The Holy Spirit and the Church according to the New Testament: Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Belgrade, August 25 to 31, 2013 9783161535079, 3161535073

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (Zürich) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Markus Bockmuehl (Oxford) · James A. Kelhoffer (Uppsala) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL) · Tobias Nicklas (Regensburg) J. Ross Wagner (Durham, NC)

354

The Holy Spirit and the Church according to the New Testament Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Belgrade, August 25 to 31, 2013 Edited by

Predrag Dragutinovic´, Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr and James Buchanan Wallace in co-operation with

Christos Karakolis

Mohr Siebeck

Predrag Dragutinovic´: born 1972; 1991–96 studied theology at University of Belgrade; 1999 MA from the theological faculty of the University of Bern; 2008 Dr. theol.; since 2014 Associate Professor of New Testament at the Theological Faculty of the University of Belgrade. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr: born 1956; 1975–81 studied theology at Halle University; 1985 Dr. theol.; 1986 Ordination as Lutheran Pastor; 1991 Habilitation; since 1997 Professor of New Testament at the Theological Faculty of Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena. James Buchanan Wallace: born 1975; 1994–98 studied at Sewanee (The University of the South); 1998 BA in English Literature and Russian; 1998–2008 studied Theology/ New Testament at Emory University Atlanta; 2002 M.Div.; 2008 PhD in Religion; since 2012 Associate Professor of Religion at Christian Brothers University. Christos Karakolis: born 1968; 1990 Bachelor in Theology; 1990–96 Doctoral studies at the Universities of Thessaloniki, Regensburg and Tübingen; 1996 ThD; Elected as Lecturer of New Testament at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens in 1998. Since 2013 Associate Professor at the above University. Since 2014 Extraordinary Associate Professor at North-West University, South Africa.

ISBN 978-3-16-153507-9 / eISBN 978-3-16-154369-2 ISSN 0512-1604 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2016 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohr.de This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Großbuchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Table of Contents Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IX Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Part One: Biblical Scholarship in Serbia Irinej Bulović The Holy Spirit and the Church. An Orthodox Perspective . . . . . . . . . 31 Vladan Tatalović Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Part Two: Papers from the Symposium N. T. Wright The Glory Returns: Spirit, Temple and Eschatology in Paul and John . . . 73 Christos Karakolis The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts: Personal Entity or Impersonal Power? A Synchronic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Daniel Marguerat The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Western Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Predrag Dragutinovic´ The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John. A Discourse Analysis of John 20:19–23 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 Andreas Dettwiler The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John from a Western Perspective . . . . . 149

VI

Table of Contents

John Fotopoulos The Holy Spirit in Paul from an Orthodox Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 Volker Rabens The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul: A ‘Western’ Perspective . . . . . . 187 Demetrios Bathrellos The Holy Spirit and the New Testament in St. Symeon of Thessalonica (†1429) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221 Katharina Bracht Augustine and His Predecessors Interpreting the New Testament on the Origin of the Holy Spirit. The Question of filioque . . . . . . . . . . 231 Harald Buchinger The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy. A “Western Perspective” . . . . 251

Part Three: Contributions from the Seminars The Holy Spirit in Ancient Judaism Rodoljub S. Kubat The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon and its Old Testament Background . 287 James Buchanan Wallace Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309 Carl R. Holladay Spirit in Philo of Alexandria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341 The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospels Armand Puig i Tàrrech Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365 Joel Marcus The Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395 The Holy Spirit and the Church in Second Century Christian Writings Tobias Nicklas A Church without Spirit? Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405

Table of Contents

VII

Taras Khomych From Maranatha to Epiclesis? An Inquiry into the Origins of Spirit Invocations in Early Christianity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427

Part Four: Reflections Manuel Vogel A Talk Continued. Notes and Deliberations on the Belgrade Conference . . 443 Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni A Reflection on the Conference from the Orthodox Perspective . . . . . . 449 Armand Puig i Tàrrech A Reflection on the Conference from a Catholic Perspective . . . . . . . . 453

Appendix Oksana Gubareva The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459 List of Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Participants of the Symposium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Scriptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Modern Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Subjects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

493 497 499 505 513

Preface The Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars was held in Belgrade (Serbia), August 25-31, 2013, and addressed the topic: “The Holy Spirit and the Church in the New Testament”. The Symposium was a project of the Eastern Europe Liaison Committee (EELC) of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas (SNTS) and took place at the Orthodox theological faculty of the University of Belgrade. This symposium was the sixth in a series of conferences organized by the EELC and devoted to dialogue and exchange between Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman Catholic and Protestant New Testament scholars. The proceedings of the previous conferences have been published by Mohr Siebeck (Tübingen, Germany) in five conference volumes. For the financial support of the symposium, we warmly thank several institutions and foundations, in particular the “Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland”, the Roman Catholic foundation “Renovabis” (Regensburg), the Roman Catholic Diocese of Regensburg, the “Fonds für wissenschaftliche Theologie” (Bern), as well as the “Evangelische Kirchgemeinde Zug” (Switzerland). There were also a number of local supporters of the conference. We thank the Orthodox theological faculty of the University of Belgrade, especially the Dean of the faculty, Prof. Dr. Predrag Puzović. We also thank the Bishop of Bačka, Prof. Dr. Irinej Bulović, and his Diocese of Bačka. Two Dioceses of the Serbian Orthodox Church have financially supported the conference: the Diocese of Kruševac and the Diocese of Šumadija (Kragujevac). Special thanks are in order to Daniel Meyer (Jena) for indexing and formatting this volume, and to Susanne Mang (Mohr Siebeck) for her assistance and guidance through the preparation of the volume. We are very grateful to Prof. James Buchanan Wallace (Memphis), who, in addition to his immense editorial work, was so kind as to do English-language editing of all contributions from nonnative English speakers. The editors would like to thank Prof. Jörg Frey (Zürich) and Dr. Henning Ziebritzki for accepting the volume for publication in Mohr Siebeck’s WUNT, series 1. Belgrade, November 2015

Predrag Dragutinović

Introduction Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

1. Guided by the Spirit Interpreting the Bible within the church has always been grounded in the conviction that through the biblical writings God speaks to human beings and that any understanding of the Bible as God’s word in the church has to be guided by the Holy Spirit.1 The doctrine of the ‘inspiration’ of Scripture goes back to the origins of the New Testament writings themselves.2 It was rooted already in ancient, pre-rabbinic Jewish interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and of those writings that later formed the Christian Old Testament. The use and understanding of ‘Israel’s Scriptures’ in the Qumran community provide the best analogy for how the first ‘Christians’ (not yet called as such) experienced themselves as ‘driven’ by the Holy Spirit when they read the Scriptures and when they expressed in written form their own religious convictions. When the Qumranites referred to the founding experience of their community as the ‘Yahad in Israel’, they quoted a passage from the prophet Isaiah: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” (Isa 40:3) However, the members of the Yahad interpreted this prophetic order in their own, very peculiar way: This is the study of the law which he commanded through the hand of Moses, in order to act in compliance with all that has been revealed from age to age, and according to what the prophets have revealed through his holy spirit.3

1

For the most recent Roman Catholic statement on the inspiration of Scripture, see Päpstliche Bibelkommission, Inspiration und Wahrheit der Heiligen Schrift. Das Wort, das von Gott kommt und von Gott spricht, um die Welt zu retten (Verlautbarungen des Apostolischen Stuhls Nr. 196, 22. February 2014). For a Protestant perspective, cf. U. LUZ, Theologische Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2014), 108–111; 468– 481; P. STUHLMACHER, Vom Verstehen des Neuen Testaments. Eine Hermeneutik (GNT 6; Göttingen, 1979; 2nd ed. 1986), 47–63. 2 Cf. 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20–21. 3 1QS VIII 14–16. For biblical interpretation in Qumran, see G. J. BROOKE, “Biblical Interpretation at Qumran,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. Volume One: Scripture

2

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

It is not by chance that the same Isaianic prophecy is quoted in the beginnings of the Synoptic Gospels with regard to the ministry of Jesus. In the Gospel of Mark, this saying as the word of God “written in the prophet Isaiah” forms the very beginning of the Gospel narrative (Mark 1:3). Matthew and Luke, with the same quotation from Isaiah, refer to John the Baptist and his annunciation of the coming of the Lord Jesus, who “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire”.4 All three evangelists, in the story of Jesus’s baptism that follows, testify that during this event the Holy Spirit came down from heaven, “descending like a dove on him”, and that a voice resounding from heaven declared Jesus to be the Son of God.5 Even in the Gospel of John, where Jesus’s baptism is not explicitly retold, John the Baptist nevertheless quotes the same verse from Isaiah and later testifies: I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.6

In sum, all four gospels open their narration about the ministry of Jesus with the image of Jesus’s being baptized by John and thereby put forward a symbolic narrative model of the triune God as the real ‘author’ of the Gospel. If Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is the core matter of the Bible, then, according to the gospel stories, the Bible has to be read and understood with an eye to, or better said, by the guidance of, the Holy Spirit.7

and the Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Waco, 2006), 287–319; M. HENZE, ed., Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2005); G. VERMES, “Eschatological World View in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the New Testament,” in Scrolls, Scriptures and Early Christianity (JSPE 56; London/New York, 2005), 68–79; D. E. AUNE, “Charismatic Exegesis in Early Judaism and Early Christianity,” in Id., The Pseudepigrapha and Early Biblical Interpretation (JSPE 14; eds. J. H. Charlesworth and C. A. Evans; Sheffield, 1993), 126–150. For the Holy Spirit in Qumran, cf. E. J. C. TIGCHELAAR, “Historical Origins of the Early Christian Concept of the Holy Spirit: Perspectives from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Ekstasis 5; eds. J. Frey and J. R. Levison; Berlin/New York, 2014), 167–240. 4 Matt 3:3, 11; cf. Luke 3:4, 16. 5 Mark 1:10–11; cf. Matt 3:16–17; Luke 3:21–22. 6 John 1:23, 32–34. 7 This has been the perspective on the interpretation of the baptism of Jesus taken by J. RATZINGER/BENEDIKT XVI., Jesus von Nazareth. Erster Teil: Von der Taufe im Jordan bis zur Verklärung (Freiburg et al., 2007), 36–51, 50: “Das Geheimnis des trinitarischen Gottes deutet sich an, das sich freilich erst im Ganzen von Jesu Weg in seiner Tiefe enthüllen kann.”

Introduction

3

2. The East-West Symposia The papers of the volume at hand originated in a conference of biblical scholars from different countries and different confessional backgrounds who normally are accustomed to organize their research according to the rules and principles of international biblical scholarship. The peculiar aims and objectives, however, of the international East-West symposia of biblical scholars, arranged by the Eastern Europe Liaison Committee of Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, are broader than those of other ‘conventional’ research projects in biblical or ancient religious studies. The basic idea of these conferences goes back to an initiative taken by Professor Ulrich Luz twenty years ago when he invited a group of NT scholars from different countries in Eastern and Western Europe to meet for the first time during the SNTS annual meeting in Prague in 1995. Apart from the initial purpose of his initiative, to strengthen the institutional basis for biblical scholarship in Eastern Europe after the political changes in 1989, Ulrich Luz’s project has also had a theological and ecumenical agenda right from the beginning. It has been devoted to creating a forum for scholarly and theological exchange about different approaches and aims of biblical interpretation from different confessional backgrounds and perspectives. A particular focus has been directed to the exchange of ideas about hermeneutical traditions and principles of biblical exegesis in the Christian Eastern Orthodox tradition on the one hand and in the ‘Western’ (Roman Catholic as well as Protestant) tradition on the other. Meanwhile, a series of six symposia has grown up from this idea, and preparations for a seventh are under way. Without exaggeration, one can argue that the results of these conferences have made a difference in biblical studies, in the East as well as in the West. Papers from all five symposia so far have been published in the WUNT series with Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, and have resonated with the scholarly community. In particular, a better mutual understanding has developed regarding the different approaches to biblical interpretation in Orthodox and Western traditions. From a methodological point of view, there can be observed a growing consensus about historical as well as literary methods as necessary means to attain a better understanding of biblical texts, their peculiar theological character notwithstanding. At the same time, there has also developed a consensus with regard to the importance of theological and hermeneutical approaches for stimulating a contemporary understanding of the biblical tradition in our own time, in modern societies as well as in churches living in these societies today. The topic of the Belgrade symposium was a rather logical follow up to the earlier conferences held during the last 15 years. After dealing first with

4

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

methods of biblical interpretation in Orthodox and ‘Western’ traditions,8 the second symposium was devoted to the Old Testament as part of the Christian Bible, again a central hermeneutical question.9 The following conferences then turned to biblical topics of central theological importance: the unity of the church according to the New Testament,10 prayer in the Bible and its religious environment,11 and last, but not least, Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and Biblical Scholarship.12 Now we have reached the Holy Spirit.

3. The Holy Spirit and the Church in the New Testament According to the New Testament, the Holy Spirit has been experienced in the Church right from the beginning. The events at Pentecost as reported in the book of Acts (Acts 2) form the basis and the model for any church life since then, and Luke, in particular, highlights already in his Gospel how the Holy Spirit is at work in the life and ministry of Jesus.13 Likewise, when Paul reports about the events connected to the founding of his churches, he also gives witness to the rather overwhelming presence of the Holy Spirit there.14 In John, the figure of παράκλητος, advocate, counsellor, or, as in earlier interpretations, ‘comforter’, is the representative of the risen Christ for his disciples after the departure of Jesus.15 Nonetheless, the evidence in the New Testament about the Holy Spirit is multifaceted and sometimes uneven in a way. There is much less evidence, for instance, about the Holy Spirit in the gospels of Mark and Matthew or in several of the Catholic Epistles. 8 Cf. J. D. G. DUNN et al., eds., Auslegung der Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Perspektive. Akten des west-östlichen Neutestamentler/innen-Symposiums von Neamţ vom 4. – 11. September 1998 (WUNT 130; Tübingen, 2000). 9 Cf. I. Z. DIMITROV et al., eds., Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. Zweite europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz im Rilakloster vom 8. – 15. September 2001 (WUNT 174; Tübingen, 2004). 10 A. A. ALEXEEV et al., eds., Einheit der Kirche im Neuen Testament. Dritte europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sankt Petersburg, 24. – 31. August 2005 (WUNT 218; Tübingen, 2008). 11 H. KLEIN et al., eds., Das Gebet im Neuen Testament. Vierte europäische orthodoxwestliche Exegetenkonferenz in Sâmbăta de Sus, 4. – 8. August 2007 (WUNT 249; Tübingen, 2009). 12 C. KARAKOLIS et al., eds., Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship: Fifth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Minsk, September 2 to 9, 2010 (WUNT 288; Tübingen, 2012). 13 Cf. Luke 1:15, 35; 4:1, 18. 14 Cf. 1 Cor 2:4; Gal 3:1–5; 1 Thess 1:5–6. 15 John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; cf. M. TURNER, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in the New Testament Church and Today (Peabody, rev. ed. 2009), 76–79; F. PORSCH, “παράκλητος,” EWNT 3: 64–67.

Introduction

5

It belongs to the tasks of biblical scholarship to isolate and carve out carefully the variety of voices and convictions, expressions and experiences of the power of the Holy Spirit as testified by different writings in the New Testament. But, as Christian theologians which most of us are by profession, we also have to ask about the inner relationship between the different voices in the New Testament and about their common orientation to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Moreover, we also have to ask about the power of the Holy Spirit, which keeps the church alive during the centuries as well as today. Taken together, the evidence about the Holy Spirit in the New Testament illustrates the richness and the vitality of church life among the first Christians in Antiquity. We are convinced that in the writings of the New Testament, we can detect the basis for the Christian belief in the triune God in the Gospels, as well as in Paul’s letters or the book of Acts. Beyond that, we also have to analyse how the biblical writings have been read and understood by their first readers, as well as by the growing churches in the first two centuries and by the church fathers. We must even examine how the Old Testament was understood in ancient Jewish writings contemporaneous with early Christianity. As biblical scholars and Christian theologians, we share the conviction that the testimony of the Holy Spirit, as a spiritual power vitalizing the church, is deeply rooted in the writings of the New Testament. But what does this mean for the life of our churches today?16 This has also been an exciting and sometimes tantalizing question for many of the participants in the Belgrade symposium. In many of the churches we belong to, the spiritual life is not so much in the foreground in comparison to the evidence we find in the New Testament. In other churches today, we may notice forms of experiencing the Spirit or dealing with spiritual ‘events’ that we have difficulties integrating into what we normally understand as the church guided by the Holy Spirit according to the New Testament. It has become a tradition of the East-West symposia not to exclude from our reflections such hermeneutical and sometimes even practical theological questions. This may be seen as another difference that the encounter between Orthodox and ‘Western’ exegetes can make. The volume at hand, first of all, is a documentation of the papers and the seminar contributions presented during the Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars in Belgrade, August 25 to 31, 2013. As has been a well-established pattern of the symposia, the conference program consisted of a series of ‘twin papers’, devoted to core texts of the New Testament, one from an Orthodox and one from a ‘Western’ perspective. Two more pairs of main papers dealt with the topic of the Holy Spirit in patristic theology and traditions of church life in antiquity (liturgy and iconography). 16

Cf. TURNER, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts (n. 15); A. C. THISELTON, The Holy Spirit – In Biblical Teaching, through the Centuries, and Today (Grand Rapids, 2013).

