From: Carl W. Conrad (
Date: Sun Feb 23 1997 - 09:22:28 EST

At 5:58 AM -0600 2/23/97, Jonathan Robie wrote:
>I'm trying to make a distinction which requires a precise understanding of
>this phrase, and I'm not sure whether the phrase itself is specific enough
>to support the distinction. I *think* it is, and I'd be interested in other
>Roma 7:22 (GNT) sunhdomai gar tw nomw tou qeou kata ton esw anqrwpon
>In this passage, Paul talks about hH OIKOUSA EN EMOI hAMARTIA in contrast to
>TON ESW ANQRWPON, and seems to be treating them as two different "persons"
>within him.
>Is it fair to say that KATA means "in accordance with" here, so that there
>is an EGW here which is separate from TON ESW ANQRWPON, and which chooses
>between them?

This is the whole matter of Pauline psychology which I have found most
admirably expounded in a section entitled "Pauline Anthropology" of Rudolf
Bultmann's old-but-still-very-good _New Testament Theology_. He says that
hO ESW ANQRWPOS is equivalent to the PNEUMA of a person--the knowing,
deciding, determining subjective part of selfhood which one might well call
the "I" in distinction from the SWMA which is the external self or
objective self--the "me" of selfhood which one's "I" may contemplate (and
discern going its own way contrary to the will of the PNEUMA) and which is
discernible by other persons. When the SWMA is alienated from the PNEUMA as
a consequence of sin, Paul refers to is at SARX or SWMA THS hAMARTIAS or
the like.

Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University
One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, USA 63130
(314) 935-4018 OR

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:07 EDT