Harro Koning. Sünde als Zielverfehlung bei Paulus: Eine Studie zum stoisch-sokratischen Kolorit paulinischer Hamartiologie

Sünde als Zielverfehlung is a revision of a doctoral dissertation completed at the University of Heidelberg under the supervision of Matthias Konradt. The monograph is divided into four chapters. The first chapter examines hamartia and its history. Chiefly, it looks at hamartia and its interpreters, the history of hamartia, and the way in which hamartia will be investigated throughout the study. From the beginning, he states that Paul’s concept of hamartia was once alive but now has lost its meaning (p. 1). It has become a pawn in a competition of a plethora of Pauline hamartiological concepts. He explains that the leading interpretation in scholarship is that hamartia is a power, exercising dominion, based primarily on Rom 5–8. However, in Koning’s view, the designation of hamartia as “power” does not bring any clarity to the concept. He claims that the concept of power is so undefined that one can fill it with whatever content one likes, regardless of whether hamartia represents an act, a style of life or attitude, a universal phenomenon, a principle or an idea, a cosmic terrorist, a demon or Satan in his own person, or even all of these together (p. 61). At the end of chapter 1, Koning further describes his methodological approach. He says the study consciously places itself in an exegetical tradition that seeks to free itself from an approach limited to forms, formulas, quotations, and vocabulary (p. 74). This open approach is not about finding parallels to the Pauline text but about their illuminating function for exegetical consideration of Paul’s understanding of sin (p. 75). Koning analyzes the field of available hamartiologies within Paul and Philo’s philosophical environment but also the philosophers’ doctrine of the passions/affect which is intrinsically related to hamartanein. Koning therefore explains that his leading question is how philosophical traditions locate the emergence of action and what role hamartanein plays in this process (p. 76).In chapter 2, Koning investigates hamartanein within the philosophical environment, examining Stoic hamartiology. He explains the Stoic theory of perception, the passions, ethics, and human action. The Stoic theory of the passions is important for Koning because Stoic hamartiology is based on Socratic intellectualism. The passions are not a separate part of the soul, like in Plato and the middle-Platonists, rather the passions themselves are false beliefs/knowledge. On the definition of intellectualism, Koning quotes Christopher Rowe, who states that (a) all human beings always and only desire the good; (b) that what they desire is the real good, not the apparent good; and (c) that what humans do on any occasion is determined by this desire together with whatever beliefs they have about what will in fact contribute to their real good. Koning agrees that this intellectualism is regarded as the Stoic model for the doctrine of virtue and hamartiology (p. 173). The middle-Platonists, Plutarch and Alcinous, are examined as a contrast to the Stoic doctrine. Koning proceeds to investigate concepts such as amathia, akrasia, akolasia, desire, and sin in classical philosophers (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle).Chapter 3 considers Philo of Alexandria’s exegesis of Adam and Eve. Koning examines Philo’s De Opificio Mundi in this respect. He concludes that Philo regards Gen 3 as a narrative of the axiomatic transition from virtue to wickedness (p. 268). Wickedness is valued more than virtue. He argues that the treatise offers an allegorical interpretation of Gen 3. The narrative of Adam, Eve, and the serpent represent the fatal relationship between spirit (Geist ), sensuality (Sinnlichkeit ), and passion (Leidenschaft ). In the narrative, the passions misused the senses—what was perceived and observed—in order to mislead and enslave the nous (p. 269; cf. pp. 314–15).Finally, in chapter 4, Koning investigates Paul and hamartia. This is the most helpful chapter because Koning argues that hamartia is a not real a cosmic power. Koning believes rather that hamartia is a personified power. In this chapter, the undisputed Pauline epistles (except Philemon) are examined. Here, Koning comes to the central question of his study: What does Paul mean by hamartia ? He argues that Paul’s understanding of hamartia cannot be understood independently of his exegesis of Gen 1–3 and further that Pauline hamartia can better be understood in a Stoic-Socratic background rather than a middle-Platonic one (p. 317). Koning states his thesis clearly. He argues that Paul interprets Gen 3 allegorically, and, in contrast to Philo, the serpent does not represent lust but hamartia. In its abstract form, hamartia is the cause of all error. It deceives humans to think that something is good which in reality is not. Metaphorically, they miss the target in archery. Because of hamartia, Humans misevaluate the good. This misjudgment leads to wrong desires and, therefore, wrong actions. Koning states, however, that hamartia is not a real power. It is a personalized phenomenon that deceives humans so that they think that the bad is actually the good and, thus, err or miss the mark/their telos (p. 517; cf. pp. 582–83). Every human is in an intellectualistic battle for the truth (p. 317). Knowledge of the truth is an essential part of the human telos. When humans have this knowledge, they do what they want and behave morally. Thus, Koning argues that Paul views hamartia from three perspectives: (1) sin as deed (active), (2) sin as guilt (resultative), and (3) sin as cause signified by hamartia as a personified power (p. 3; cf. p. 516).Koning’s study is a welcome addition to recent studies comparing Paul and Stoicism. Although it might not be necessary to view Pauline hamartiology through an exegesis of Gen 1–3, Koning’s suggestions that Paul is an intellectualist and that hamartia ought to be viewed from a telic perspective merits further consideration.