6

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

In addition to these ‘twin papers’, the scholarly program included three seminars with three sessions each on different topics related to the main theme of the conference. Again, these seminars were chaired by one Orthodox and one ‘Western’ chairperson. The opening address was given by the host of the conference, His Eminence, Bishop Irinej of Novi Sad and Baćka.17 The scholarly program was enriched by a public lecture for a wider audience in the State University of Belgrade given by N. T. Wright18 and a paper by Vladan Tatalović on Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia.19 A scholarly conference structured by a selection of main papers and seminar contributions cannot cover every important aspect and all of the complicated research problems related to the theme of the Holy Spirit and the church in the New Testament.20 In this introduction, I will try to draw some links between the contents of the conference papers and seminar contributions and to fill in some gaps in the program by pointing to additional New Testament evidence relating to the topic and by indicating a small selection of more recent scholarly studies on them. It was determinative already for the preparatory team of the symposium that the conference would have to focus on theological and hermeneutical aspects of the topic. Therefore, many other approaches and research problems that have been of great importance in recent scholarship21 could not be dealt with in a similarly thorough way,22 as, for 17 I. BULOVIĆ, “The Holy Spirit and the Church: An Orthodox Perspective,” in this volume 31–35. 18 N. T. WRIGHT, “The Glory Returns: Spirit, Temple and Eschatology in Paul and John,” in this volume 73–86. 19 V. TATALOVIĆ, “Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia,” in this volume 37–70. 20 Cf. for an overview, J. R. LEVISON, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2009); J. D. G. DUNN, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London, 1975, Grand Rapids, 1997). 21 For a critical overview of the crucial literature on the Holy Spirit in Biblical Studies, see J. R. Levison, V. Rabens, “The Holy Spirit,” Oxford Bibliographies Online, http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo-97801953 93361-0094.xml (last reviewed: 18 June 2015). For a few more recent volumes of collected essays or Festschriften focused to the Holy Spirit, cf. Frey/Levison, eds., The Holy Spirit (n. 3); T. J. BURKE and K. WARRINGTON, eds., A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit (London, 2014); J. T. K. Lim, ed., Holy Spirit: Unfinished Agenda (Singapore, 2014); I. H. Marshall, V. Rabens, and C. Bennema, eds., The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner (Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2012); M. EBNER, ed., Heiliger Geist, JBTh 24 (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2011); Geist, ZNT 25 (Tübingen, 2010); The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (ed. G. N. Stanton, B. W. Longenecker and S. C. Barton; Grand Rapids, 2004). 22 A very helpful introduction to the whole topic is offered by J. FREY and J. R. LEVISON, “The Origins of Early Christian Pneumatology: On the Rediscovery and Reshaping of the History of Religions Quest,” in Frey/Levison, The Holy Spirit, 1–37 (n. 3).

Introduction

7

instance, ancient religious or philosophical backgrounds and contexts of ‘spiritual’ matters in New Testament writings,23 the development of the belief in the Holy Spirit in earliest Christianity,24 or the impact of early Jewish eschatological expectations on the first Christians with regard to their selfperception of being endowed with the Holy Spirit.25 Moreover, as already explained, the aims of the symposium were not restricted to a scholarly treatment of the topic, like many other research conferences or volumes of collected essays. This may be seen most clearly from the last contribution, which has been included as an appendix to the volume at hand, not because it was of minor importance for the conference, but because of its particular character, resulting not least from its containing a selection of images. As Oksana Gubareva demonstrates in her paper, there has been an abundant wealth of imagination about the Holy Spirit in iconography during the centuries, in the East as well as in the West, which cannot be sufficiently captured by theological reflection alone, although many of the images of the Holy Spirit painted in the icons obviously correspond to biblical motifs or even theological doctrines.26 Much of the exchange of scholarly opinions and theological positions took place in the conversations that started immediately after the presentations of the papers and continued during the conference days and beyond. This, of course, cannot be recorded in a volume of essays. However, three brief concluding reflections from an Orthodox, a Roman Catholic, and a Protestant perspective attempt to capture at least something of the spirit of the discussions in Belgrade.27 This spirit has opened the way for further reflections or, as one of the authors says, “for re-reading one's own Christian tradition, and for constructive self-criticism”.28 23

Cf. T. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford, 2010); T. TIELEMAN, “The Spirit of Stoicism,” in Frey/Levison, The Holy Spirit, 39–62 (n. 3). For the philosophical backgrounds of ancient Christian pneumatology, see H. ZIEBRITZKI, Heiliger Geist und Weltseele. Das Problem der dritten Hypostase bei Origenes, Plotin und ihren Vorläufern (BHTh 84; Tübingen 1994). 24 Cf. TURNER, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts (n. 15); Idem, “‘Trinitarian’ Pneumatology in the New Testament? – Towards an Explanation of the Worship of Jesus,” ATJ 57 (2003), 167–186; J. FREY, “How Did the Spirit Become a Person?,” in Frey/Levison, The Holy Spirit, 343–371 (n. 3). 25 Cf. J. R. LEVISON, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (AGAJU 29; Leiden, 1997); V. RABENS, “Geistes-Geschichte. Die Rede vom Geist im Horizont der griechischrömischen und jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur,” ZNT 25 (2010), 46–55. 26 O. GUBAREVA, “Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography,” in this volume 459–471. 27 M. VOGEL, “A Talk Continued. Notes and Deliberations on the Belgrade Conference,” in this volume 443–447; E. G. TSALAMPOUNI, “A Reflection on the Conference from the Orthodox Perspective,” in this volume 449–451; A. PUIG I TÀRRECH, “A Reflection on the Conference from a Catholic Perspective,” in this volume 453–455. 28 TSALAMPOUNI, “Reflection,” 449 (n. 27).

8

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

4. The Holy Spirit in the Old Testament and in Ancient Judaism Concepts in the New Testament about the Spirit of God as a driving force in God’s encounter with his creation and with all humankind, but in particular with God’s elected people, are deeply rooted in the Old Testament and developed further in ancient Jewish thinking. These concepts were determinative for almost all of the writings of the New Testament. However, the full meaning and the important role of the Spirit of God in the Old Testament could not be taken into account adequately in a conference of (mainly) New Testament scholars. For a comprehensive survey of the subject of the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament, a much broader analysis of all the evidence would have been required.29 Because of the restrictions of the symposium, only a limited selection of early Jewish texts and topics could be dealt with. The Jewish context of New Testament writings was the subject of one of the seminars. Three different strands were examined as examples of the role and function of God’s Spirit in early Judaism: the Wisdom of Solomon, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, and Philo. In a study on the Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon, Rodoljub S. Kubat takes his point of departure from the Hebrew Bible.30 After taking into account also the Greek translations of the Bible, the Septuagint, he then investigates references to the s/Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon. He distinguishes between an anthropological, an epistemological, a metaphysicalcosmological, and a theological aspect. In conclusion, he points out that, on the one hand, “the author of the Wisdom of Solomon derives his basic understanding of the term πνεῦµα from the Bible”, but on the other hand, influenced by Hellenistic philosophical thought, he “enriched the term spirit in a metaphysical-cosmological sense” in comparison to Old Testament texts.31 James Buchanan Wallace, in his contribution on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, deals with a pseudepigraphical (probably) Jewish text of

29

For an overview of the OT evidence, see H.-J. FABRY, “rûaḥ,” ThWAT 7: 385–425. For a theological introduction from the perspective of Christian biblical theology, see R. FELDMEIER and H. SPIECKERMANN, Der Gott der Lebendigen. Eine biblische Gotteslehre (Tübingen, 2011), 203–227. For a collection of brief introductions from a biblicaltheological perspective, see BURKE/WARRINGTON, A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit, (n. 21; contributions to the different parts of the OT by W. C. Kaiser, Jr., D. Firth, C. G. Bartholomew, W. Ma, A. Davies, J. Robson, M. Clay). For a recent monograph, cf. LEVISON, Filled with the Spirit, 3–105 (n. 20). 30 R. S. KUBAT, “The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in this volume 287–308. For a recent edition of the Wisdom of Solomon with a new translation, commentary, and introductory essays, see K.-W. NIEBUHR, ed., Sapientia Salomonis (Weisheit Salomos). Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen (SAPERE 27; Tübingen, 2015). 31 Op. cit., 306.

Introduction

9

unknown date and provenance.32 In the T. 12 Patr., in particular, it is the anthropological aspect that is developed further in comparison with the biblical tradition. By skilfully and even seamlessly interweaving Stoic thought and a Jewish apocalyptic worldview, the author accounts for the irrational choice of vices as well as traditional discourse of evil spirits by claiming that evil spirits are mixed into the human spirits.33

On the other hand, in the T. 12 Patr., we also find positive references to the “spirit of truth” or to “God’s spirit”, which are related to the biblical Law of Moses. Both divine spirit and the law serve the common purpose of expressing God’s divine ordering of existence and prompt human beings to live in conformity with it.34

In a third contribution on ancient Jewish views about the s/Spirit, Carl R. Holladay inquires into the work of Philo of Alexandria.35 In his investigation, structured by the three main coherent literary works of Philo, Holladay basically distinguishes between statements in Philo about the “divine spirit” (πνεῦµα θεῖον) or “spirit of God” (πνεῦµα θεοῦ) on the one hand and expressions for the πνεῦµα θεῖον / πνεῦµα θεοῦ with particular reference to prophecy, on the other. As a result, he observes that “one of the most intriguing features of Philonic thought is the fluidity of the term πνεῦµα”. “Philo operates with a robust sense of ‘divine spirit’ or ‘the spirit of God,’ even though he does not conceive of it in personalistic terms.”36 With regard to Philo’s view on prophetic inspiration, Holladay concludes that it is “anchored deeply in OT conceptions of prophecy”. Equally clear, however, is that Philo’s detailed conceptualization of prophecy as an ecstatic moment in which rationality gives way to inspired utterance is heavily indebted to Plato.37

32

J. B. WALLACE, “Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in this volume 309–340. 33 Op. cit., 338. 34 Op. cit., 338. 35 C. R. HOLLADAY, “Spirit in Philo of Alexandria,” in this volume 341–363. For the Spirit in Philo, see also most recently V. RABENS, “Pneuma and the Beholding of God: Reading Paul in the Context of Philonic Mystical Traditions,” in Frey/Levison, The Holy Spirit, 293–329 (n. 3). 36 Op. cit., 358. 37 Op. cit., 362–363.

10

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

5. The New Testament Text Basis Three pairs of the main papers at the symposium as well as (partly) the public lecture concentrated on the three most important witnesses for the Holy Spirit in the New Testament: Luke, John, and Paul.38 5.1 Luke In comparison to the other Synoptic Gospels, in Luke the Holy Spirit plays a much more significant role in the theological program of the author. Moreover, only in Luke does the Holy Spirit act like a character in the Gospel story. This becomes immediately clear if we take into account the literary composition of Luke-Acts as a whole. The Holy Spirit ties together both literary units of the Lukan ‘Doppelwerk’.39 As much as Jesus had been “full of the Holy Spirit” when he returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness (Luke 4:1), so also the apostles at Pentecost were “filled with the Holy Spirit” and began to speak in other languages “as the Spirit gave them ability” (Acts 2:4).40 Whereas in the Gospel Jesus himself, being filled with and led by the Spirit, acts as the messenger of God (Luke 4:14, 18), in Acts the apostles are told to “be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth” (Acts 1:8).41 The literary and theological link between Luke’s Gospel and the book of Acts is underscored in particular by the ascension story by which the Jesus narrative is finished and at the same time the story about the beginnings of the church is opened. Moreover, the proclamation of the fulfillment of God’s promises in the coming of Jesus, filled with the Holy Spirit and anointed as God’s Messiah (Luke 4:21), is continued by the apostles, who, empowered by the Holy Spirit, proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:16–18). Calling his disciples “witnesses of these things” (i.e., the suffering and the resurrection of the Messiah from the dead on the third day), Jesus by his last words in the Gospel announces to his disciples that he will be “sending upon you what 38

These are also the core NT areas in the recent and quite relevant monograph by LEVIFilled with the Spirit, 253–427 (n. 20). 39 Cf. P. POKORNÝ, Theologie der lukanischen Schriften (FRLANT 174; Göttingen, 1998), 71–75. Most recently, cf. H. GUNKEL, Der Heilige Geist bei Lukas. Theologisches Profil, Grund und Intention der lukanischen Pneumatologie (WUNT II.389; Tübingen, 2015). 40 At both places, Luke uses the same root -πλη-: πλήρης πνεύµατος ἁγίου (Luke 4:1), ἐπλήσθησαν πάντες πνεύµατος ἁγίου (Acts 2:4). 41 Like Jesus, who as the Messiah carries (ἐπ’ ἐµέ) the “Spirit of the Lord” when he evangelizes the poor, the apostles will “receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (ἐπελθόντος) to become witnesses for the gospel. Cf. F. NEIRYNCK, “Luke 4,16–30 and the Unity of Luke-Acts,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (BEThL 142; ed. J. Verheyden; Leuven, 1999), 357–395. SON,

Introduction

11

my Father promised” and pronounces that they will be “clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:45–49). It is clear for any reader educated in the biblical tradition that nothing else can be in view here than the Holy Spirit. However, this is explicitly pronounced only later, at the recurrence of the same scene in Acts 1:6–11: “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (1:8) The explicit reference in Acts 1:5 back to the baptism scene of Jesus by John as told in the Gospel (Luke 3:16) is an additional demonstration that both parts of Luke-Acts belong together with regard to their understanding of Holy Spirit.42 Both of the two main papers in this volume that deal with Luke focus on a theological interpretation of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, but they do so by emphasizing different aspects. Daniel Marguerat right from the beginning concentrates his investigation on the role of the Holy Spirit in the church according to Luke-Acts. Therefore, he starts with an analysis of the Pentecost story: For Luke, “the Spirit … comes at Pentecost”.43 From this point of departure, Marguerat briefly looks back to the Jesus story in Luke’s Gospel and highlights the fact that during Jesus’s lifetime only Jesus, but not his disciples, were endowed with the Holy Spirit. “Jesus exclusively monopolizes the Spirit.”44 By this fact, the unique status of Jesus in the Gospel story as ‘the Son’ is emphasized. Therefore, only after Jesus’s resurrection do the believers receive the Spirit. As Peter makes it clear in his sermon at Pentecost, Christ “exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit … has poured out this that you both see and hear” (Acts 2:33), “a pretty pre-Trinitarian formula indeed”, as Marguerat remarks.45 In his interpretation of Acts, Marguerat focuses on the Spirit in the church by emphasizing the missionary character and the ‘democratic’ structure of Luke’s understanding of the Spirit (every believer is equipped with the Spirit), its universal scope, and its relatedness to Israel. Christos Karakolis, on the other hand, at the beginning of his contribution, asks a rather ‘dogmatic’ or Christological question: Is the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts to be understood as a personal entity or an impersonal power?46 By this question, Karakolis takes on a controversial debate in contemporary 42

Cf. Acts 1:5: “for John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit”; Luke 3:16: “I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worthy to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.” 43 D. MARGUERAT, “The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Western Perspective,” in this volume 111–128 (quotation: 114). 44 Op. cit., 114. 45 Op. cit., 115. 46 C. KARAKOLIS, “The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts: Personal Entity or Impersonal Power? A Synchronic Approach,” in this volume 87–109.

