Abstract
Sarah Harding ambitiously seeks to use an eschatological perspective to demonstrate that Paul's anthropology is consistent across his various letters. This is a revision of her Ph.D. dissertation at the University of Wales, Trinity-Saint David under Kathy Ehrensperger and Bill Campbell.
In chapter one Harding introduces the project and critiques prior attempts to articulate Paul's anthropology by J. A. T. Robinson, R. Jewett, R. H. Gundry, T. Laato, and G. H. van Kooten. Her main thesis is that
Paul's anthropological utterances are embedded within an eschatological dynamic, which accounts for the varied valuations accorded any anthropological “part” or “aspect” mentioned in his letters [42].
She limits her investigation to texts in which Paul discusses nous, kardia, sōma, esō anthrōpos, and exō anthrōpos. For the sake of space, and because they are more static and less teleological, she does not discuss pneuma, psuchē, or suneidēsis, although inclusion of these words would be important for a comprehensive study. Harding focuses the study on gentiles because of the gentile focus of Romans 1:18–28 and suggests that “Jews might proceed along a different trajectory in anthropological transformation” (p. 46). This distinction, however, remains underdeveloped and, although she suggests a significant difference, the significance of it never becomes clear since for Paul, as she acknowledges, both Jews and Gentiles are under Sin and both must turn to Christ for transformation (pp. 46, 298). Harding minimizes the importance of the world behind the text and contemporaneous anthropologies in favor of a text based approach (pp. 48–49, 417–18). She is right to try to let Paul speak for himself, but disregard for this context leads to other interpretive dangers since he did not communicate in a historical vacuum.
Chapter two provides further foundation for the study by defining eschatology and apocalyptic and discussing what is entailed in studying anthropology and cosmology from an eschatological perspective that focuses on the temporal and teleological dimensions of Paul's theologizing (p. 96).
The old aeon lies under the dominion and power of Sin [understood as a cosmological power]; in the new aeon the power of the Holy Spirit will be dominant; in the present, both powers are active [p. 70].
There is some terminological ambiguity in the discussion of human volition under the powers: Harding claims that “to be influenced by a power is not to be determined by it” (p. 85, cf. pp. 96, 132) but elsewhere writes that “humans are determined by transcendent powers” (p. 83) and “the sōma is the corporeal substratum that is determined by the power that dominates it, whether Sin or the Holy Spirit” (pp. 92–93).
Chapters three and four explore anthropology in the old aeon. The dominant cosmological power in the old aeon is Sin, which reveals itself in particular and individual sins. Harding convincingly argues that Adam had representative status as a sinner and passed this sinfulness on to his descendants by actualizing cosmological Sin which became active and dominant in the cosmos. “Paul employs both individual and cosmological aetiologies in his discussion without apparently giving precedence to either” (pp. 117–18). Harding argues that Adam's initial sin was idolatry, which led to the disablement of the nous and provided an entry point for cosmological Sin. In the old aeon the disabled nous (with both cognitive and volitional/affective aspects) leads to a disabled kardia (which in addition to cognitive and volitional/affective aspects possesses a divine-receptive function) that leads to the manifestation of Sin through sins in the sōma.
Chapters five and six explore anthropology in the overlap of aeons. Jesus introduces the dominant power of the new aeon, the Holy Spirit, into the cosmos, and the Holy Spirit supplants Sin as the dominant power and initiates a process of renewal of the anthropological debilitation of Sin. The dominance of Sin and the Holy Spirit over humans is mutually exclusive and can occur only sequentially and not concurrently.
Chapter seven covers anthropology in the new aeon. Harding argues that the intermediate state does not require a dualist ontology. The end goal of the process of transformation comes at the parousia, where believers will experience somatic transformation into bodies fully guided and energized by the Holy Spirit; bodies appropriate and suitable for the renewed cosmos. This transformation involves both continuity and discontinuity.
Chapter eight concludes and summarizes the study. Several errors are present throughout. In regard to Galatians 5:16, Harding wrongly claims that the dative case pneumati is the subject of the second person plural imperative peripateite (p. 208), that ou mē telesēte comes before sarkos (p. 208), and that the verb peripateō is both instrumental and locative (p. 209; the dative noun can be instrumental or locative but not the verb). Other errors are typographical: phronechō instead of phroneō (p. 279) and kuakh and basakh instead of ruakh and basar (p. 244, cf. 222).
In conclusion, Harding provides a thorough and often insightful eschatological (temporal and teleological) perspective on Paul's anthropology. Although not every claim is equally supported, the main thesis is substantiated and future studies of Paul's anthropology will need to take account of this eschatological perspective. It is often technical and will prove more useful for graduate students and teachers than pastors or lay ministers.