid means to that goal - and naturally, no one will ever be able to make your scheme fall through
Last edited by mlinssen on Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 13293
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:20 am

In Marcion's Galatians = an early orthodox Galatians

gryan
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by gryan » Tue Feb 16, 2021 7:33 am

mlinssen wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 3:18 am
John is a special case, as he addresses all the concepts of the NT but without the literal words, usually

5Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless anyone be born of water and of the Spirit, he is not able to enter into the kingdom of God. 6That having been born of the flesh is flesh, and that having been born of the Spirit is spirit.

Yes!

As an interpreter, I try come to the text as a human being first. I'm not here to sell the Christian brand. Human beings have a lot in common, especially when it comes to our "bone and flesh" in the biological sense, as modern medicine makes clear. Also, the world over there is awareness something more than mere "bone and flesh"--our bodies are energy bodies. Traditional healers and mystics "see" and work with "energy bodies."

The passage from GJohn (cited above) is an initiation into the mysteries of the spirit-body. Being born of the spirit does not mean the elimination of flesh. In GJohn, "The word became flesh and dwelt among us." The flesh becomes a place of love in the world.

This Rabbinic dialogue provides an interesting and humorous place to ponder literal vs figurative meaning:

"Theologian Charles Ellicott wrote that 'after the method of Rabbinic dialogue, [Nicodemus] presses the impossible meaning of the words in order to exclude it, and to draw forth the true meaning. 'You cannot mean that a man is to enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born. What is it, then, that you do mean?' In this instance, Nicodemus chooses the literal (rather than the figurative) meaning of anōthen and assumes that that meaning exhausts the significance of the word."
Nicodemus

I think the resurrection stories in the Gospels should be approached similarly: To draw forth the true meaning of the words, "press the impossible meaning in order to exclude it."

Thoughts?

davidmartin
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by davidmartin » Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:41 am

i think if the body is devalued too much you can lose touch with reality and the universe around
that seems to me what some of the matter hating gnostics were up to but not just them - strangely viewing the body as defiled or sinful amounts to the same thing from opposite points of view
what made me laugh was Lattkes book on the odes seeing how a lot of the abstract Greek terms when expressed in Syriac Aramaic are all parts of the body, the liver, bowels, heart, kidneys are where the meaning is located. no Greek ideal forms, nope just look at your body and you're a philosopher lol

gryan
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by gryan » Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:51 am

davidmartin wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:41 am
...what made me laugh was Lattkes book on the odes seeing how a lot of the abstract Greek terms when expressed in Syriac Aramaic are all parts of the body, the liver, bowels, heart, kidneys are where the meaning is located. no Greek ideal forms...
RE: Lattkes book on the odes

I can't find any book using those search terms. Could you give a citation?

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8643
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by Ben C. Smith » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:29 am

gryan wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:51 am
davidmartin wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 8:41 am
...what made me laugh was Lattkes book on the odes seeing how a lot of the abstract Greek terms when expressed in Syriac Aramaic are all parts of the body, the liver, bowels, heart, kidneys are where the meaning is located. no Greek ideal forms...
RE: Lattkes book on the odes

I can't find any book using those search terms. Could you give a citation?
He is referring to the Hermeneia commentary on the Odes of Solomon by Michael Lattke. He probably has in mind passages like the following:

The Odes of Solomon (Hermeneia), by Michael Lattke, Odes of Solomon (Hermeneia), page 36: 36 Ode 7:1b refers in a literal sense to the erotic joy in the beloved (rḥīmā). 20: 5a-c, in a rare ethical context, lists the three anthropological aspects : kidneys (reins), bowels (plural raḥmē, elsewhere always translated as " love"), and soul, in parallelism.


gryan
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:11 am

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by gryan » Tue Feb 16, 2021 9:40 am

GJohn focuses on "the marks of the nails" (τὸν τύπον τῶν ἥλων), but does not use the phrase "flesh and bone."

19It was the first day of the week, and that very evening, while the disciples were together with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them. “Peace be with you!” He said to them. 20After He had said this,He showed them His hands and His side.

The disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

21Again Jesus said to them, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, so also I am sending you.” 22When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”

24Now Thomas called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he replied, “Unless I see the nail marks in His hands, and put my finger where the nails have been, and put my hand into His side, I will never believe.”He showed them His hands and His side.

26Eight days later, His disciples were once again inside with the doors locked, and Thomas was with them. Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”

27Then Jesus said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and look at My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Stop doubting and believe.”

28Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God!”

GLuke makes no mention of nail marks, but instead focuses on how his body is not a disembodied spirit. In this body of "flesh and bone" he took fish and "ate it in front of them."

36While they were describing these events, Jesus Himself stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.” 37But they were startled and frightened, thinking they had seen a spirit.

38“Why are you troubled,” Jesus asked, “and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39Look at My hands and My feet. It is I Myself. Touch Me and see—for a spirit does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.40And when He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet.

41While they were still in disbelief because of their joy and amazement, He asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish, 43and He took it and ate it in front of them .

Both GLuke and GJohn focus on hands (GJohn, wounded/healed "hands" and "side," vs GLuke "hands" and "feet" of "flesh and bone.")

I do not think GLuke needs to imply nail marks!

What's going on here?

davidmartin
Posts: 735
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by davidmartin » Tue Feb 16, 2021 10:53 am

Ben that's the one and that's what i would have posted if i'd got there first!
it's a great book and i came away basically convinced the Jewish mindset/culture is different from Greek and safely assume anything very early Christian really refers to this way of thinking

rgprice
Posts: 366
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: The origin of the belief in "resurrection of the SARX" prior to Marcion and Orthodox tradition

Post by rgprice » Tue Feb 16, 2021 11:14 am

gryan wrote:
Tue Feb 16, 2021 1:43 am
Thesis: Originally, when these texts were read by those who, as we say, "got it," life after "co-crucifixion"--transformed existence in the "now" and "in the flesh"--provided the phenomenological (intersubjective) basis for the narrative of resurrection in a body of "flesh and bones" (originally understood as real manifestation of the divine life, in the "now" and "in the flesh," but not a literal, objective resuscitation of a dead body).

This soon forgotten understanding of the original texts of the NT (cited above) was the origin of the words of the Apostle's creed, "I believe in the resurrection of the flesh (σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν).

Thoughts?
I think this makes some sense. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the original meaning was that the Spirit of Jesus was resurrected in the flesh of the devotee, correct?

I'd have to study Marcion's version of Paul's letters to know if this is what Paul may have originally intended. It seems that Paul was originally talking about a real resurrection of bodies. I've always read Paul's talk of resurrection in light of Ezekiel 37.

Post Reply