12

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

Western exegesis on the ‘personal’ character of the Holy Spirit. In the ancient church, by contrast, the theological debate about the Holy Spirit was much more focused on divinity than on personhood. Modern exegesis, however, is divided about the personal character of the Spirit according to Luke. Methodologically, Karakolis concentrates on a literary, synchronic approach by examining all references to the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts and by comparing them with other characters in the narrative. By this analysis, however, Karakolis does not seek to answer the doctrinal question mentioned above, but rather he focuses on the ‘literary’ question of “whether in Luke-Acts the Holy Spirit is an individual character or not”.47 Therefore, his approach is predominantly a semantic one, but with a central theological question in mind. The results of his analysis are of particular importance with regard to the numerous activities of the Holy Spirit described in Luke-Acts. Actions of the Spirit are expressed by different verbs, and also by the interaction of the Holy Spirit with other characters in the story. Therefore, in contrast to other, more impersonal ‘spiritual’ powers, “Luke presents the Holy Spirit as a distinct narrative character”.48 Only after reconstructing the narratological value of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts does Karakolis turn to the questions of the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit and of the relationship between the Holy Spirit and the church. His results are very similar to those of Marguerat. Karakolis likewise emphasizes that “the identity and the work of the Holy Spirit is revealed in and through the community of Jesus Christ’s believers”, that “the Holy Spirit has a very important impact upon the lives of all members of the Christian church”, that “the Holy Spirit can only be adequately revealed in its fullness by its presence in the post-Easter community of believers-name within the Christian church”, and that “the work of the Spirit is very much understood in close connection with the missionary work of the Christian community and with its witness of faith”.49 In addition to Luke, Matthew and Mark also belong to the witnesses for the Holy Spirit among the Gospels. Armand Puig i Tàrrech, in his paper on the Holy Spirit and evil spirits, combines the evidence in all Synoptic Gospels for the ministry of Jesus.50 The beginning of Jesus’s ministry, according to Puig i Tàrrech, is marked by two closely-related events: the theo-phany at the river Jordan and the ‘demonophany’ in the desert.51 This combination of two appearances of the transcendent world in the beginning of the ministry of Jesus according to the gospel narratives “constitutes in effect a single founda47

Op. cit., 88. Op. cit., 99. 49 Op. cit., 108. 50 A. PUIG I TÀRRECH, “Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits the Ministry of Jesus,” in this volume 365–393. 51 Cf. Mark 1:10, 12. 48

Introduction

13

tional event consisting of two episodes: the theophany, including the descent of the Spirit, and the temptations in the desert, including Satan’s attack”.52 The power of the Holy Spirit, distributed to Jesus at baptism and testified by his vision of Satan falling from heaven (Luke 10:18), remained determinative for his ministry. “Jesus’s control over evil spirits becomes one of the most notable and particular characteristics of his activity.”53 At this point, it may be appropriate to take into consideration the remaining references to the Holy Spirit in Matthew and Mark also: Working on the basis of the Two-Source Hypothesis, the conjunction of the baptism of Jesus by John with the endowment of Jesus with the Holy Spirit belonged already to Mark’s story (cf. Mark 1:8, 10). Matthew and Luke, respectively, took over this episode from Mark54 and inserted it in their own narrative constructions of the beginnings of Jesus. However, already in their infancy narratives, both Matthew and Luke had independently assigned to the Holy Spirit a decisive role with regard to the origin of Jesus (Matt 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35). Nevertheless, the importance of the Holy Spirit for the public ministry of Jesus in Matthew and Luke has not been thereby reduced, even though both highlighted the formative role of the Holy Spirit for Jesus from his origins. Two passages in Matthew, which have no exact parallels in Mark and Luke, are of particular importance for Matthew’s understanding of the Holy Spirit: In one of his formula quotations, Matthew quotes in 12:18–21 from Isaiah 42:1–4, indicating thereby that Jesus in his healing service is to be understood as the Servant of the Lord upon whom God has put His Spirit.55 This corresponds to the following pericope (Matt 12:22–30) where Matthew combines a passage from Mark with one from the Double Tradition (“Q”).56 Different from both Luke and Mark, Matthew explicitly points to the Spirit of God when it comes to the question of the authority by which Jesus is able to cast out the demons, demonstrating thereby that the kingdom of God has come.57 In the following section which concludes his composition (12:31–

52

Op. cit., 390. Op. cit., 390. 54 Cf. Matt 3:11–17; Luke 3:15–22; both references to the πνεῦµα in Mark are taken over in Matthew and Luke. 55 Cf. Matt 12:18: “Here is my servant, whom I have chosen, my beloved, with whom my soul is well pleased. I will put my Spirit upon him, and he will proclaim justice to the Gentiles.” 56 The disputation on Jesus and Beelzebul, cf. Mark 3:22–27; Luke 11:14–23. 57 Luke 11:20 has “by the finger of God” instead of “by the Spirit of God”. Cf. K.-W. NIEBUHR, “Jesu Heilungen und Exorzismen. Ein Stück Theologie des Neuen Testaments,” in Frühjudentum und Neues Testament im Horizont Biblischer Theologie. Mit einem Anhang zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum Novi Testamenti (WUNT 162; ed. W. Kraus and K.-W. Niebuhr; Tübingen, 2003), 99–112, 101–104. 53

14

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

32), Matthew again combines Mark and the Double Tradition.58 Here, Jesus identifies everybody who is against him59 with those who sin against the Spirit: Therefore I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Thus, only Matthew, among the Synoptic Gospels, focuses on God’s Spirit when he tries to explain the true origin of the authority of Jesus in his healing service and the fundamental cause for the opposition Jesus had to face in his ministry. The importance of the Holy Spirit in Matthew can also be underlined by a brief remark on Matt 28:19. This passage has been of particular weight for later developments of Trinitarian church doctrine in ancient Christian theology,60 even though in Matthew the focus is more on mission and baptism than on Christology. Nevertheless, in its triadic formulation the reference to “the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” corresponds to similar phrases in the Pauline letters61 and may go back to an early Christian baptism formula.62 Therefore, perhaps, the Holy Spirit in Matthew deserves more attention than it actually receives in New Testament scholarship, as well as in the volume at hand. Even though there is only scarce evidence for the work of the Holy Spirit and the church in Mark, nevertheless, as the paper by Joel Marcus can testify, “the interrelated realities represented by these terms are very much at home in the Markan narrative and, one would suppose, in the Markan world”.63 In particular, “the opposition between the unclean spirits and the Holy Spirit is an important feature of Mark’s unveiling of the ‘spirit’ theme in his Gospel”.64 By a critical review of one position in recent research on Mark (the absent Lord as the main focus of this gospel), Marcus demonstrates that, according to Mark, “Jesus is present in the world, despite having, in one sense, gone away”.65 Referring to a similar view in John, he concludes: “one

58

The blasphemy against the Spirit, cf. Mark 3:28–30; Luke 12:10. Cf. Matt 12:30. 60 Cf. U. LUZ, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus. 4. Teilband: Mt 26–28 (EKK I/4; Düsseldorf und Zürich, Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2002), 452–454. 61 Cf. 1 Cor 12:4–6; 2 Cor 13:13; Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15–16. 62 Cf. Did. 7.1, 3. 63 J. MARCUS, “The Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of Mark,” in this volume 395– 403 (quotation: 396). 64 Op. cit., 395. 65 Op. cit., 400. 59

Introduction

15

of the main purposes of the Gospel is to assure Jesus’ followers that he is still present with them despite all evidence to the contrary”.66 5.2 John The most distinguished feature of pneumatology in the Gospel of John67 certainly is the identification of the Holy Spirit as the παράκλητος (advocate or counsellor).68 This remarkable figure appears suddenly and exclusively in the so-called Farewell Discourse (John 14–16), plus one unique reference in the First Epistle of John where this figure is explicitly identified as “Jesus Christ the righteous” (1 John 2:1). Nevertheless, more is told about the Holy Spirit in John, such as Jesus’s address to the disciples after his resurrection and their commission, endowed with Holy Spirit, to forgive or to retain sins (John 20:19–23), or Jesus’s talk with Nicodemus about the “wind who blows where it chooses” (3:3–13), and Jesus’s statement about his own words as “spirit and life” (6:63), or the declaration of the narrator that Jesus’s disciples were to receive the spirit only after he was glorified (7:39).69 In his talk with the Samaritan woman, Jesus qualifies the time to come as the hour “when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” and continues this statement by an identification of God and the Spirit: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (4:23–24)70 66

Op. cit., 400. For a theologically-oriented overview, cf. R. SCHNACKENBURG, “Die johanneische Gemeinde und ihre Geisterfahrung,” in Das Johannesevangelium. IV. Teil: Ergänzende Auslegungen und Exkurse (HThK IV/4; Freiburg, 1984), 33–58. For more recent monographs, see C. BENNEMA, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel (WUNT II.148; Tübingen, 2002); C. HOEGEN-ROHLS, Der nachösterliche Johannes (WUNT II.84; Tübingen, 1996). 68 John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7. Cf. J. FREY, Die johanneische Eschatologie. Bd. III: Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen Texten (WUNT 117; Tübingen, 2000), 159–164, 182–204; H.-C. KAMMLER, “Jesus Christus und der Geistparaklet. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Verhältnisbestimmung von Pneumatologie und Christologie,” in O. HOFIUS and H.-C. KAMMLER, Johannesstudien. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums (WUNT 88; Tübingen, 1996), 87–190; TURNER, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts, 76–87 (n. 15). 69 For an overview, cf. F. HAHN, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Bd. I: Die Vielfalt des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen, 2002), 658–671. Cf. also M. BECKER, “Spirit in Relationship – Pneumatology in the Gospel of John,” in Frey/Levison, The Holy Spirit, 331– 341 (n. 3). 70 A similarly explicit identification can be found only in Paul, cf. 2 Cor 3:17, where it is the Lord (κύριος) who is identified as πνεῦµα. From the Exodus story referred to by Paul in the context, it is clear that the Lord has to be God (see for this RABENS, “The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul: A ‘Western Perspective’,” in this volume, 187–220, 209– 211). 67

16

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

Therefore, more so than in Luke, in John the Holy Spirit seems to be mentioned predominantly with regard to the disciples or the believers respectively and their relationship to God or Jesus. This makes John an outstanding subject for the topic of the Holy Spirit and the church. However, the ecclesiological aspect does not diminish the Christological and soteriological importance of the Holy Spirit in John. Rather, it is Jesus who by his words gives life to his disciples (6:63). And it is in the encounter with the glorified Christ that “the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such as these to worship him” (4:23). True worship to God and to the glorified Christ, ‘ortho-doxia’, therefore, is what pneumatology in John is about! Predrag Dragutinović in his essay in the volume at hand emphasizes this communicative dimension of the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John. Even the very language in John’s Gospel – in particular the frequent use of pronouns and verbs in the second-person plural – “reveals a profound connection between the Spirit and the believing community – that is, the Church”.71 Working on the methodological basis of discourse analysis, Dragutinović examines John 20:19–23 as a prominent text with regard to the theme of the Holy Spirit and the church. Discourse analysis he defines (in a quote from A. B. du Toit) as a means to “open up the main contours of a given text” and to disclose its inner development and main and sub-themes. Of special importance in the Gospel of John are verbal allusions to other texts where the Spirit is mentioned, particularly to the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourse: “Based on the promises of the Farewell Discourse, Jesus in John 20:19–23 acts through the Spirit in the community.”72 Therefore, the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church is not an individualistic experience, but it constitutes the church as a loving community. Following a line of interpretation in patristic exegesis, Dragutinović concludes his contribution by observing that, with regard to the Gospel of John, “where the Spirit is, there is also love of others”.73 Andreas Dettwiler also interprets the Gospel of John from a primarily synchronic, in this case narratological, perspective.74 Based on his monograph on the Farewell Discourses,75 he first examines every reference to the Paraclete from this part of the Gospel to clarify the semantics with regard to the SpiritParaclete. Asking why the Johannine community used precisely the unusual 71 P. DRAGUTINOVIĆ, “The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John: A Discourse Analysis of John 20:19–23,” in this volume 129–147 (quotation: 145). 72 Op. cit., 140. 73 Op. cit., 147. 74 A. DETTWILER, “The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John from a Western Perspective,” in this volume 149–171. 75 A. DETTWILER, Die Gegenwart des Erhöhten. Eine exegetische Studie zu den johanneischen Abschiedsreden (Joh 13,31–16,33) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Relecture-Charakters (FRLANT 169; Göttingen, 1995).

Introduction

17

term παράκλητος to draw a narrative link between Jesus as a figure of the narration and the Holy Spirit as the future representative of the risen Christ, Dettwiler comes to a surprising conclusion: It could be that the Johannine School used this very rare term … precisely because of its scarcity, semantic flexibility, and openness. It appears to have been an adequate term to mirror the innovative power of Johannine thinking on pneumatology. 76

By a thorough theological interpretation of all four Paraclete sayings in their immediate context, Dettwiler then illustrates the innovative and creative way by which the author of (or the school behind) John’s Gospel develop their understanding of the presence of the risen Christ in the post-Easter church. After a rapid survey of all Spirit passages outside the Farewell Discourse, Dettwiler concludes by emphasizing the Christological and soteriological character of the references to the Holy Spirit in John. The Holy Spirit, who presents the risen Christ in the post-Easter community of believers, acts like an interpreter. He primarily has a hermeneutical function. No more charismatic or ecstatic phenomena, no more spirit-inspired miraculous acts, but the miracle of the intelligibility and the innovative re-reading of the Jesus tradition – that is the project of the Spirit-Paraclete.77

N. T. Wright, in his contribution, which goes back to his public lecture in Belgrade, combines both John and Paul to develop his idea of a New Testament pneumatology rooted in the biblical and ancient Jewish expectation of God’s return to his people at the end of time.78 In John’s Gospel, Wright detects this link already in the statement of the prologue: “the Word became flesh, and dwelt in our midst (ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡµῖν)” (John 1:14). The phrase quoted in Greek obviously refers to the tabernacle in the Exodus story.79 “For John, the incarnation is the reality towards which the wilderness tabernacle, and then the Jerusalem Temple, had been pointing all along.”80 However, this does not concern Christology only, but pneumatology as well, because “for John the Spirit is again and again the one through whom the reality of the son’s incarnation becomes present, operative and effective in his followers”.81 By dealing not only with the Farewell Discourse, but first of all with passages

76

Op. cit., 154. Op. cit., 170. 78 N. T. WRIGHT, “The Glory Returns: Spirit, Temple and Eschatology in Paul and John,” in this volume 73–86. For Paul, see below. 79 Cf. 2 Macc 14:35: “O Lord of all, though you have need of nothing, you were pleased that there should be a temple for your habitation among us (ηὐδόκησας ναὸν τῆς σῆς σκηνώσεως ἐν ἡµῖν γενέσθαι).” 80 Op. cit., 81. 81 Ibidem. 77

18

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

from the first part of the Gospel, Wright in his contribution adds an important element to our understanding of the Holy Spirit in John. 5.3 Paul In Paul’s letters, we find both the most extensive and the most multifaceted use of the term πνεῦµα and its cognates in the New Testament.82 To organize the rich material, it may be helpful to distinguish between eschatological, Christological, soteriological, ecclesiological and ethical arguments, yet for Paul, the point is that all these arguments belong together and are grounded in his experience of Jesus Christ as God’s messiah for Israel and for the believers from the Gentiles.83 From a tradition-historical point of view, everything Paul writes about the Holy Spirit is related to the biblical understanding of God’s creative power as testified by the Old Testament writings and by their reception and interpretation in early Judaism. On the other hand, Paul is writing in Greek, and he is ‘thinking’, in a way, like a Greek-speaking, educated Jew from the Hellenistic-Roman period. Therefore, when he uses the category of ‘spirit/s’, he must at least be aware that there are, besides his own Jewish religious tradition, alternative ways of thinking about ‘spirit/s’, including the philosophical tradition of the Greeks,84 or the rich world of religious and ‘magical’ beliefs and practices, or even medical theory and practice.85 However, in addition to these two very different but nonetheless interrelated traditions of thinking and believing, there is a third aspect that for Paul takes the lead when he speaks and writes about the s/Spirit/s in his letters: It is his own, very distinctive, personal experience of the power of the Holy Spirit when God revealed his

82 More than a third of all references for the noun πνεῦµα are from the Corpus Paulinum. For an overview, see J. KREMER, “πνεῦµα κτλ.,” EWNT 3: 279–293, and, still very valuable, E. SCHWEIZER, “πνεῦµα κτλ.,” ThWNT 6: 394–453 (for Paul: 413–436). 83 For a comprehensive exegetical treatment of the evidence in Paul see G. D. FEE, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, 1994). For thorough monographs on the Spirit in Paul see V. RABENS, The Holy Spirit an Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (WUNT II.283; Tübingen, 2nd ed. 2013); F. W. HORN, Das Angeld des Geistes. Studien zur paulinischen Pneumatologie (FRLANT 154; Göttingen, 1992). For an overview on more recent research, see RABENS, op. cit., 253–306. 84 Cf. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Cosmology and the Self (n. 23). 85 Cf. T. W. MARTIN, “Paul’s Pneumatological Statements and Ancient Medical Texts,” in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune (NT.S 122; ed. J. Fotopoulos; Leiden, 2006), 105–126. For a critical discussion of Martin, cf. the contribution by RABENS, in this volume 187–220.

Introduction

19

Son to him to proclaim among the Gentiles the gospel about Jesus Christ crucified and risen from the dead (Gal 1:16).86 As can be derived from those passages where Paul looks back to the beginnings of his churches founded by his proclamation of the gospel, what had been going on then was “not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction” (1Thess 1:5). His first believers in Thessaloniki, as he writes, “became imitators of us and of the Lord, for in spite of persecution you received the word with joy inspired by the Holy Spirit” (1:6). In a similar way, but this time in a very polemical tone, he reminds his churches in Galatia of the beginnings of their belief: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard? Are you so foolish? Having started with the Spirit, are you now ending with the flesh? … Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard? (Gal 3:2–5)

To the believers in Corinth, who are proud of ‘having’ spirit and wisdom, Paul writes: When I came to you … my speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God. (1 Cor 2:1–4)

And in the letter to the Philippians, where he again is very polemical in tone in order to defend his gospel, Paul reminds his audience of the climactic moment of his own life when he regarded “everything as loss because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord” and “because of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord”. Since then, Paul has been keen “to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death, if somehow I may attain the resurrection from the dead” (Phil 3:7–10).87 Many of the terms and conceptions Paul is using here are related to biblical and early Jewish eschatological expectations to which also belonged the expectation that God will pour out his spirit on all flesh at that time.88 Therefore, it is no surprise that Paul, in an ironic turn, in the face of his opponents in Philippi, claims: “For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus.” (Phil 3:3) After all, experience of the Spirit in Paul’s churches, received as God’s eschatological donation and based on his proclamation of the gospel of Christ crucified, marks the starting point for Paul’s understanding of the Holy Spirit. 86

Cf. J. D. G. DUNN, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh, 1998), 177–181, 260–264. 87 Cf. K.-W. NIEBUHR, Heidenapostel aus Israel. Die jüdische Identität des Paulus nach ihrer Darstellung in seinen Briefen (WUNT 62; Tübingen, 1992), 74–76, 79–111. 88 Cf. Joel 3:1–5; Isa 42:1; 44:3–5; Ezek 36:26–27; 37:1–14.

