Skip to main content

Økland on the soul and the problem of its absence in Paul

In spite of many scholars noting that Paul does not operate with a conception of the soul as it was developed in later theology (or earlier in Greek philosophy), the soul ironically still continues to leave traces in readings of 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 12, because it is so difficult for us to unlearn the soul as explanatory key.  One such trace of the lost soul is the intense quest for continuity before and after death, because what can account for it if there is no soul?
Jorunn Økland, "Genealogies of the Self" in Metamophoses, p105 (you can see it here)
 
Økland goes on to suggest 
If in the ancient world a human was seen less as a separate, independent entity, perhaps it was not necessary to postulate so much of a fixed individual continuity because the continuity was provided by the general or common category, in this case "Christ." 
ibid, p106-7

To explain such concepts to us moderns Økland suggests that "the continuity of the body either through this life or from heaven and 'back' to earth is perhaps in the end a memory thing" and that Christ can be thought of "as a new technology enhancing Paul as an embodied subject and linking him up to a broader network in a very material way . . . it is not about creating a super-individual, it is about creating a connected one." (p106) The establishment of self identity across "discontinuous variations" then does not need to be a function of one stable element, i.e. a soul, which remains unchanged through the reality of change, but is instead a function of memory and network connectivity both of which are themselves subject to change.  The self is not then a stable object but always in the process of becoming.

Let me know what you think :-)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Dr Charles Stanley is not a biblical preacher

Unusually for me I was watching the tele early on Sunday morning and I caught an episode of Dr Charles Stanley preaching on his television program. Now I know this guy has come under some criticism for his personal life, and that is not unimportant, but it is also not something i can comment on, not knowing the facts. His preaching is however something I can comment on, at least the one sermon I did watch.

He started off by reading 2 Timothy 1:3-7. Which is a passage from the Bible, so far so good. He then spent the next 30 minutes or so talking about his mum and what a great example of a Christian mother she was. Now nothing he said or suggested was wrong, but none of it actually came from scripture, least of all the scripture he read from at the beginning. It was a lovely talk on how Stanley's mother raised him as a Christian despite considerable difficulties and it contained many useful nuggets of advice on raising Christian kids. All very nice, it might have made a nice…

That one time Jesus got the Bible wrong

It's so typical isn't it? You are preaching all day long, training your disciples, sparring with the Pharisees, encouraging the poor and down trodden, healing the sick and casting out demons, all day, day after day, and even when you go up a mountain to get a rest the crowds hunt you down and follow you up, and then the one time you get a bit muddled up with some of the details of a biblical text . . . that is the one they write down in the first gospel - verbatim. At least Matthew and Luke had the good sense to do some editing. But Mark, he always had his eye on giving the public the "historical Jesus" whoever that is supposed to be . . . warts and all. Thanks a lot Mark!

Some think I made the mistake on purpose, just to show the Pharisees up.

For some there is no mistake worth mentioning, only a slightly ambiguous turn of phrase.

Others think I am doing something tricky with Abiathar's name, getting him to figuratively stand in for the priesthood.

It really has…

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.