augustine on flesh and body [latin fairy needed]
alright, so Augustine in his sermon 362 is commenting on Paul's bit in Corinthians about the distinction between flesh and body.
Ne ad talia nos resurrecturos crederemus, qualia secundum primum hominem corruptibiliter agebamus, subjecit statim: Hoc autem dico, fratres, quia caro et sanguis regnum Dei haereditate possidere non possunt. Atque ostendere volens quid dixerit carnem et sanguinem, quia non ipsam speciem corporis, sed corruptionem significat nomine carnis et sanguinis, quae corruptio tunc non erit. Corpus enim sine corruptione, non proprie dicitur caro et sanguis, sed corpus. Si enim caro est, corruptibilis atque mortalis est: si autem jam non moritur, jam non corruptibilis; et ideo sine corruptione manente specie, non jam caro, sed corpus dicitur: et si dicitur caro, non jam proprie dicitur, sed propter quamdam speciei similitudinem. Sicut possumus forte propter eamdem similitudinem, etiam Angelorum carnem dicere, cum sicut homines apparuerunt hominibus; cum essent corpus, non caro: quia corruptionis indigentia non inerat. Quia ergo possumus secundum similitudinem carnem appellare etiam corpus quod jam non corrumpitur, secutus sollicitus Apostolus exponere voluit quid dixerit carnem et sanguinem; quia secundum corruptionem hoc dixit, non secundum speciem: et subjecit statim, Neque corruptio incorruptionem haereditate possidebit: tanquam diceret, Quod dixi, Caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebit; hoc dixi, quoniam corruptio incorruptionem non possidebit.
Basically, he's saying that we should understand bodily resurrection in this way - the resurrected body is a different body, and we should not think we will rise in any way that will involve a "corruptibiliter" rising. This is usually translated as decay, that we will rise in a body not subject to decay. Then he says, basically, that when Paul says flesh and blood cannot gain possession of heaven, he doesn't mean body itself cannot but that the expression "flesh and blood" signifies a liability to decay; a body not subject to decay is not to be called flesh and blood but simply body [Corpus enim sine corruptione, non proprie dicitur caro et sanguis, sed corpus.] Angels may be said to have flesh, but this is erroneous - they are compared to flesh because of the similarity between flesh and body, but when they appear to men as human beings, they have bodies, not flesh, because they have no inner [?] liability to decay [cum essent corpus, non caro: quia corruptionis indigentia non inerat]. Is this a fair translation - ingidentia is the noun? Lacking? genitive, so lacking corruptionis? Angels, lacking corruptibility, something is not within them? what is the grammar here? Not lacking (anything?), there is no corruption within?
Now, I think "corruptio" doesn't always have to mean "decay" in the sense of rotting flesh. Granted, he does expressly link "corruptio" and mortality: basically, if it's flesh, it's "corruptibilis" and "mortalis," but if it no longer dies [jam non moritur], it is no longer "corruptibilis" and should not be called flesh [caro] but body [corpus]. [Si enim caro est, corruptibilis atque mortalis est: si autem jam non moritur, jam non corruptibilis; et ideo sine corruptione manente specie, non jam caro, sed corpus dicitur: et si dicitur caro, non jam proprie dicitur, sed propter quamdam speciei similitudinem.] (Now, what, then, is "the body's own specific nature" which it retains? [ideo sine corruptione manente specie]??? Interesting, but maybe a digression.)
I was thinking that "corruptio" could mean simply "subject to change" in some contexts, though it certainly has a negative connotation even when it doesn't mean decay of the flesh. But must it always mean decay? i the sense of decaying flesh?
Augustine glosses Paul: "corruptio incorruptionem non possidebit" [corruptio shall not possess incorruptionem]. Does it make any difference if corruptio has a meaning other than "decay" or "perish"? Must it mean decayable or perishable flesh? I *think* the potential for instability and for seducability is important here but it could be wishful thinking. Lewis gives me corruptela - corrupting, corruption, seduction, bribery; corruptio - a corrupting, bribery; corruptor - misleader, seducer; corruptus - bad, corrupt, perverse. But by Augustine's time, and in this context in which he's writing, is he meaning it in a different and/or more specific way? Does this question even make any sense?