20

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

Everything that he thinks and writes about the Holy Spirit is grounded in this experience, which he, as the founding apostle, shares with his churches. Therefore, if we ask about the Holy Spirit and the church in Paul, we cannot separate his references to outwardly visible ‘charismatic’ powers in his churches89 from his statements about the Spirit who is ‘in’ the believers.90 We should not set in opposition the views that, on the one hand, baptism and reception of the Spirit belong together,91 from the observation, on the other hand, that Paul never mentions baptism when he speaks about his initial proclamation of the gospel and about the experience of the power of God’s spirit connected to these events.92 Likewise, we should not play off Paul’s conviction about Christ as God’s Son sent into the world when the fullness of time had come and born of a woman under the law (Gal 4:4), against his view (perhaps quoted from a confessional formula known to his addressees) that Jesus “was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead” (Rom 1:4). The two contributions devoted to the Holy Spirit in Paul in the present volume approach their topic in different ways. John Fotopoulos starts with reflections on the presence (or rather, non-presence) of the Holy Spirit in modern Orthodox and ‘non-Orthodox’ theology and church life.93 Then he goes on to analyze all references to the Spirit in Paul’s (undisputed) letters. He distinguishes between “the Holy Spirit as gift to the believer; the Holy Spirit as dwelling/living in the believer; the Holy Spirit engaged in action in the believer; and finally the Holy Spirit as personal God (and thus a person of the Holy Trinity)”.94 In the end, he collects every hint in Paul’s letters that the Spirit can be seen as personal or as a person. “For Paul, the Spirit is not a mechanical force or divine laser beam of sorts. Rather, for Paul, the Spirit is God’s very self, one divine person within the Triune God.”95 Nevertheless, according to Fotopoulos, all four themes dealt with in his contribution “reflect an Orthodox Christian perspective on Paul and the Spirit”.96 In a more systematic way, Volker Rabens in his article97 focuses “on one of the more debated aspects of the vitalizing and community-building effect of 89 Cf. 1 Cor 12:1–13; 14:1–25; 2 Cor 11:4; 12:18; Gal 3:1–5; 5:16–26; Phil 1:27; 1 Thess 1:5–6. 90 Cf. Rom 5:5; 8:9, 11; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:17; 2 Cor 1:22; Gal 4:6; Phil 2:1; 3:3. 91 Cf. 1 Cor 12:13. 92 See references given above. 93 J. FOTOPOULOS, “The Holy Spirit and the Church in Paul from an Orthodox Perspective,” in this volume 173–186. 94 Op. cit., 176. 95 Op. cit., 183. 96 Op. cit., 186. 97 V. RABENS, “The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul: A ‘Western Perspective’,” in this volume 187–220.

Introduction

21

the Spirit in Paul’s communities” – namely, on “the transforming work of the Spirit from the perspective of deification or theosis”.98 By focusing on theosis/deification, he chooses a topic of particular importance in the tradition of Orthodox theology. But in more recent times, this topic has found growing interest also in Western exegesis. Building on his monograph on the Holy Spirit and ethics in Paul99 and after discussing several terminological problems, his main objective is to clarify how, exactly, the transforming work of the Spirit in the human being has to be understood based on the writings of Paul. In a critical discussion of recent approaches that emphasize the Stoic background of Paul’s view on the Spirit, Rabens argues “that the activity of the Spirit in the context of deification in Paul is better understood from a relational perspective”.100 This means that “the Spirit effects religious-ethical life predominantly by means of intimate relationships created by the Spirit with God”.101 With regard to the ‘personal’ character of the Holy Spirit, he concludes “that a sensible way of conceptualizing the Holy Spirit in Paul is to speak of the Spirit as having ‘personal traits’”.102 Finally, as a test case for the transforming work of the Spirit in Paul, Rabens analyzes 2 Cor 3:18. He points out that the “the ‘concept’ of Spirit-worked transformation into the image of Christ … in 2 Corinthians 3:18 … appears to focus on the aspect of moral transformation”.103 Therefore, it is precarious to comprehend human deification by the Spirit in Paul in the sense of (total) qualitative identity with God or in the sense of essential deification. It seems more appropriate to speak of deification in the sense of an attributive or partial qualitative identity: believers become more like God as they are transformed by the Spirit in God’s intimate presence in the context of the body of Christ.104

In addition to these ‘twin papers’ on Paul, N. T. Wright in his contribution also dealt with the Holy Spirit in Paul.105 Referring to his recent book on Paul,106 he brings into consideration the early Jewish expectation of God’s return to his people at the end of time. This hope could be developed as part of a temple-theology based on the exodus tradition.107 The point Wright 98

Op. cit., 188. RABENS, The Holy Spirit and Ethics (n. 83); cf. Idem, “Power from In Between: The Relational Experience of the Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in Paul’s Churches,” in, The Spirit and Christ (n. 21), 138–155; “Begeisternde Spiritualität. Geisterfahrungen im Leben der paulinischen Gemeinden,” GlLern 26 (2011), 133–147. 100 RABENS, “The Holy Spirit and Deification,” 200. (n. 97) 101 Ibidem. 102 Op. cit., 206. 103 Op. cit., 218. 104 Op. cit., 219. 105 N. T. WRIGHT, “The Glory Returns,” 77–81 (n. 78). 106 N. T. WRIGHT, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London/Minneapolis, 2013). 107 Cf. Exod 40:34–38; 1 Kgs 8; Ezek 43:2, 4–5. 99

22

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

wants to make “is that this hope, of the return of YHWH to Zion, shaped the earliest Christian beliefs about both Jesus and the Spirit, and that we can see this clearly in Paul and John”.108 Therefore, he can speak of “an Exodusbased soteriology and a temple-based ecclesiology” in Paul (as in John, too). It was at the Exodus that the glorious divine presence led the people through the wilderness and came to dwell in the tabernacle. In both cases, the early Christians give to the Spirit the role which in the Jewish narratives and symbols is played by YHWH himself. One cannot have a higher Pneumatology than this, nor a stronger basis for understanding what the church really is.109

For a complete overview of the Holy Spirit and the church in New Testament scholarship,110 the evidence in the Catholic Epistles, the Letter to the Hebrews, and the book of Revelation would also have to be taken into account.111 This cannot be done in this context. Nevertheless, the selection of texts and topics discussed in the volume at hand may be regarded as an entry into the rich and multifaceted world of reflection about the power of the Holy Spirit as experienced in the early Christian communities.

6. Reception History In the development of ancient Christianity, the reception and experience of the Holy Spirit in the church formed a significant ingredient of church life. Probably, we have to suppose much more of such experiences in ancient churches than we find expressed in our written sources from early Christianity. Obviously, debates about the Holy Spirit were formative also for ancient Christian theology.112 From the early Middle Ages, the controversy about the 108

WRIGHT, “The Glory Returns,” 75 (n. 78). Op. cit., 77. 110 Cf. for a theologically reflective survey F. HAHN, Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Bd. II: Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments. Thematische Darstellung (Tübingen, 2002), 262–288. 111 I can only refer here to the contributions in BURKE/WARRINGTON, A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit (n. 21) on 1 and 2 Peter by V. SCHAFROTH, op. cit., 238–249, on Hebrews by A. HODSON, op. cit., 226–237, and on the Johannine Epistles and Revelation by J. C. THOMAS, op. cit., 250–256; for Hebrews, see also most recently S. MOTYER, “The Spirit in Hebrews: No Longer Forgotten?,” in The Spirit and Christ (n. 21), 213–227; for Revelation, see J. C. THOMAS, “New Jerusalem and the Conversion of the Nations: An Exercise in Pneumatic Discernment (Rev. 21:1–22:5),” op. cit., 228–245. 112 It is not the function of this introduction to give full bibliography. However, good points of entry into several areas of contemporary discussions include the following: W. D. HAUSCHILD, V. H. DRECOLL, eds., Pneumatologie in der Alten Kirche (Bern, 2004; collection of texts); G. WENZ, Geist. Zum pneumatologischen Prozess altkirchlicher Lehrentwicklung (Studium systematische Theologie 6; Göttingen, 2011); A. BRIGGMAN, Ire109

Introduction

23

filioque, as part of the Nicene Creed’s confession of belief regarding the Holy Spirit, became significant for the protracted process of separation between the Eastern and the Western church.113 Only a very small selection of topics from the rich and broad areas of research on the Holy Spirit in ancient Christianity could be dealt with during the symposium, and not all of the papers devoted to this topic could be included in the volume at hand. Nevertheless, scholarly contributions about the Holy Spirit and the church in Late Antiquity and in the Byzantine period formed an integral part of the symposium, and it was a deliberate decision not to limit the scope of our conference to canonical texts of the New Testament. Katharina Bracht, in her contribution on Augustine and his predecessors,114 takes her point of departure from the controversy about the filioque. However, in the analysis that follows, she focuses on the use and understanding of NT texts by patristic authors, with a special focus on Augustine, who was formative for Western theology overall, but also on earlier Fathers who wrote on the Holy Spirit and its origin. In a second step, Bracht looks for developments in ancient discourses on the Holy Spirit that precede Augustine, again by analysing their use of NT texts (Tertullian, Origen, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianzus). From a methodological point of view, she demonstrates how Augustine and other ancient Christian theologians used quotations or allusions to biblical texts, but also rather free biblical collocations and phrases, to express their own understanding of the Holy Spirit. Although not focusing on only one or two basic reference texts in the Bible in the quest for the origin of the Holy Spirit, passages from John and Paul played a significant role, in particular the combination of John’s sayings about the Paraclete in the Farewell Discourse with what Paul wrote in Gal 4:6. This combination of different passages from Scripture seems to be typical of the church fathers in their use of the Bible, as Bracht concludes: Firstly, one can recognize that the quotation or composite quote – often identified through a citation formula – served as a form of interpretation or scriptural evidence. Secondly, biblical phrases, intertextual references, and extensive cluster formations were used in a new text. In patristic times, the philosophical-theological struggle about the notion of the naeus of Lyons and the Theology of the Holy Spirit (Oxford, 2012); C. A. BEELEY, Gregory of Nazianz on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God: In Your Light We Shall See Light (Oxford, 2008); F. DÜNZL, Pneuma. Funktionen des theologischen Begriffs in frühchristlicher Literatur (JAC.E 30; Münster, 2000). 113 For more recent scholarly research about the filioque, cf. A. E. SIECIENSKI, The Filioque: History of a Controversy (Oxford, 2010); P. GEMEINHARDT, Die FilioqueKontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Frühmittelalter (AKG 82; Berlin/New York, 2002); B. OBERDORFER, Filioque. Geschichte und Theologie eines ökumenischen Problems (FSÖTh 96; Göttingen, 2001). 114 K. BRACHT, “Augustine and His Predecessors Interpreting the New Testament on the Origin of the Holy Spirit. The Question of filioque,” in this volume 231–250.

24

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

Holy Spirit and his position in the trinitarian unity is invariably carried out in the exegesis of the biblical tradition and in its legitimation.115

The Orthodox perspective has been expressed in the contribution by Demetrios Bathrellos.116 He focuses on one single author from the late Byzantine period, St. Symeon of Thessalonica († 1429). However, like Bracht, Bathrellos also first sketches the major points of disagreement between the Latin and the Greek Church about the origin and the role of the Holy Spirit. In the main part of his paper, then, Professor Bathrellos investigates biblical quotations Symeon used in order to support his theology of the Holy Spirit, thereby demonstrating “how the New Testament shapes his Pneumatology and, vice versa, how his Pneumatology shapes the way in which he approaches and interprets the New Testament”.117 Interestingly enough, Symeon in his use of Scripture also focused on Paul and John, sometimes drawing on exactly the same reference texts as Augustine (John 15:26 and Gal 4:6 in particular), but with different theological results. Obviously, for Symeon’s arguments, not only verbal quotations from John or Paul are determinative, but his theological and hermeneutical convictions as well, such as the distinctions in Byzantine theology between God’s essence and his energies or between theology and economy. Consistent with the use of Scripture by Symeon, Bathrellos refers to the hermeneutical circle applied by Patristic theologians: “The Church follows the teaching of the New Testament, which, however, is understood on the basis of the life, the liturgy, and the doctrine of the Church.”118 Different traditions of interpretation of Scripture in the Eastern and Western churches are also discussed in the contribution by Harald Buchinger on the Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy.119 He focuses his investigation on the Eucharistic prayers as an exemplary case, asking first how the Spirit is addressed in the earliest available evidence …, then briefly reviewing the epicleseis of some developed rites, before discussing the problematic case of the Roman liturgy in the light of other evidence.120

Finally, Buchinger critically evaluates the more recent renewal of the Eucharistic prayer in Western churches in the light of historical and ecumenical research.

115

Op. cit., 250. D. BATHRELLOS, “The Holy Spirit and the New Testament in St. Symeon of Thessalonica († 1429),” in this volume 221–230. 117 Op. cit., 223. 118 Op. cit., 230. 119 H. BUCHINGER, “The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy. A “Western Perspective”,” in this volume 251–284. 120 Op. cit., 252. 116

Introduction

25

Taras Khomych, in one of the contributions emerging from the seminars, also deals with the epiclesis as part of the eucharistic liturgy by taking into account all references available in and outside of the ‘official’ liturgical traditions of the churches, with a special emphasis on the Acts of Thomas.121 He acts on a suggestion widely accepted in recent research that “traces origins of the epiclesis back to earlier sources, associating the beginnings of these invocations with an Aramaic expression Maranatha”.122 One invocation of the Holy Spirit documented in the Acts of Thomas presumably was part of an early Christian ritual of initiation. “The Spirit is asked to come to/upon the initiates. A very similar invocation, embedded within the context of a Eucharistic celebration, is found somewhat later in the narrative.”123 In the Didache, µαραναθά concludes lengthy eucharistic prayers. It might be interpreted as an invitation to Christ to be present at the Eucharist and thus viewed as the origin of the epiclesis. However, after a critical evaluation of the sources, Khomych concludes that the ritual invocations found in the Acts of Thomas, which most probably stand at the origins of the development of the later epicleses, originated independently from the expression µαραναθά.124

Not every author or group in early Christianity, however, developed their views about the importance of the Holy Spirit in the same way. In another contribution emerging from the seminars, Tobias Nicklas surveys the Ignatian letters for an “implicit or indirect pneumatology”.125 In comparison to Paul, there are rather few references to the Holy Spirit in Ignatius; his own theological thinking is shaped predominantly by a ‘binitarian’ view of God and Jesus Christ. However, if one takes into account what Ignatius has to say about charisms and grace, there is some evidence for a more ‘implicit pneumatology’ or, better to say, “a partly ‘hidden’ pneumatology”.126 But Ignatius’s main intentions are directed to the unity of the church. From Ignatius’s perspective, his communities are not churches without Spirit, as long as they remain in unity with the bishop, the council of presbyters, and the deacons, a unity that also guarantees their unity with ‘their God Christ’ and the Father.127

121 T. KHOMYCH, “From Maranatha to Epiclesis? An Inquiry into the Origins of Spirit Invocations in Early Christianity,” in this volume 427–440. 122 Op. cit., 428. 123 Op. cit., 431. 124 Op. cit., 440. 125 T. NICKLAS, “A Church without Spirit? Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch,” in this volume 405–426. 126 Op. cit., 430. 127 Op. cit., 424.

