Skip to main content

Pauline Anthropology

Just came across this great quote from Robert Gundry in this book. A very useful sumary of Paul's anthropology.

“As a matter of fact, Paul’s anthropological duality does not display itself in a formally consistent use of any two terms. Sōma always refers to the physique, but so does sarx at times. A number of words refer to the incorporeal side of man and functions thereof: pneuma, psychē, kardia, nous, dianoia, phrenes, syneidēsis, ho esō anthrōpos. For the whole man, Paul uses anthrōpos. In other words, there is an ontological duality, a functional pluralism, and an overarching unity.” -p84

loose translation of terms:
Sōma = body
sarx = flesh
pneuma = spirit
psychē = self/soul/life
kardia = heart
nous = mind
dianoia = understanding
phrenes = thought
syneidēsis = conscience
ho esō anthrōpos
= the inner human (man)
anthrōpos = human (man)

And another good point:

“Paul is not interested in anthropology as an independent motif. Rather, he treats man as the object of divine dealings and as the subject of activity in the order which God created.” - p84-5

I think it is particularly helpful to talk in terms of "functional pluralism", that for Paul it is possible to talk about the different parts of a human, but to emphasise "overarching unity", that a human is not a 'spirit inhabiting a body' or a 'body with a soul' but the human is both the physical and the "inner" and cannot properly exist apart from as both. This is why Gundry uses the term duality - to imply unity, rather than dualism, which implies opposition.

Comments

  1. nice post sir!
    ((gotta love the distinction Paul draws in 15:44 between the "soma psu[y]chikon" and the "soma pneumatikon" - lovely combination of terms - would I be correct in thinking that Paul is coining one/both of those terms?))

    And I love the subtle-yet-key distinction between dual-ITY and dual-ISM - unity/opposition a nice way of describing the difference - thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  2. The duality/dualism thing just sounds like semantics to me. There aren't even really two things, as you spoke about with "functional pluralism". There is a unity of many different "parts" - though they're not parts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course, semantics are very important.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Addictive Power of End Times Speculation

The mighty Rhett Snell has picked up his blog again (I wonder how long he'll last this time), check out his theory on why people get so into annoyingly unbiblical end times nonsense.

I think that where codes-and-calendars end times theology is dangerous, is that it can give a sense of false growth. We read a theory online, or hear it from some bible teacher, and we come to think that we have mastered an area of our faith. A bit like levelling up in a computer game, or Popeye after he’s eaten some spinach. At worst, we begin to believe that we’ve taken a step that other Christians have not; that we’ve entered an elite class of Christianity.

Wars and Rumours of Wars

I write in the morning after the USA 2016 Elections, which featured the historic election of Donald Trump. Apart from my personal interested as a resident of planet Earth at this time, it is interesting to note some of the apocalyptic language emerging in discussions of what this means. Even archaeologists are turning to the medium of prophecy. Hear the word of Tobias Stone,
So I feel it’s all inevitable. I don’t know what it will be, but we are entering a bad phase. It will be unpleasant for those living through it, maybe even will unravel into being hellish and beyond imagination. Humans will come out the other side, recover and move on.  Stone suggests that future historians will be able to draw clear lines from Brexit to Trump to the 3rd World War, or something equally bad. Mind you, just because historians can draw those lines doesn't mean they are here.

Then there is the word of Thom Hartman who is more interested in the domestic fallout than the fallout shelter. 
The last …

The false link between suicide and mental illness

One characteristic of human society is the tendency to keep doing something over and over again despite it not working. One example would be our approach to incarcerating criminals to punish them instead of rehabilitating them, compounding their trauma and making it harder for them to live productive law-abiding lives when they get out. But this is the "common-sense" approach, the intuitive human response to the failings of others, punish them and they wont dare do it again. It has never worked, ever, but let's keep doing it. Secular society is screwed because it cannot comprehend that its vision is blurred by sin and therefore knee-jerk, common sense solutions are usually destructive and counter-productive.

So it is with our response to suicide. To kill yourself must be the response of the weak minded and sick - so the thinking goes - so to combat rising suicide we treat individuals medically. Yet suicide is a perfectly rational response to a world as broken as ours and…