Ne ad talia nos resurrecturos crederemus, qualia secundum primum hominem corruptibiliter agebamus, subjecit statim: Hoc autem dico, fratres, quia caro et sanguis regnum Dei haereditate possidere non possunt. Atque ostendere volens quid dixerit carnem et sanguinem, quia non ipsam speciem corporis, sed corruptionem significat nomine carnis et sanguinis, quae corruptio tunc non erit. Corpus enim sine corruptione, non proprie dicitur caro et sanguis, sed corpus. Si enim caro est, corruptibilis atque mortalis est: si autem jam non moritur, jam non corruptibilis; et ideo sine corruptione manente specie, non jam caro, sed corpus dicitur: et si dicitur caro, non jam proprie dicitur, sed propter quamdam speciei similitudinem. Sicut possumus forte propter eamdem similitudinem, etiam Angelorum carnem dicere, cum sicut homines apparuerunt hominibus; cum essent corpus, non caro: quia corruptionis indigentia non inerat. Quia ergo possumus secundum similitudinem carnem appellare etiam corpus quod jam non corrumpitur, secutus sollicitus Apostolus exponere voluit quid dixerit carnem et sanguinem; quia secundum corruptionem hoc dixit, non secundum speciem: et subjecit statim, Neque corruptio incorruptionem haereditate possidebit: tanquam diceret, Quod dixi, Caro et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebit; hoc dixi, quoniam corruptio incorruptionem non possidebit.
Basically, he's saying that we should understand bodily resurrection in this way - the resurrected body is a different body, and we should not think we will rise in any way that will involve a "corruptibiliter" rising. This is usually translated as decay, that we will rise in a body not subject to decay. Then he says, basically, that when Paul says flesh and blood cannot gain possession of heaven, he doesn't mean body itself cannot but that the expression "flesh and blood" signifies a liability to decay; a body not subject to decay is not to be called flesh and blood but simply body [Corpus enim sine corruptione, non proprie dicitur caro et sanguis, sed corpus.] Angels may be said to have flesh, but this is erroneous - they are compared to flesh because of the similarity between flesh and body, but when they appear to men as human beings, they have bodies, not flesh, because they have no inner [?] liability to decay [cum essent corpus, non caro: quia corruptionis indigentia non inerat]. Is this a fair translation - ingidentia is the noun? Lacking? genitive, so lacking corruptionis? Angels, lacking corruptibility, something is not within them? what is the grammar here? Not lacking (anything?), there is no corruption within?
Now, I think "corruptio" doesn't always have to mean "decay" in the sense of rotting flesh. Granted, he does expressly link "corruptio" and mortality: basically, if it's flesh, it's "corruptibilis" and "mortalis," but if it no longer dies [jam non moritur], it is no longer "corruptibilis" and should not be called flesh [caro] but body [corpus]. [Si enim caro est, corruptibilis atque mortalis est: si autem jam non moritur, jam non corruptibilis; et ideo sine corruptione manente specie, non jam caro, sed corpus dicitur: et si dicitur caro, non jam proprie dicitur, sed propter quamdam speciei similitudinem.] (Now, what, then, is "the body's own specific nature" which it retains? [ideo sine corruptione manente specie]??? Interesting, but maybe a digression.)
I was thinking that "corruptio" could mean simply "subject to change" in some contexts, though it certainly has a negative connotation even when it doesn't mean decay of the flesh. But must it always mean decay? i the sense of decaying flesh?
Augustine glosses Paul: "corruptio incorruptionem non possidebit" [corruptio shall not possess incorruptionem]. Does it make any difference if corruptio has a meaning other than "decay" or "perish"? Must it mean decayable or perishable flesh? I *think* the potential for instability and for seducability is important here but it could be wishful thinking. Lewis gives me corruptela - corrupting, corruption, seduction, bribery; corruptio - a corrupting, bribery; corruptor - misleader, seducer; corruptus - bad, corrupt, perverse. But by Augustine's time, and in this context in which he's writing, is he meaning it in a different and/or more specific way? Does this question even make any sense?