26

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

7. Conclusion When theologians from the East and from the West meet to exchange their ideas about the Holy Spirit and the church, one may expect to gain fresh insights into one of the most important points of divergence between Eastern and Western theology. I refer to the quarrel about the filioque, which to this day separates the churches in the Orthodox Eastern and in the RomanCatholic and Protestant Western traditions. In fact, this well-known and much-debated theological dispute was also touched on during the symposium in Belgrade, and several of the contributions published in this volume may offer new impulses to continue research on this matter, in particular those which dealt with the reception history of New Testament texts. Nevertheless, if we take our point of departure from the New Testament, it becomes clear very soon that this theological debate originated only later from developments in the church doctrine about the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, but was not yet discussed on this level in the NT texts themselves. On the contrary, we noticed that different positions in this doctrinal conflict often were supported by reference to the same biblical evidence and that the same biblical writings or even quotations were used to establish contrasting theological convictions. This leads us to the important insight that the responsible use and evaluation of biblical writings in doctrinal debates requires more than just looking for the right passages from the Bible to quote. The hermeneutical problem, therefore, remains of key importance for any theologically informed discussion about the Holy Spirit and the church, especially when biblical scholars want to take an active part. Understanding, strengthening, and further developing hermeneutics in their own churches and theological traditions, respectively, should be of particular importance for any common undertaking of biblical scholars from the East and from the West. With regard to this hermeneutical task and challenge, we should, perhaps, reflect more thoroughly on a dimension of theological interpretation of the Bible that has been touched upon only in passing in our symposium and in the contributions to this volume: the church doctrine of the inspiration of Holy Scripture. This doctrine can be traced back already to the New Testament itself, where the Apostle Paul writes to Timothy, his “beloved child”, and calls him to “guard the good treasure entrusted to you, with the help of the Holy Spirit living in us” (2 Tim 1:14). Later in his letter, the Apostle continues his admonition by referring Timothy to the Scriptures: But as for you, continue in what you have learned and firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it, and how from childhood you have known the sacred writings that are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteous-

Introduction

27

ness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work.128

Interpreted in a hermeneutically reflective way, such a challenging and provocative exhortation for any ‘modern’ way of interpreting the biblical texts may deserve more attention than it generally receives today. For a contemporary understanding of the Bible in our churches, not only historical and literary methods of interpretation are worthwhile, but also an attitude to the biblical texts that regards them as an expression of the voice and the will of God to be listened to and to be understood by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Notwithstanding any historically reasonable distinctions between the Pastoral Epistles on the one hand and the uncontested Pauline letters on the other, from a theological perspective it may be fruitful to take into consideration here also what Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians about God’s will and the holiness of the church. When he admonishes the church in Thessalonica to seek for instructions from the Lord Jesus Christ to organize their lives in holiness according to the will of God, he justifies this by reference to God and to the Holy Spirit as the ‘teacher’ of the church: For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness. Therefore whoever rejects this rejects not human authority but God, who also gives his Holy Spirit to you. Now concerning love of the brothers and sisters, you do not need to have anyone write to you, for you yourselves have been taught by God to love one another.129

Another aspect of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament was dealt with more thoroughly: the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ. Even though the later developments in church doctrine about Christology and Trinitarian dogma are not yet present in the NT writings terminologically, there are many texts in the New Testament that, either by their narrative design or even by their theological argument, point to the intrinsic connection between the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ or God, respectively. Moreover, from the perspective of theological interpretation, one may judge that the Holy Spirit in the New Testament can only be understood appropriately if he is related to and bound to the one and only God in his dealing with the world and with all humankind in Jesus Christ. This inseparable relationship of the one and only God to Jesus Christ, his earthly ministry, his death, and his resurrection, bound together by the power of the Holy Spirit, may be regarded as an identifying marker of any Christian theology whose fundamentals are rooted in the New Testament.

128

2 Tim 3:14–17. Cf. 1 Thess 4:1–12 (quotation vv. 7–9). One may also note here the reference to God, to Jesus Christ, and to the Holy Spirit, which are inseparably connected in Paul’s admonition. 129

28

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr

The New Testament writings offer abundant evidence for the conviction of the first Christians that the Holy Spirit was a lively reality experienced in the churches right from the beginning. Considered more closely, the evidence demonstrates that this conviction often was deeply rooted in promises of the Old Testament, alive also in early Judaism, that God at the end of time would pour out his Holy Spirit on his people and on all believers. From there, the reception of the Holy Spirit in the first Christian churches could be interpreted as an eschatological event or even as the presence of the end of time, as ‘realized eschatology’. Hence, from the point of view of Biblical Theology, the New Testament evidence for the Holy Spirit in the church can also be regarded as an important theological link between the Old and the New Testaments, connected by convictions found in early Judaism. In conclusion, there exists a great plurality and diversity of references to the Holy Spirit and the church in the New Testament. It has been a challenge to deal with this diversity at a conference devoted to the theological understanding of the Bible on the basis of the approaches to the New Testament used in modern biblical scholarship. The multifaceted testimony of the New Testament writings must not be hidden or flattened by any attempt to find theological meaning therein. Nonetheless, biblical scholars should not be satisfied with a colourful picture of plurality or with an accidentally structured collection of intriguing fragments. If they take seriously their task – and if they take seriously what the texts of the New Testament want to express – they will also have to listen to the living voice of the one and only God who by the power of his Spirit through the Holy Scripture speaks to his people and calls them to faith in His Son Jesus Christ.

Part One: Biblical Scholarship in Serbia

The Holy Spirit and the Church An Orthodox Perspective Irinej Bulović Opening Address (26 August 2013). Presentation at the Sixth International Symposium of Western and Eastern New Testament Scholars “The Holy Spirit in the New Testament and the Church” (Belgrade, 25–31 August 2013). Your Excellency, Your Graces, reverend Fathers, respected colleagues, dear friends, brothers and sisters. In this festal and joyous moment, after the prayerful invocation of the Holy Spirit, at the beginning of the proceedings of the Sixth International EastWest Symposium of New Testament Scholars, in this city that from its foundation until the present rests between East and West, under the roof of this honourable school of both the Church and the university, a school dedicated to the theology of the Church – which in itself is beyond East and West, yet embraces both East and West – I have the blessing, honour, and pleasure to greet all of you, the participants in this Symposium, as well as our guests here present, in the name of the very reverend Dean, professors, other teachers, and students of our Faculty, as host on this occasion, and to wholeheartedly extend our greeting: Welcome to Serbia and Belgrade! And lastly, but not least, to prayerfully wish all of you successful work and good spiritual fruit with regard to our Symposium. Grace, peace, and illumination be to all of us from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit during the ensuing days and throughout all the days of our lives! Since we are presently in an Orthodox environment, I should also follow these words of greeting and welcome with a few words on the theme, The Holy Spirit and the Church: An Orthodox Perspective.

32

Irinej Bulović

1. The being and life of the Church are inseparably linked to the presence and activity of the Holy Spirit. Ecclesiology is not an autonomous theological discipline, independent of pneumatology, Christology, or Trinitarian theology. And conversely, outside of the life and grace-giving experience of salvation in the Church, one cannot authentically speak about the Holy Spirit, about Christ, or about the Holy Trinity. Ecclesiology represents the space and time of pneumatology and of theology in general: Ubi enim Ecclesia, ibi et Spiritus Dei, et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic Ecclesia et omnis gratia (St. Irenaeus). Christ’s economy of salvation is the birth of the New Testament Church, but its true birthday is Pentecost: “Had the Holy Spirit not descended, the Church would not have been constituted” (St John Chrysostom: Eἰ µὴ Πνεῦµα παρῆν, οὐκ ἂν συνέστη ἡ Ἐκλλησία). The Holy Spirit constitutes the Church and enables the functioning (liturgy) of all the ministries and grace-giving gifts in it; therefore, in the Church, both charisma and institution (θεσµός) are equally the fruit and gift of the Holy Spirit. The Church is the Body of Christ, but only if it really is the Communion of the Holy Spirit, which gives witness to the love of God the Father towards humankind and the world. Christ is the head of the Body of the Church; the Spirit, however, is the living and vivifying Soul of that Body, and these are not metaphors but the living hypostases of the Holy Trinity. The Church – and especially its Eucharist, the holy sacraments, and its whole grace-giving life – is the fountain of the theology on the Holy Spirit, and the biblical texts are аn authentic and God-inspired written expression of the experience that comprises the content of pneumatology and theology in general. As is well known, the long period of atrophy of pneumatology in western theological thought, in significant measure transported into the old school theology of the Orthodox as well, resulted in ecclesiology’s being expounded primarily in the light of Christology and in the Holy Spirit’s not being mentioned in the writings about the Church, or mentioned only in passing. After the renewal of Orthodox theology in the twentieth century, as well as after the Second Vatican Council, this state of affairs is no longer possible. Of course, this does not mean that today we have a complete pneumatological-ecclesiological consensus of the Christian West and East, but the dialogue in relation to the theme of the Holy Spirit in the Church and of the Church in the Holy Spirit is much simpler and less painful than it was previously. For we should be reminded that the divergent developments in pneumatology, perceptible as early as the third century and onwards, produced grave effects not only in Trinitarian theology (the over-emphasized Christocentrism of the western tradition, in some cases almost a Christomonism, as is suggested by the addition of Filioque), but also in

The Holy Spirit and the Church. An Orthodox Perspective

33

ecclesiology, where, speaking in general and simplified terms, we see two parallel currents of development: in the West, the one-sided Christocentric model Christ – Peter – the Bishop of Rome, and in the East, the Christological-Pneumatological model, Christ – Holy Spirit – the Apostles. Perhaps it is not an exaggeration if we say that the theology of the Western Church never fully freed itself from the insufficiencies and temptations of pre-Nicene theology: it did not establish a balanced relation between theology in the strict sense – that is, Trinitarian theology – and economy – that is, divine revelation in history and salvific activity in the Church, eo ipso in the world. Two types of pneumatology may be discerned in the New Testament texts, and they continue to develop in parallel in the theology of the early Church, as Zizioulas and, among us Serbs, Atanasije Jevtić have emphasized. In the first case, the Holy Spirit is experienced through His activity in the Church, insofar as He is theologically contemplated through the prism of economy, from the perspective of theophany and revelation, or history and mission. In the second case, He is also experienced through His presence and activity in the Church, through the prism of the Holy Eucharist, from the liturgical-eschatological perspective. An illustration of the first perspective, for instance, is the ancient, pre-Nicene formula of liturgical doxology (“Glory to the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit”), and an illustration of the second is the doxological formula of St Basil the Great (“Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit” or “Glory to the Father and to the Son with the Holy Spirit”). These two perspectives do not exclude one another, for they mutually inform each other. The second one represents a necessary corrective or correct interpretation of the first one, since there is no possibility here for any kind of subordination or neglect of the Holy Spirit, for He is doxologized as essentially equal with the Father and the Son, as a hypostasis of equal glory and dignity with the first two hypostases of the Holy Trinity. Moreover, in the economy of salvation as well, we find a mutual conditioning of the Son and the Holy Spirit: the Father and the Son issue forth and confer the Spirit (or: the Spirit is issued forth by the Father through the Son; or: by the Son from the Father), but both the Father and Spirit issue forth Christ. The descent of the Spirit upon the Apostles, upon the Church, is preceded by the incarnation of the Logos, by the event of Christ, by the mystery of Christ. Before that, however, the Son of God becomes a human being “from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”, He becomes Messiah/Christos through the anointing of the Holy Spirit, He acts and works miracles by the Holy Spirit, the Father raises Him from the dead by the Holy Spirit, and so on. Therefore, if there is a place for the Filioque as a theologically relevant formulation, then it is to be found only within the economy of salvation and by no means in theology, on the plane of the Eternal, Co-Essential Trinity. Wittily, albeit with a bit of exaggeration, Paul Evdokimov wrote that we can accept the

34

Irinej Bulović

phrase Filioque as legitimate only if, on the plane of economy, we also accept the phrase Spirituque for Christ. The dispute over the addition of the Filioque into the NiceneConstantinopolitan Creed is a pneumatological and ecclesiological one at the same time. On the ecclesiological-canonical level, it can be overcome by excluding the addition from the Creed (which some Western Churches have done already) and by transposing this teaching on the issuing forth of the Spirit “from the Son as well” from the pedestal of ecclesial dogma to the level of theologoumenon (which in fact was the case for centuries). On the Trinitarian-pneumatological level, the dispute can be overcome by accepting the interpretation based on the consistently applied distinction between theology and economy, which does not imply the separation of the two. This distinction, which is found consistently in the Eastern patristic tradition, presupposes an exegetical approach to biblical texts as well, which finds its point of departure in the basic biblical distinction between the Creator and the creation (the uncreated and the created) that is also a distinction between theology and cosmology. For example, St. Athanasius the Great clearly and without ambivalence distinguishes the concepts of begetting and creating – that is, concepts of divine nature and divine will. Furthermore, through the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximus the Confessor, St Gregory Palamas, and others – at the Sixth Ecumenical Council and at the Eastern Councils in the fourteenth century – and down to the Orthodox theologians of our times, this exegetical and Trinitarian-pneumatological tradition develops into the wellknown distinction between divine essence and divine energy (that is, between nature and power) but also between the hypostasis (divine person) and eternal, uncreated grace. In virtue of this distinction, retaining the apophatic approach and prayerful fear before Mystery, the activity of the Spirit as Paraclete in the Church – Who everywhere and always actualizes Christ’s feat of salvation – is interpreted as real communion with God and as deification (as Christization or Spiritization), as the “morning star in our hearts”, which heralds the advent of the Day of the Lord, as His presence in glory “here and now”, in the Eucharistic and liturgical today of the Church. This approach simultaneously avoids the fiction of communion with the Spirit of God through “created grace”, as well as the possibility of communing with the divine hypostases “in essence” (κατ’ οὐσίαν µετουσία). The brief amount of time allocated for this extended introductory address prevents me from venturing into the numerous themes that fall under the general framework of the theme, the Holy Spirit and the Church. I shall mention only the theme of the activity of the Holy Spirit in the “pre-Church” (Προεκκλησία) of the Old Testament era and of His activity in our own New Testament time, “the time of the Holy Spirit”, outside of the visible or canonical borders of the Church, as well as the cosmic dimension of His presence and action. In any case, “the Spirit

The Holy Spirit and the Church. An Orthodox Perspective

35

blows where it wills”. Today not even the most conservative among Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians venture to interpret the saying Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus by positing limits and conditions on the love of God and the power of the Spirit of God. In the light of the history of salvation, the Church is to be viewed as a lasting Pentecost. From the eschatological perspective, the Church is the Kingdom of God that is to come and already is coming “with power” (Мark 9:1; Luke 17:21; Мatt 26:29; Col 1:13). It is no coincidence that in certain instances, instead of using the supplication “Let Your Kingdom come” from the Lord's Prayer, the ancient Christians offered an alternative supplication, “Let Your Holy Spirit come!” It is my prayerful wish that the theological reflections and messages from this Symposium also become transformed into that supplication. In every age, the “Spirit speaks to the Churches” (Rev 2:7). He also speaks to us, gathered here. If we acquire the Spirit of wisdom and the Spirit of knowledge – that is, the charisma of God-knowing, of the only and true theology – we shall be listening to His voice when it is like “the sound of many waters” (Rev 19:6) and when it is quiet, even when it is inaudible. To listen and to witness – in the Spirit, in the Church of Christ.

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia Vladan Tatalović

1. Introduction The eminent German Slavist and Byzantinist Gerhard Podskalsky (1937– 2013) wrote prolifically about where and how the Bible was translated, read, and understood among the South Slavs, as well as about the theological sources and climate of medieval Serbia. In the preface to his principle work about the theological literature of the Middle Ages in Bulgaria and Serbia,1 1

G. PODSKALSKY, Theologische Literatur des Mittelalters in Bulgarien und Serbien (865–1459) (München, 2000; Ser. ed. Belgrade, 2010). As is clear from the title of this extensive study, it encompasses the medieval era, which is commonly divided into three crucial periods: 1) The first commenced in the middle of the ninth century with the Christianization of the Slavs through the missionary work of equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril (869) and Methodius (885), which was primarily based on the translation of selected liturgical and biblical texts into the Slavonic language using the newly standardized glagoljica (Glagolitic) alphabet. This first period gave birth to entire generations of disciples who would later on play particularly important roles, like Naum (910) and Clement (916), and who are also to be appreciated for the regeneration of an ecclesiastical entity called the Archbishopric of Ochrid, with one of its later archbishops, Theophylact (1126), being the most translated exegete among the Slavs. 2) Then, there is a period when medieval Serbia was gaining power and independence, starting from the second half of the twelfth century on, which is altogether inseparable from the granting of autocephaly to the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1219 – that is, it became independent from the Ochrid Archbishopric. In this period, two key figures spurred the flourishing of the Serbian national and spiritual identity: Stefan Nemanja (1199), later monk Symeon, the founder of the ruling Nemanjić dynasty, and his youngest son Sava (1236), the first Archbishop of the Serbian Church. 3) Finally, there is a period that started with the Battles of Maritsa (1371) and Kosovo (1389), and the subsequent fall of a vast Serbian empire at the end of the fourteenth century, to end with the weakened Serbian Despotate being conquered by the Ottomans in 1459. For more on the rise and development of Serbian theological literature in the medieval era, see: H. G. BECK, Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich (München, 1959; 2nd ed. 1977); I. DUĬCHEV and S. NIKOLOV, Kiril and Methodius: Founders of Slavonic Writing. A Collection of Sources and Critical Studies (New York, 1985); F. DVORNIK, Byzantine Missions among the Slavs (New Brunswick, 1970); F. GRIVEC, Konstantin und Meth-

