Abstract
The history of Pauline research has uncovered, as well as created, several dualisms, false dichotomies and cul-de-sacs that have played and still play a role in various interpretations of Paul. Susan Eastman’s Paul and the Person (2017) sets out to reframe Paul’s anthropology by opening a discursive window between Pauline scholarship and recent work in developmental psychology and neuroscience. In this article I discuss how Eastman manages to achieve this goal – by looking at her monograph from the perspective of five interpretative dichotomies: individual vs communal, Stoic vs Platonic and material vs immaterial, cognition vs emotion, relational vs ontological transformation, and human vs divine agency.
Keywords
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
