>> (2) With regard to the phrase PAQHMATA TWN hAMARTIWN I think that it
might
>> be worth taking into account the possibility that the word PATHHMA
is being
>> used, as was the word PAQOS/PAQH, in a sense akin to or even
identical with
>> the Stoic usage for "irrational emotions"--uncontrollable impulses.
The
>> objective of Stoic ethics was achievement of a condition of APAQIA,
which
>> doesn't mean quite what our word "apathy" does, but which
definitely
>> involves liberation from subjectivity to impulses that upset one's
psychic
>> equilibrium, among which PAQH the Stoics counted joy and grief, love
and
>> hatred, which emotions they deemed powerful enough to overwhelm the
self's
>> freedom to respond rationally. Now it seems to me that Paul's
conception of
>> SIN is very much like the Stoic conception of the PAQH: it is an
enslaving
>> power that compels human beings to do what is self-destructive and
>> mutually-destructive. I think that such an understanding of the
meaning of
>> PAQHMATA may in fact underly the traditional phrasing of our
translations
>> of this passage: "sinful passions." And of course, there's also the
>> principle that genitive nouns can very often be readily converted
into
>> adjectives qualifying the nouns to which they refer.
To which Jeffrey Gibson responded:
>Why go so far afield? Granted Paul may have been familiar with Stoic
>philosphy and psychology (though how familiar he was, let whether he
>could assume his readers were sufficiently familar with it for an
>argument cast within it to be comprehensible, is, however,
>a matter of debate). But why not set Paul's explanation of how the
>devotion to the Law enslaves within the context that we have evidence
that
With all due respect I think this is a somewhat naive view of the the
impact of Greek philosophy on Hellenistic culture and especially the
milieu in which Paul carried out his mission work both teaching and
arguing for what he believed to be the truth. This is not a matter of
those who heard Paul's letters read aloud to their congregations being
well-versed in the tenets of the different philosophic schools; rather
it is a matter of a syncretistic mixture of Platonic, Stoic and even
Epicurean notions having an impact on the common language and, in some
respects, patterns of thought. That Paul knew at least some of the
basic tenets of Stoicism is clear from chapter 2 of Romans itself,
where he argues a Stoic concept of conscience to explain why Gentiles
know the will of God even though they don't have the Mosaic Law. Would
his listeners have understood what he was talking about? Probably
better than some modern readers.
Still more important, however, is the rivalry between Paul and other
proselytizers for the Christian gospel and the itinerant Cynic teachers
who went among the same classes of the population looking for converts
and operating in much the same fashion as did Paul. Abraham Malherbe
has a fascinating study of this in his little work on 1 Thessalonians,
_Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophic Tradition of Pastoral
Care_, Fortress Press, 1987.
This is why I don't think that understanding PAQHMATA TWN hAMARTIWN in
terms of the irrational psychic factors overwhelming the self is going
far afield in a letter that Paul writes to a congregation in Rome. I
still would not insist on its being the only conceivable way to
interpret the phrase, but I hardly think it can be deemed far-fetched.
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cwc@oui.com
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/