38

Vladan Tatalović

Podskalsky maintained that knowledge of medieval sources and the ways in which they were transmitted has a decisive significance for understanding modern Orthodox Christianity that goes far beyond appreciating the standpoints of contemporary intellectuals (many Orthodox among them), who occasionally cannot refrain from polemics and bias.2 Although we share Podskalsky’s conviction about the broader significance of the medieval sources of Serbian thought and culture, we nevertheless observe that in the West there have been no detailed studies of the tendencies in modern Serbian theology, although information of this kind surely would be of utmost importance for the following discussion, which is dedicated to the narrow topic of modern biblical studies up to the present moment. Therefore, remarks about the broader contexts are crucial, for we must examine those historical roots and wellsprings of theological literature in modern Serbian society. Without such a foundation, an evaluation of the scientific output by individual scholars in a specific field of inquiry is not actually possible. So, we will turn our attention first to the tendencies in theological education and consequently to the foundation and development of theological schools in Serbia, wherefrom we will shift our focus to the founding of the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Belgrade [FOTB] (1920) – that is, to its Biblical Theology Department, which is expected to be a “queen bee” of Serbian biblical scholarship.

od. Lehrer der Slawen (Wiesbaden, 1960); J. MATL, “Der heilige Sawa als Begründer der serbischen Nationalkirche. Seine Leistung und Bedeutung für den Kulturaufbau Europas,” in J. MATL, Südslawische Studien (SOA 63; München, 1965), 32–44; H. MIKLAS, “Kyrillomethodianisches und nachkyrillomethodianisches Erbe im ersten ostslavischen Einfluß auf die südslavische Literatur,” in Symposium Methodianum. Beiträge der Internationalen Tagung in Regensburg (17. bis 24. April 1985) zum Gedenken an den 1100. Todestag des heiligen Method (eds. K. Trost, E. Völkl, and E. Wedel; Selecta slavica 13; Neuried, 1988), 437–472; D. OBOLENSKY, Six Byzantine Portraits (Oxford, 1988), 34–82, 115–172; C. K. Papastathès, Τὸ νοµοθετιϰὸν ἔργον τῆς ϰυριλλοµεθοδιανῆς ἱεραποστολῆς ἐν µεγάλῃ Μοραβίᾳ (Thessalonike, 1978); P. J. SCHAFFARIK, “Übersicht der vorzüglichsten schriftlichen Denkmäler älterer Zeit bei den Serben und anderen Südslawen,” JL 53 (1831), 1–58; K.–D. Seemann, ed., Gattungen und Genologie der slavisch–orthodoxen Literaturen des Mittelalters. Dritte Berliner Fachtagung 1988 (VOEI 73; Wiesbaden, 1992). 2 One of the most contentious issues in contemporary Orthodox thought concerns not the challenges of biblical exegesis but those of liturgical renewal; however, the noise of these polemics remains inversely proportional to the scholarly use of sources, as may be seen from the following study: N. GLIBETIĆ, “Liturgical Renewal Movement in Contemporary Serbia,” in Inquiries into Eastern Christian Worship. Selected Papers of the Second International Congress of the Society of Oriental Liturgy, Rome, 17–21 September 2008 (JECS 12; ed. B. Groen, S. Hawkes–Teeples, and S. Alexopoulos; Leuven, 2012), 393– 414.

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

39

2. Analyzing the Context: Serbian Theological Education before the Opening of the FOTB Nowadays, it is widely known that the European educational system stemmed historically from Christianization, as shown by the fact that many WestEuropean colleges had their forerunners in monastic schools.3 In this regard, Serbia did not fall behind the most developed European nations: figures such as Cyril and Methodius, Clement, Naum, and Theophylact, and especially the first Archbishop Sava, have always been regarded as the enlighteners of nations,4 while the monasteries of Ochrid, Studenica, Žiča, Peć, and Chilandar on Mount Athos5 may be counted worthy of belonging to the Eastern and 3 Among the many reference monographs that deal with the rise and development of the medieval universities, see especially the following: A. B. COBBAN, The Medieval Universities: Their Development and Organization (London, 1975); H. DENIFLE, Die Entstehung der Universitäten des Mittelalters bis 1400 (Berlin, 1885; repr. Graz, 1956); W. RÜEGG, Geschichte der Universität in Europa. Band 1: Mittelalter (München, 1993); J. VERGER, Les universités au Moyen Age (Paris, 1973; new ed. 2013). Also noteworthy is the renowned work of Serbian bishop (of Banat), who was one of the first professors (of canon law) at the FOTB, Vikentije Vujić (1874–1939), “Европски универзитети од постанка им до хуманистичких покрета” (“European Universities from their Emergence until the Humanistic Movements”), Богословски гласник (Theological Herald) 21 (1912), 26–31, 145–152, 236–246, 344–353, 425–443. With the recently published study, B. ŠIJAKOVIĆ and A. RAKOVIĆ, Универзитет и српска теологија. Историјски и просветни контекст оснивања Православног богословског факултета у Београду (University and Serbian Theology: Historical and Educational Context of the Establishment of the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Belgrade) (Belgrade, 2010), the FOTB shows a pressing need to [re]think its existence in the context of the emergence, evolution, and contemporary situation of European universities (see esp. 9–33). 4 Synodic of [Bulgarian] Tsar Boril (1207–1218), most probably written in 1211, mentions Cyril the Philosopher as “the leader of the Slavic apostles and the enlightener of Bulgarian nation”: M. G. POPRUŽENKO, Sinodik carâ Borila (Synodic of Tsar Boril) (Sofia, 1928), 77. At about the same time (1242/1243), an Athonite (Chilandarian) monk Domentian (1264), who stands as a major figure in medieval Serbian literature, wrote the first biographies of Archbishop Sava and his father Nemanja (St. Simeon the Myrrh– streaming), frequently calling both of them “the enlighteners of the homeland”: R. MARINKOVIĆ, Доментијан. Живот св. Саве и Живот св. Симеона (Domentian. Life of St. Sava and Life of St. Symeon) (Belgrade, 1988), passim; in addition to this title, see: A. SCHMAUSS, “Die literaturhistorische Problematik von Domentijans Sava–Vita,” in Vorträge auf dem V. Internationalen Slawistenkongress, Sofia, 1963 (Opera Slavica 4; eds. M. Braun and E. Koschmieder; Göttingen, 1963), 121–142. Also take into account the following: S. HAFNER, Stefan Nemanja nach den Viten des hl. Sava und Stefans des Erstgekrönten (vol. 1 of Serbisches Mittelalter: Altserbische Herrscherbiographien; Graz/Vienna/Cologne, 1962). 5 See D. BOGDANOVIĆ et al., Chilandar: On the Holy Mountain (Belgrade, 1978); M. ĐURASINOVIĆ et al., Medieval Monasteries and Churches in Serbia (Belgrade, 2006); S. MILEUSNIĆ, The Medieval Monasteries of Serbia (Novi Sad, 1995; 4th ed. 1998).

40

Vladan Tatalović

Western medieval tradition of monasteries as the chief, if not sole, centers of literacy and education.6 However, under these circumstances, larger monasteries in the West began, in addition to monastic education (schola interna), to develop alternative paths of education in secular services (schola externa), whereas in the East, in Byzantium and Serbia, it was rare to find a monastic school not closely related to taking monastic vows.7 Subsequently, in the East, people were educated mainly in diocesan and parish theological schools,8 and attending monastic schools did not become customary before 6 Since Vita S. Joannis Calybitae shows that only one book (the New Testament) should be considered both the spiritual and material property of a Byzantine monk (PG 114:569), it is also assumed that biblical books played a major role in the Serbian medieval school system, which was placed almost entirely within the monastery walls after the arrival of the Ottomans in the mid–fifteenth century. An extensive list of all available editions of medieval Slavic translations of the biblical books is to be found in PODSKALSKY (Literatur, 144–152 [n. 1]). Regarding biblical interpretation among the medieval Slavs, Podskalsky draws his conclusions by starting his review with the genre of homilies and noticing that, compared to Kievan Russia, exegesis emerged as a new literary genre, though not a dominant one (Literatur, 169–170 [n. 1]). In fact, except for John the Exarch (ca. 930), hardly any layman independently dealt with professional exegesis in Bulgaria and Serbia, and if anyone did, it was in a random and discontinuous manner; Theophylact of Ochrid, after all, was an archbishop, not a layman (Literatur, 227–236 [n. 1]). Finally, we should also mention the work of a renowned Serbian historian, a professor at FOTB, Radoslav Grujić (1878–1955): “Школе и манастири у средњевековној Србији” (“The Schools and the Monasteries in Medieval Serbia”), Гласник Скопског научнoг друштва (Herald of Skopje's Scientific Society) 3 (1928), 43–50. 7 Although it may be further discussed whether the cause of this difference lies in the fact that the Church in the West consciously overtook the role of cultural savior during the chaotic Middle Ages, or whether it may be explained by the fact that the Eastern Orthodox monks, always being regarded as “τὰ νεῦρα καὶ ἐδραιώµατα τῆς Ἐκκλησίας” (Theodore the Studite, Sermo 114; PG 99:657), were less interested in secular or theological education than in maintaining the true Christian faith, it will suffice here simply to acknowledge, as Podskalsky also does in his other representative work, Theologie und Philosophie in Byzanz. Der Streit um die theologische Methodik in der spätbyzantinischen Geistesgeschichte (14.–15. Jh.), seine systematischen Grundlagen und seine historische Entwicklung (BA 15; München, 1977; Ser. ed. Belgrade, 2010), 34–48, that the reorganization of monastic life in the medieval East, unlike the reformation of contemplative orders at about the same time in the West, did not take fields of study into account (see: n. 124, p. 37). 8 See PODSKALSKY, Theologie, 48–64 (n. 7); in Serbia: S. ĆIRKOVIĆ, “Pismenost i obrаzovаnje u srednjovekovnoj Srbiji” (“Literacy and Education in Medieval Serbia”), in Istorijа školа i obrаzovаnjа kod Srbа (History of Schools and Education of the Serbs) (ed. E. Hasanagić; Belgrade, 1974), 9–30; Č. S. DRAŠKOVIĆ, “Die kirchliche Ausbildung der Serben zur Zeit der Nemanjićen,” OS 8 (1959), 230–239; J. P. ILIĆ, “Српске школе у доба Немањића” (“Serbian Schools in the Time of Nemanjići”), Гласник Српске Правослaвне Цркве (Herald of the Serbian Orthodox Church) 27 (1946), 175–181; A. VESELINOVIĆ, “Образовање у средњевековној Србији” (“Education in the Medieval

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

41

the period of Ottoman rule9 – though now with a completely different foundation and results dissimilar to those in the West.10 On the eve of the fourteenth and at the dawn of the fifteenth century, Serbian culture was on the rise, but this potential hive of humanistic and Renaissance ideas, ready to turn its primary educational centers into more acclaimed institutions, was violently and abruptly interrupted. Moreover, since it was afterwards systematically sabotaged and even destroyed, it is quite understandable that it had to wait for a new set of circumstances, so as to reappear like a subterranean river.11 This became possible at the beginning of the eighteenth century. A conjunction of rather intricate and, for Serbians, very unpleasant historical circumstances resulted in massive migrations to the areas north of the Sava and Danube, then under Habsburg rule and today within Serbia.12 As soon as the first compact cells of Serbian society grew on the soil of this organized Christian empire, ambitions to establish a modern Serbian school system naturally Serbia”), in Образовање код Срба кроз векове (Education of the Serbs through the Centuries) (eds. R. Petković, P. V. Krestić, and T. Živković; Istorijski institut [Historical Institute] 21; Belgrade, 2003), 9–19; M. VUKIČEVIĆ, Школе и ширење писмености у држави Немањића (The Schools and the Spread of Literacy in the State of Nemanjići), Годишњица Николе Чупића (Anniversary of Nikola Čupić) 18 (1898), 191–232. 9 For more on medieval Serbian education under Ottoman rule, see: J. PARLIĆBOŽOVIĆ, “Образовање Срба у време турске власти” (“The Education of Serbs During Turkish Rule”), Зборник радова Филозофског факултета у Приштини (Proceedings of the Faculty of Philosophy in Priština) 41 (2011), 555–568; R. SAMARDŽIĆ, “Општи услови српске образованости под Турцима” (“General Conditions of Serbian Education under the Turks”), in History of Schools and Education of the Serbs (n. 8), 31–36. 10 It was a monk (named Sava) from Dečani Monastery (Kosovo), who composed the first Serbian alphabet book at the end of the sixteenth century, having printed it in Venice. See: Prvi srpski bukvar Inoka Save: Venecija 1597 (The First Serbian Alphabet Book of Monk Sava: Venice 1597) (ed. M. Blečić; Belgrade, 2009; 2nd ed. 2010). 11 ŠIJAKOVIĆ and RAKOVIĆ, University and Serbian Theology, 26 (n. 3). 12 Let us explain these circumstances in the shortest possible way: After the failure of the Turks’ thrust into central Europe (1683), when more Southern Slavs than ever before partook in the war against the occupiers, the Sultan’s armies and landholders had to withdraw southward; but shortly after this defeat, they put down the rebellion and pushed back the Austrians together with the Serbian combatants. Escaping a furious revenge, the Serbian people migrated northward in great numbers, across the rivers Sava and Danube (1690), being led by their Patriarch Arsenije III (1633–1706), to seek shelter under the auspices of the Habsburg Empire. See: C. JELAVICH, “Some Aspects of Serbian Religious Development in the Eighteenth Century,” ChH 23 (1954), 144–152; Патријарх српски Арсеније III Чарнојевић и велика сеоба Срба 1690. године (Serbian Patriarch Arsenije III Čarnojević and the Great Migration of Serbs in 1690) (ed. S. Vuković; Belgrade, 1997); D. POPOVIĆ, Velika seoba Srba 1690. Srbi seljaci i plemići (The Great Migration of Serbs, 1690: The Serbian Peasentry and Nobility) (Belgrade, 1954); H. SCHRECKEIS, “Die Grosse Wanderung der Serben ab 1690,” Donauschwäbische Forschungs- und Lehrerblätter 39 (1993), 12–17; M. SVIRČEVIĆ, “Migrations and Patriarchate in 18th Century Serbia,” Yugoslav law 31 (2004), 63–80.

42

Vladan Tatalović

appeared. In this endeavor, the following towns gained in importance: Karlowitz or Sremski Karlovci, the center of a newly-formed Serbian Metropolitan, evolved from an exiled elite into a leading entity of Serbian national and spiritual identity. Belgrade, which remained free from Turkish rule for almost two decades (1718–1737) thanks to the Austrian conquests, proved significant, too. Also important was the newly established city of Novi Sad (as its Latin name says: Neoplanta).13 In response to pleas from the metropolitans of Karlovci and Belgrade, Russian authorities sent learned emissaries, who assisted in the formation of first theological schools,14 whereafter Serbian students were sent to the Kiev 13 Having emerged in such a short time and in such a confined space, many educational initiatives proved somewhat fruitful despite ambivalent state and political circumstances; see J. P. ADLER, “Habsburg School Reform among the Orthodox Minorities, 1770–1780,” Slavic Review 30 (1974), 23–45; S. DABIĆ, “Српско школство у Хабсбуршкој Монархији до половине XVIII века” (“Serbian Education in the Habsburg Monarchy until the Mid–Eighteenth Century”), in Education of the Serbs through Centuries (n. 8), 31–39; P. DESPOTOVIĆ, Школе Срба у Угарској и Хрватској (The Schools of Serbs in Hungary and in Croatia) (Kragujevac, 1888); R. ČURIĆ, “Српске школе у Хабзбуршкој Монархији до половине XVIII века” (“Serbian Schools in the Habsburg Monarchy until the Mid–Eighteenth Century”) and N. GAVRILOVIĆ, “Српско школство у Хабзбуршкој Монархији у другој половини XVIII века” (“Serbian Schools in Habsburg Monarchy in the Second Half of the Eighteenth Century”), in History of Schools and Education of the Serbs (n. 8), 99–153; R. M. GRUJIĆ, Српске школе у Београдско–Карловачкој Митрополији (од 1718 до 1739 г.). Прилог културној историји српскога народа (Serbian schools in the Belgrade–Karlovci Metropolitanate [from 1718 to 1739]: A Contribution to the Cultural History of the Serbian People) (Belgrade, 1908); D. KIRILOVIĆ, Srpske škole u Vojvodini u XVIII veku (Serbian Schools in Eighteenth Century Vojvodina) (Sremski Kаrlovci, 1929), 1–13, 20–25, 33–37; М. NEŠKOVIĆ, Историја српских школа у Аустро–Угарској Монархији (A History of Serbian Schools in the Austro–Hungarian Monarchy) (Sremski Karlovci, 1897). 14 For a better understanding of this new beginning, R. M. Grujić (n. 6) published primary sources that contain pieces of original correspondence between Serbian metropolitans and Peter the Great: “Прилози за историју српских школа у првој половини XVIII. века” (“Contributions to the History of Serbian Schools in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century”), Споменик Српске Краљевске Академије (Monument of the Serbian Royal Academy) 42 (1910), 99–143. This publication includes an important letter of Maxim Suvorov (dated 9 October 1726) to the Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovci, Mojsije Petrović (1677–1730), which tells about the Russian theologian’s agreeing to come to Sremski Karlovci and establish a school there (p. 103). Under Suvorov’s direction, this newly opened school was organized in accord with the Kievan and implicitly Jesuit educational model, whose cornerstone was the arts of the trivium and quadrivium; furthermore, at the request of Metropolitan Mojsije, Suvorov expanded this model by opening another school in the second administrative center of Belgrade (1727), wherefter he left for Russia due to many unexpected obstacles he had to deal with (p. 108). However, this “Latin Academy” system in Sremski Karlovci and the initiative of bringing Russian theologians did not cease with his leaving. In 1733, the next Metropolitan of Karlovci, Vikentije Jo-

