Yesterday I posted with regard to the discussion of this phrase the following: >> (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/