[B-Greek] Re: Semantic Domain of SARX

Carl W. Conrad cwconrad at artsci.wustl.edu
Fri Dec 3 16:27:54 EST 2004


Ken's message didn't go through because our list software is rejecting mail
with subject-headers indicating only a number of the B-Greek Digest.

Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2004 10:42:54 -0800 (PST)
Forwarded for: Kenneth Litwak <javajedi2 at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: B-Greek Digest, Vol 24, Issue 3
To: b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org


> Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2004 13:52:26 -0500
> From: "Barry Hofstetter" <nebarry at verizon.net>
> Subject: Re: [B-Greek] Re:  Semantic Domain of SARX
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Message-ID: <003101c4d8a0$11c44960$6401a8c0 at barry>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed;
> charset="utf-8";
> 	reply-type=original
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kenneth Litwak" <javajedi2 at yahoo.com>
> To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 02, 2004 12:19 PM
> Subject: [B-Greek] Re: Semantic Domain of SARX
>
>
> >   My point is not to argue here about the specific
> > meaning of SARX in a given passage.  My point is
> that
> > I have yet to be convinced that if you asked a
> person
> > in Rome in the middle of the first century, "What
> does
> > SARX refer to?", they might point to a body, they
> > might point to a beef roast, they might use a SWMA
> as
> > a synonym, but  they would not say SARX =
> (AMARTOLOS
> > FUSIJ, or some other metaphorical idea.  That is
> > simply not how SARX is used in Greek literature
> that I
> > can see.  Therefore, a  lexicon should offer
> options
> > for what the word meant to ancient Greek speakers
> and
> > leave it to commentators if they wish to say that
> SARX
> > is used by Paul to point to something metaphorical
> > that goes well beyond the word's meaning.
>
> Like any other terminology, the word reflects a
> range of usage.  If I say the
> word "inclination" what do I mean?  What comes to
> your mind?  But if I say:
>
> The inclination of 20th century higher critics was
> to deconstruct the text in
> order to determine historically valid source
> materials..."
>
> vs.
>
> "The inclination of the hill is 46 degrees.."
>
> It is clear what is intended.  In other words, there
> is no basic or inherent
> meaning of any given lexical item, only usage in
> context.  That is why I have
> been somewhat of an agnostic when it comes to those
> who insist that the
> "primary" meaning of the biblical usage must be done
> by comparison with
> extra-biblical literature current at the time.
> While such a comparison is more
> than worthwhile, and may help us to determine the
> biblical author's use of the
> term, we have to be careful to allow the particular
> nuance to be determined by
> the context which the writer himself provides.  In
> the case of SARX, it becomes
> clear throughout the Pauline writings that Paul does
> not mean simply "meaty
> stuff hanging on our bones" but that he intends
> something like hAMARTOLOS
> FUSIS...
>
> Now, I know you are not arguing the "basic meaning"
> fallacy, but all that to say
> that asking the typical Roman on the street the
> meaning of the word just isn't a
> helpful comparison, any more than walking up to a
> typical English speaker and
> asking him the meaning of "inclination" would be
> helpful in determining how a
> particular speaker is using the word.
>
> [Extra credit: what do I mean by the term "agnostic"
> above?]
>
> N.E. Barry Hofstetter
> Adjunct Faculty, The Center for Urban Theological
> Studies
>          Philadelphia, PA
> http://www.cuts.edu
> Adjunct Faculty, Reformed Theological Seminary
>          Washington, D.C.
> http://www.rts.edu/campuses/washington_dc/index.cfm
>
> And me:
> http://mysite.verizon.net/nebarry/
>
> Opinions expressed by author of this message do not
> necessarily reflect the
> opinions of the institutions listed above...
>
>
That words like "lnclination" or SARK have different,
varying, meanings, is not at issue.  I concur with
that obvious observation.  I would raise, however, the
following.
1.  Should we assume that a NT writer is going to use
a word in a totally novel sense from what any of
his/her contemporaries might expect for the word?
While that is possible, it is implicitly unlikely, if
the author hopes to communicate.  So, should a lexicon
assume that NT authors go around doing the former
regularly? I don't think so.
2.  Must SARX mean "sinful nature" anywhere in Paul's
writings?  I would have said yes before, but Walt
Russell's essay in _Christian Perspectives on Being
Human_ has me convinced that this is an invalid
understanding.
3. More to the point, however, since this
understanding of Paul's use of SARX is up for debate,
it is difficult to justify telling lexicon users that
SARX="sinful nature."  I had, regrettably, a prof in
college explain that the word APOSTASIA in 2
Thessalonians 2, because it literally means "from
standing," that Paul's statement there is a reference
to the Rapture.  Should BDAG list "Rapture" as a
meaning for APOSTASIA?  That's no different from
"sinful nature" for SARX:  it is the interpretation of
some authors, not something evidenced elsewhere as an
establsihed part of the word's semantic domain.

Ken Litwak
Adjunct faculty in NT
Asbury Theological Seminary
Wilmore, KY



More information about the B-Greek mailing list