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

43

Spiritual Academy for theological education and to strengthen their own teaching skills.15 Although there is plenty of room for discussion of a whole spectrum of consequences that sprang from the aforementioned historical circumstances, we will limit ourselves here to one crucial observation.16 In Europe, the dawn of the Enlightenment was already shining brightly and the consequences of rethinking medieval social arrangements, according to which the Church was the primary, if not the only, engine of the entire culture, were about to burgeon. The development of Serbian theological scholarship, however, became possible only through the very arrangements that were in decline elsewhere in Europe.17 At approximately the same time (1690), when almost the entire vanović (1689–1737), brought a group of Kiev professors of Latin, philosophy, and rhetoric, under the direction of an academic, Manuil Kozachinskiĭ (1700–1755), who would become the rector of the school; see: D. RUVARAC, Исторично–критична црта о Вићентију Јовановићу православном митрополиту београдском и карловачком (1731–1737) (Historical–Critical Note on the Orthodox Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovci Vićentije Jovanović [1731–1737]) (Zemun, 1886), 46–47. 15 For more on Serbian students in Kiev, see: M. JOVANOVIĆ, “Срби у руским школама у ХVIII веку” (“Serbs in Eighteenth Century Russian Schools”), Црква и Живот (Church and Life) 1–2 (1926), 16–30; N. I. PETROV, “Воспитанники Киевской академии из Сербов с начала синодального периода и до царствования Екатерины II (1721–1762)” (“Serbian Students of Kiev Academy from the Beginning of the Synodal Era until the Reign of Catherine II [1721–1762]”), Известия отделения русского языка и словесности Императорской Академии Наук (Proceedings of the Department of Russian Language and Literature of the Imperial Academy of Sciences) IX 4 (1904), 1–16; N. RADOJČIĆ, “Кијевска Академија и Срби” (“Kiev Academy and Serbs”), Српски књижевни гласник (Serbian Literary Gazette) 307 (1913), 668–673; cf. also: S. BOGOJAVLENSKIĬ, “Из русско–сербских отношений при Петре Первом” (“From Russian–Serbian Relations under Peter the First”), Вопросы истории (Questions of History) 8–9 (1946), 19–41. 16 One of the consequences was a Russian influence on the development of an artificial Slavonic-Serbian language or Slavoserbian, which did not bear resemblance to a single living Serbian dialect and which grew into the modern Serbian language no sooner than the middle of the nineteenth century. It was the personality of the Serbian philologist and linguist Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787–1864) to whom this reform owes the greatest debt. See: T. BUTLER, “The Origins of the War for a Serbian Language and Orthography,” HSS 5 (1970), 1–80; E. KRAFT, “Die Säkularisierung der serbisch-russischen Beziehungen an der Wende vom 17. zum 18. Jahrhundert,” SOF 47 (1988), 87–108; D. WILSON, The Life and Times of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, 1787–1864: Literacy, Literature, and National Independence in Serbia (Oxford, 1970). 17 Regarded as the most important representatives of the Serbian people, the metropolitans of Karlovci and Belgrade played a decisive role in activities not only of an ecclesiastical but also secular nature, as Metropolitan Vikentije Jovanović (n. 14) put it in one of his letters: “The Serb people has only one common symbol, namely the great and Holy Church which has been preserved when all else has perished” (R. M. GRUJIĆ, “Pisma pećkih patrijarha iz drugog i trećeg decenija XVIII–tog veka” [“The Letters of the Patriarchs of Pecs

44

Vladan Tatalović

Serbian nation was crossing its northern borders carrying an embryo of its future academic life to be revived in the lap of the Habsburg monarchy, already mature university traditions in the West outgrew their existing framework, giving priority to other faculties but not to the faculty of theology.18 Owing to the Enlightenment concept of science, which tended to be oriented towards secular issues and pragmatism and not towards the study of theology, but also thanks to the constitutional right to academic freedom of thought, the faculty of philosophy gained the status of the fundamental faculty within the eighteenth-century European university – that is, it had the capacity to assess all others.19 This comparison additionally (but not totally) clarifies why the newly enlivened Serbian educational system did not keep pace with a trend stipulated by the Age of Reason. However, to say that Serbian scholarship was not from the Second and Third Decade of the Eighteenth Century”], Monument of the Serbian Royal Academy 51 [1913], 113–119, 117); also see: J. P. ADLER, “Nation and Nationalism among the Serbs of Hungary, 1790–1870,” EEQ 13 (1979), 271–283; L. HADROVICS, Le peuple serbe et son Église sous la domination turque (Paris, 1947), 118–121; R. OKEY, “State, Church, and Nation in the Serbo–Croat Speaking Lands of the Habsburg Monarchy 1850–1914,” in Comparative Studies on Governments and Non–Dominant Ethnic Groups in Europe 1850–1940. Volume 2: Religion, State, and Ethnic Groups (ed. D. Kerr et al.; New York, 1992), 51–78; also: E. E. VON RADIĆ, Die Verfassung der orthodox–serbischen Particular–Kirche von Karlovitz (Prague, 1880); Idem, Die Orthodox–orientalischen Partikularkirchen in den Ländern der ungarischen Krone (Budapest, 1886). 18 Although theology played a key role within the early modern universities, the previously dominant faculty of theology came to be rivalled by other faculties (e.g., the faculty of law). In accordance with Halle’s model of a modern university, which gave priority to the law school with its foundation in 1694, and then with that of Göttingen, many European universities were reformed, enlightened, and became open to practical and useful sciences. Christian Wolf (1679–1754), who taught in Halle and Marburg, had expressed the goal of the new science with a Latin motto, ad usum vitae; see: N. HAMMERSTEIN, “Relations with Authoriy,” in A History of the University in Europe. Volume 2: Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500–1800) (ed. H. de Ridder–Symoens; Cambridge, 1996), 114– 153, 142; C. SHILAKOWSKY, “Martin Luther University of Halle–Wittenberg,” in International Dictionary of University Histories (eds. C. J. Summerfield, M. E. Devine, and A. Levi; Chicago, 1998), 256–259. 19 This argument was first made in a treatise of Immanuel Kant (1724–1804): Der Streit der Facultäten in drey Abschnitten (Königsberg, 1798) = Kants Werke. Akademie Textausgabe (Веrlin, 1968), 1–116, 27–29, in which he defended the scholarly superiority of the facultas artium over the higher faculties, grounding a new idea of the university at the same time. His idea, however, did not remain a mere academic exercise but became a reality with the foundation of Berlin University (1810) and was further developed by Fichte, Schleiermacher, von Humboldt, Jaspers, and other modern philosophers. See: W. RÜEGG, “Theology and the Arts,” in A History of the University in Europe. Volume 3: Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800–1945) (ed. W. Rüegg; Cambridge, 2004), 393–458; ŠIJAKOVIĆ and RAKOVIĆ, University and Serbian Theology, 19–22 (n. 3).

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

45

aware of this trend and did not partly adhere to it, would be erroneous. In the first Serbian school of higher education, Collegium VissarionoPawlovicsianum Petrovaradinense,20 in which theology and other sciences were still kept together as tended to be the case in eighteenth and nineteenthcentury Serbian schools, the Bishop of the Diocese of Budim, Dionisije Novaković (1705–1767), started his lectures in philosophy and theology with a famous programmatic speech entitled, “On the Praise and Use of Liberal Arts” (1739),21 which clearly confirms that the envisaged curriculum originated from the classical education model developed at European universities as artes liberales. Setting modern foundations to classical and humanistic sciences among Serbs by following exactly this model is of no surprise. The Serbian Church naturally played a major role in education in the southeastern territories of the Habsburg Monarchy, but there was also a natural desire to make amends for all the things missed in science over centuries. We must bear in mind that the very title of this speech alludes to a profound belief of the Church – that is, of the entire nation – that advancement in the sciences is immensely important. In other words, these developments imply a strong urge to raise awareness, to strengthen, and to somehow integrate crumbled national fragments into a whole.22 20

Primarily dedicated to the spiritual education of priests and having existed for only a few decades, this school was established by Bishop of Bačka, Visarion Pavlović (1670– 1756), in Novi Sad in the mid decades of the eighteenth century; see V. ĐORĐEVIĆ, Грчка и српска просвета (Greek and Serbian Education) (Belgrade, 1896), 101. 21 Published in D. RUVARAC, “Дијонисије Новаковић први учени српски богословски књижевник, професор, а потом владика будимски” (“Dionisije Novaković: The First Serbian–Educated Theological Writer, Professor and Then the Bishop of Budim”), Herald of the Serbian Orthodox Church (n. 8) 13 (1924), 196–203, 197–203. 22 This is closely yet paradoxically related to the Austrian Empire’s strong objection to the Serbian inclination towards Russia and to Serbian political and cultural isolation in general. Accordingly, integration regulations introduced by Maria Theresa, in addition to their negative impact on genuine Orthodox tradition, gave rise to secular schools and led to the establishment of the first Serbian printing house in Vienna (1770), thanks to which Enlightenment ideas penetrated Serbian culture with less difficulties. All of these bore obvious fruit in the First Serbian Uprising against the Ottomans (1804), which marked the formation of the first modern Serbian state, and in many other momentous events, such as the opening of the College (1808) in the recently liberated city of Belgrade (n. 27). It is worth mentioning here that this institution, the forerunner of Serbian University (1905), was also opened by a speech, similar to the one of Metropolitan D. Novaković, entitled “О дужном почитанију к наукам” (“On the Necessity of Respecting Sciences”), given by the most learned Serb of the time, Dositej Obradović (1739–1811), in whom lethargic shadows of Theresian Orthodoxy gave way to the clarity of Enlightenment ideas. However, there was no room for studies of theology at the Grande École, although as many as six of its rectors were learned theology scholars, which implies that Serbian theologians did set the basis for national higher education together with their colleagues from other professions. See: ŠIJAKOVIĆ and RAKOVIĆ, University and Serbian Theology, 32–33 (n. 3); for more on

46

Vladan Tatalović

In the meantime, what was happening with higher theological education per se? After dwelling for centuries in parishes and monasteries, Serbian theological seminaries were now opened as independent, yet strictly Serbian, schools, while some candidates, for the sake of higher education, were sent to those schools considered to be the most reputable Orthodox academic institutions of the times, such as the Russian theological academies in Kiev, Moscow, and St. Petersburg.23 Things changed, however, and the need for higher theological education crystallized among Serbs at the end of the nineteenth century, when the seminaries in Karlovci and Belgrade were no longer able to equip students to meet the intellectual challenges priests faced in towns.24 This need for a change raised the important question of whether to establish a faculty within the rising University or to create an academy as an independent Church institution,25 as preferred by the Church Hierarchy, who mostly atD. OBRADOVIĆ, see his autobiography: The Life and Adventures of Dimitrije Obradović, Who as a Monk was Given the Name Dositej, Written and Published by Himself (trans. and ed. G. R. Noyes; Berkeley, 1953); also: N. ĆURČIĆ, The Ethics of Reason in the Philosophical System of Dositej Obradović: A Stydy of his Contribution in this Field to the Age of Reason (London, 1976); R. JOVANOVIĆ-GORUP, “Dositej Obradović and Serbian Cultural Rebirth,” Serbian Studies 6 (1991), 35–55; M. S. TASIĆ, Dositej Obradović (Belgrade, 1994). 23 Being established in a rather complex political and religious climate, these Russian academies – as well as their Serbian “daughters” in Karlovci and Belgrade – earned a glorious reputation in the course of time, although this reputation was shaded with prevalent, polymorphic Jesuit influence from their very beginnings in the seventeenth century, as was observed by the renowned Russian Orthodox theologian Georges Florovsky (1893– 1979): Ways of Russian Theology. Part One (Belmont, 1979), 65. Nevertheless, they had represented the main, if not only, Serbian destination until the theological faculty in Chernivtsi was opened in 1875 (36 Serbian students attended it), and even when, at the end of the nineteenth and the dawn of the twentieth century, especially after the October Revolution, Serbian students began to attend colleges in Athens, Halki, Bern, and Oxford, the Russian academies did not lose their appeal. What is more, they would later serve as role models for future Serbian theological institutions of the highest rank. For more on the Russian theological schools and their biblical studies, see: M. KOZLOV and V. A. THEODOROV, “Академии духовные православные в России” (“Orthodox Spiritual Academies in Russia”), in Православная Энциклопедия (Orthodox Encyclopedia), Vol. 1 (Moscow, 2000), 349–352; A. NEGROV, Biblical Interpretation in the Russian Orthodox Church: A Historical and Hermeneutical Perspective (BHT 130; Tübingen, 2008), 54–65. 24 For more on this theme, see R. RADIĆ, “Obrazovanje sveštenstva Srpske pravoslavne crkve u 19. veku i u prvoj polovini 20. veka” (“Education of the Serbian Orthodox Church’s Priests in the Nineteenth Century and in the First Half of the Twentieth Century”), in Education of the Serbs through the Centuries (n. 8), 101–125. 25 ŠIJAKOVIĆ and RAKOVIĆ, University and Serbian Theology (n. 3), illustrate this debate in a detailed manner (22–23, 40–76, 106–110), showing that the discussion revealed a far deeper problem in the understanding of the concept of the university: Is a university a collective institution comprising vocational schools and departments resting upon inherent rational criterion, assessing the legitimacy of everything else and yet declining to prove its

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

47

tended Russian academies.26 Nonetheless, when the highest educational institution in Serbia (Grande École) turned into Belgrade University (1905), it was comprised of the departments of Orthodox Theology, Philosophy, Law, Medicine, and Engineering.27 Fifteen years had to pass, however, for the Faculty of Orthodox Theology to start its work, due to a lack of teaching staff and raging wars.28 Only then, in a newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (1918), with the reestablished Patriarchate (1920), and due also to a painful migration of Russian scholars into Serbia,29 did it become possible for the highest theological institution to begin to function.30 own, with the sole aim of ruling the world, or is the university a gathering place of universal knowledge where the faculty of theology serves to remind humankind of its role in the salvation and elevation of creation? The main deficiency of this debate among Serbian as well as European scholars of the time lay in the fact that it was conducted in the tone of Enlightenment rationality, within the borders of the “one and only” reality given and described by science. The entire debate was to ripen only after many failures in the twentieth century, as witnessed by Karl Jaspers (1883–1969) in his work, Die Idee der Universität (Berlin, 1946). 26 On the Serbian Orthodox Church in the nineteenth and twentieth century, see T. BREMER, Ekklesiale Struktur und Ekklesiologie in der Serbischen Orthodoxen Kirche im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Östliche Christentum 41; Würzburg, 1992); and P. PAVLOVICH, The History of the Serbian Orthodox Church (Toronto, 1989), from p. 184 on. 27 The history of the University of Belgrade starts at the beginning of the nineteenth century, when D. Obradović founded the Collegium in 1808 (n. 22). Thirty years later, it turned into the Lyceum (1841) and then into the Higher School or Grande École (1863), which was recognized throughout Europe. Early in 1905, Serbian King Peter I Karađorđević (1844–1921) signed the decree that brought Belgrade University into existence. See S. ĆUNKOVIĆ, Školstvo i prosvetа u Srbiji u XIX veku (Schools and Education in Nineteenth Century Serbia) (Belgrаde, 1971); V. TEŠIĆ, “Škole i nаstаvа u Srbiji (1878– 1918)” (“Schools and Education in Serbia [1878–1918]”), in Istorijа srpskog nаrodа (History of the Serbian People), Voume 6/2 (ed. A. Mitrović et al.; Belgrade, 1983), 506– 549; V. TEŠIĆ, Rаzvoj Licejа i Velike škole (The Development of the Lyceum and the Higher School) (Belgrade, 1988). 28 Let us mention here the Balkan Wars (1912–1913) which preceded First World War (1914–1918) and in which Serbia finally freed itself from five centuries of Turkish rule. For more on these wars, see the following studies: E. J. ERICKSON, Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912–1913 (Westport, 2003); A. GEROLYMATOS, The Balkan Wars: Conquest, Revolution, and Retribution from the Ottoman Era to the Twentieth Century and Beyond (New York, 2002); R. C. HALL, The Balkan Wars, 1912–1913: Prelude to the First World War (London, 2000). 29 On the migration of the Russian intellectuals to Serbia due to the revolution in 1917 and afterwards, especially the coming of the Church Hierarchy to Sremski Karlovci and establishing the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (Русская Православная Церковь Заграницей) there in 1921, see A. B. ARSENEV, Русская эмиграция в Ср. Карловцах (Russian Emigration in Sr. Karlovci) (Мoscow, 2003). This migration played a key role in many aspects of the development of Serbian cultural in the first half of the twentieth century, particularly in the formation of the FOTB. Č. S. DRAŠKOVIĆ,

48

Vladan Tatalović

3. Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia after the Opening of FOTB Prior to 1800, there was hardly one Serbian seminary inquiring into the subject that would later be called biblical studies. Apart from the aforementioned difficulties, another cause of this lies in the hermeneutical, methodological, and cultural distance between Eastern Orthodoxy and the Enlightenment context of modern biblical scholarship. Therefore, since Holy Scripture had traditionally been a school subject in the curriculum of Serbian seminaries, the discipline here in question actually might have had its origins in the first biblical studies handbooks that were written looking towards an Orthodox model of that time – the Russian one.31 However, despite being pioneering “Четрдесет година Богословског факултета у Београду” (“Forty Years of the Faculty of Theology in Belgrade”), Богословље (Theology) 1–2 (1961), 1–27, 5–9, lists its first professors, among whom we find six from Russia: A. P. Dobroklonskiĭ (1856–1937) became a professor of Church History (1920–1937), T. I. Titov (1868–1935) taught Biblical History and Archeology (1920–1935), M. A. Georgievskiĭ (1888–1950) lectured on Hebrew (1920–1929), A. P. Rozhdestvenskiĭ (1854–1930) remained for only a few months a professor of Old Testament (1921), N. N. Glubokovskiĭ (1863–1937) taught Patrology for a short period (1922), and V. F. Fradinskiĭ (1892–1961), who even studied at the newly formed FOTB (1921–1926), was appointed professor of Church History (1939–1961), succeeding to the chair of the late Dobroklonskiĭ. Drašković, however, does not mention V. V. Zenkovskiĭ (1881–1962), who taught philosophy (1920–1923) at the Faculties of both Theology and Philosophy of Belgrade University. For more on the Russian professors at FOTB, see V. PUZOVIČ, “Русские эмигранты – преподователи Православного богословского факультета в Белграде (1920–1940 гг.)” (“Russian Εmigrants – Professors at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Belgrade [1920–1940]”) Труды Киевской духовной академии (Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy) 15 (2011), 199–208. 30 A rising opportunity to elevate the theological seminaries in Karlovci and Belgrade to a higher rank (as in Russia) did not, however, come to fruition. Moreover, the temporary closure of the seminary in Karlovci proved to be collateral damage caused by the establishment of the Faculties of Orthodox Theology in Belgrade and Zagreb (which existed for only two years: 1920–1922), as well as by their mutual yet short-lived rivalry. For more on this process, see ŠIJAKOVIĆ and RAKOVIĆ, University and Serbian Theology, 77–105 (n. 3); A. RAKOVIĆ, “Karlovci Seminary: From One Step to the Level of the Faculty (1914– 1920) Towards Subsequent Recognition of the Faculty Level (1925–1933),” Teološki pogledi (Theological Views) 2 (2013), 583–598. 31 А decade after they returned from what was then the “Jerusalem” of Orthodox theology, two Kiev academy graduates, Belgrade seminary professor Nikanor Zisić (1829– 1866) and Metropolitan of Belgrade Mihailo Jovanović (1826–1898), a most remarkable figure of nineteenth century Serbian Orthodoxy, published the first textbooks in biblical studies, yet not in the reformed Slavonic–Serbian language (n. 16): M. JOVANOVIĆ, Херменевтика (Hermeneutics) (Belgrade, 1864); N. ZISIĆ, Упутство за читање Светог Писма Старог и Новог Завета (An Introduction for Reading the Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testament) (Belgrade, 1864). Conceived to follow the Russian model, these two treatises signified a rare but advantageous opportunity for students to get acquainted

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

49

undertakings in Serbian theology, the reception of these handbooks cannot be assessed in a straightforward manner, since they were not used for subjects related to biblical studies in the Karlovci seminary. Rather, these subjects were taught relying upon unpublished translations of the works of the German Protestant, C. F. Keil (1807–1888).32 This may be explained in part by the fact that the school was situated in a German-speaking environment and also by certain sympathies that arose among the Orthodox on behalf of this Protestant theologian’s scientific erudition and conservatism.33 Moreover, those first handbooks were written in the unreformed language tradition, which, due in large part to the first translation of the Holy Scriptures into the reformed Serbian language around the middle of the nineteenth century, was soon regarded as outdated as compared to reformed Serbian.34 Also, we with scientific principles of two biblical disciplines that apparently had an academic status at higher theological schools (isagogics and hermeneutics = exegesis). For more on the Russian approach to these disciplines, which were followed by Zisić and Jovanović, see NEGROV, Interpretation, 93–109, 111–117 (n. 23). 32 N. GAVRILOVIĆ, Карловачка богословија (1794–1920) (Karlovci Seminary [1794– 1920]) (Sremski Karlovci, 1984), 84, has pointed to the sources that clearly demonstrate the aforementioned fact, though they remain imprecise in citing Keil’s works. They mention “introductory lessons”, which may refer to Keil’s Lehrbuch der historisch–kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphen Schriften des Alten Testamentes (Frankfurt a. M., 1853; 3rd rev. ed. 1873), and also a more concrete title, “Христианское чтение” (“Christian Reading”), which is not to be found among any of Keil’s works; it is actually the name of a Russian theological journal (St. Petersburg, 1821–1918; 1990–), where translations of some of Keil’s texts might have been published. It is also noteworthy that Florovsky found Keil’s Lehrbuch der historisch–kritischen Einleitung one of the most popular handbooks among Russian biblical scholars during the second half of the nineteenth century, and he claims that this handbook was published by the Kievan journal Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy in 1871 (G. FLOROVSKY, Ways of Russian Theology. Part Two [Belmont, 1972], 127). Florovsky might have been wrong, however: it is actually Keil’s Handbuch der biblischen Archeologie. Bd 1–2 (Frankfurt a. M. 1858– 1859; 2nd ed. 1875) that was published by the aforementioned journal: K. F. KEIL, Руководство к библейской археологии. Часть 1–2 (Guide to Biblical Archaeology. Volumes 1–2) (Kiev, 1871–1876). Finally, although the recently written handbooks of Zisić and Jovanović (n. 31) could not push Keil’s works out of the Karlovci seminary, the impression remains that the principles of Russian biblical interpretation lived on in its classrooms. After all, if the facts presented above are to be believed, Keil had been a favorite scholar among the Russian and Serbian theologians. 33 C.–F. Keil might have attracted Orthodox theologians due to his “offenbarungsgläubige Bibelforschung”, which he paired with a sharp opposition towards the rationalism of W. de Wette (1780–1849) and others. For more on the theological personality of Keil, see the following: P. SIEMENS, Carl Friedrich Keil. Studien zu Leben und Werk (Gießen, 1989); А. SIEDLECKI, “Keil, Carl Fridrich (1807–88),ˮ in Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation (ed. J. H. Hayes; Nashville, 1999), 18–19. 34 The first translation of the New Testament into the modern Serbian language was published in 1847 by Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (n. 16), who did not, however, use Greek

50

Vladan Tatalović

should not readily dismiss the possibility that the seminary might have found certain attitudes old-fashioned, no matter how far-fetched such a possibility may seem. We should take into account the following: once Ilarion Zeremski (1865–1931), a young graduate from the Moscow academy, was appointed teacher of New Testament at the seminary in Sremski Karlovci on the turn of the nineteenth century, he succeeded in ousting Keil’s works from the curriculum without taking advantage of the existing Serbian textbooks. Since his work marked the glorious dawn of New Testament theology, which is also to be regarded as the beginning of the heyday of New Testament studies in Serbia at the newly founded FOTB, careful consideration of this topic follows, assessing his scholarly contribution. 3.1 Ilarion Zeremski (1865–1931)35 Born in the Habsburg monarchy (Turija, today’s Vojvodina), Zeremski was oriented first towards the neighboring schools in Novi Sad and Budapest, while his subsequent studies in Moscow, where he acquired a magisterium degree in theology (1890),36 are deeply rooted in the traditional orientation of the Serbian Church towards Russia. Thanks to the contributions of Florovsky and Negrov, the theological climate of the Russian spiritual academies has become clearer and thus more relevant for our present topic: though there were substantial contributions to philology and archeology, two major disciplines, a dogmatically inspired isagogics and a morally oriented exegesis formed the mainstay of Moscow biblical studies at the end of the nineteenth century.37 but Russian-Slavonic, German, and Latin texts as his basis, while the translation of the Old Testament into reformed Serbian was published in 1868 by Đuro Daničić (1825–1882), a philologist and great supporter of Karadžić’s work, who used a Latin edition of Immanuel Tremellius’ (1510–1580) translation from Hebrew as the base text. There were other Bible translations into the Serbian language during the nineteenth century, but they had less impact, since they were published in the unreformed language: these are the translations of a few Old Testament books (1860) by Platon Atanacković (1788–1867), a bishop of Budim (1839–1851) and later of Bačka (1851–1867), and the translation of the New Testament (1824) by Atanasije Stojković (1773–1832), a noted physicist and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences. For a more detailed survey of Serbian Bible translations, see R. RAKIĆ, “Нови преводи Новог Завета у нас” (“New Translations of the New Testament among Us”), Тheology (n. 29) 2 (1987), 93–106. 35 For a detailed analysis of Ilarion Zeremski’s life and contribution to biblical scholarship in Serbia, see V. TATALOVIĆ , “Иларион Зеремски као професор Новог Завета на Богословском факултету у Београду” (“Ilarion Zeremski as a New Testament Professor at the Faculty of Theology in Belgrade”), Српска теологија у двадесетом веку (Serbian Theology in the Twentieth Century) 3 (2007), 100–111. 36 TATALOVIĆ, “Zeremski,” 100–101 (n. 35). 37 The isagogics popular in the Church took the form of short prolegomena accompanying biblical publications so as to inform readers succinctly on traditional understandings of

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

51

This is indeed the cornerstone of Zeremski’s entire opus, moderate though it is. As a follower of a powerful academic model with an apologetic structure that he would have encountered in Moscow, he indiscriminately adopted principles of nascent Orthodox biblical studies, being privileged to become a member of a narrow and freshly formed circle of Orthodox biblical scholars. The best witness of this orientation is a handbook of isagogics38 he devised on his return to Karlovci and which he most likely used in the course of his two decades of work at the seminary (1891–1911). Its pages echo the tones of dogmatics and apologetics, answering the question of why Russian (Serbian) biblical studies did not adopt a more “positivistic” approach: as an ecclesialhistorical subject, the science of introduction cannot be put on stictly historical grounds, since it aims not only at objectively reviewing the origins and contents of biblical texts, but also at the rudiments of “comprehending the spirit and essence of knowledge of God and the economy of salvation”.39 At authorship and the purpose of particular books. When such approaches proved insufficient for the growing needs in Russia, the work on defining isagogics more carefully by selectively choosing conservative Western authors began, only to receive its final shape within the Orthodox dogmatic perspective. A classic example of this method is Введение в чтение Нового Завета (Introduction to the Reading of the New Testament) (Moscow, 1891) by Metropolitan of Moscow Filaret Drozdov (1782–1862), printed after Ilarion’s departure from Moscow and frequently cited in Nikanor’s already-mentioned Introduction (n. 31). Similarly, exegesis (i.e., hermeneutics – as this discipline was long called) followed suit by pumping, from a vast sea of Western exegetical tradition, primarily the waters of the linguistic–historical school, channeling them to satisfy demands primarily of a moral and social nature. As such, it did not fully develop into a true historical method but rather into a sort of “positive theology” (FLOROVSKY, Ways, 2, 151 [n. 32]). The status of Russian academies as independent Church institutions, which were somewhat isolated from the more open atmosphere of the universities, additionally contributed to the formulation of these two disciplines. Moreover, this “Russian” conflict, formed and driven by the selective choice between Roman Catholic and Protestant, conservative and liberal theologians, might have been more moderate had Russian theology been able to define itself on the basis of Orthodox ideals rooted in the patristic tradition. Lacking the confidence to articulate an academic theology in light of this unbroken tradition, Russian theology, with regard to biblical studies, tended to rely on imported views, whether through adopting or refuting them. For more on the development of the basic biblical disciplines in the Russian theological milieu of the second half of the nineteenth century, see NEGROV, Interpretation, 93–131 (n. 23). 38 I. ZEREMSKI, Увод у Нови Завет (Introduction to the New Testament) (Sremski Karlovci, 1891). This textbook has never been printed, but having been written down by a student of the seminary (Hristifor Milošević), it exists only in a manuscript form (246 pages) and is today kept in the Library of Matica Srpska in Novi Sad. 39 ZEREMSKI, Introduction, 14 (n. 38). It is worth mentioning here that Zeremski did not rely on Drozdov’s Introduction (n. 37), probably because its first integral edition was published in the same year that Ilarion’s handbook was written down (1891), but he did rely on the work of Drozdov’s successor in elaborating this apologetically and dogmatically inspired Russian isagogics, V. G. Rozhdestvenskiĭ (1839–1918) Историческое

52

Vladan Tatalović

the same time, Zeremski did not minimalize the importance of introduction as a historical science but regarded it as useful due to its ability to illumine the development of the sacred text and its translation; moreover, “reading the Holy Scripture without a sense of history leads to the harmful production of would-be allegories”.40 Relying on the historical method in the study of the Bible requires serious precautions, however, since historical criticism tends to attack and even to destroy the [Orthodox] Church. What is more, this tendency may be regarded as the main reason why such a “historical” science like introduction should even exist in the Orthodox Church.41 These were also the governing principle of this Russian graduate’s exegesis, which was otherwise dedicated almost exclusively to both the translation and interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount and the main episodes of the infancy narratives.42 As the first professor of New Testament studies at the обозрение священных книг Нового Завета (Historical Review of the New Testament Books) (St Petersburg, 1878); see ZEREMSKI, Introduction, 22 (n. 38). 40 ZEREMSKI, Introduction, 3–4 (n. 38). 41 ZEREMSKI, Introduction, 4 (n. 38). This Introduction offers insight into the shape of the battlefield among the Russian theologians of the time, indirectly brought into Serbian classrooms: J. S. Semler (1725–1791) and J. D. Michaelis (1717–1791) “initiated … the destructive wave” (p. 18), which is continued by the work of F. C. Baur (1792–1860) and D. F. Strauss (1808–1874), while Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments (Tübingen, 1808) by a Roman Catholic scholar, J. L. Hug (1765–1846), may be considered the respected one, even among the Protestant theologians (p. 19). According to the Kievan professor S. M. Solskiĭ (1835–1900), conservative Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars are actually to be learned from while writing and composing Orthodox biblical introductions: “Каков должен быть состав научных введении в книги св. Писания в настоящee время?” (“What Should Be the Composition of the Scholarly Introduction to the Books of the Holy Scripture Today?”), Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy (n. 29) 3 (1887), 358–376, 366–367. 42 Unlike Ilarion’s isagogics, his exegetical work was printed in the form of short articles, published in Theological Herald (n. 3), the most eminent Serbian theological journal of the time (1902–1914), the founder and editor of which was Ilarion himself: “Беседа И. Христа на гори” (“J. Christ’s Sermon on the Mount”) 1 (1902), 18–25, 81–92, 161–172, 233–243, 305–314, 369–377; and 2 (1902), 3–24, 129–146, 209–220, 273–282, 353–361; “Сретеније” (“The Presentation of Jesus at the Temple”) 3 (1903), 3–16; “Благовест пресв. Богородици” (“The Annunciation to the Most Holy Virgin Mary”) 3 (1903), 169–182; “Исцељење слепога од рођења” (“The Healing of the Man Born Blind”) 3 (1903), 249–270; “Рођење и обрезање св. Јована Крститеља” (“The Birth and the Circumcision of St. John the Baptist”) 3 (1903), 329–342; “Прича о милосрдном Самарјанину” (“The Parable of the Good Samaritan”) 4 (1903), 217–228; “Рођење И. Христа” (“The Birth of J. Christ”) 4 (1903), 273–292, 361–371; “Библијско учење о савести” (“Biblical Teaching on Conscience”) 4 (1903), 206–216, 293–299, 371–376; “Богородица у посети код Јелисавете” (“Virgin Mary Visiting Elizabeth”) 5 (1904), 89– 97, 185–194; “Благовест Захарији” (“The Announcement to Zechariah”) 5 (1904), 345– 354, 425–437; “Говор Господа нашег И. Христа против књижевника и фарисеја” (“The Speech of Our Lord J. Christ Against Scribes and Pharisees”) 6 (1904), 145–153,

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

53

FOTB, which began its work thanks to the arrival of the Russian immigrants, Ilarion built the academic principles of the Russian tradition into the foundations of his department. However, he spent less than a year in this post, for in 1921 he was elected bishop of the distant Diocese of Gornji Karlovci (Croatia), where he passed away after a decade of his episcopacy. At the FOTB, he was to be succeeded by his student and seminary colleague: 3.2 Dimitrije Stefanović (1882–1943)43 Stefanović was born in 1882 (Zmajevo, today’s Vojvodina) and attended schools in Novi Sad, Sremski Karlovci, and Chernivtsi, where he earned his doctoral degree in theology.44 Having been given Zeremski’s vacancy at the Karlovci seminary, he taught New Testament and Greek language (1907– 1920), and in the meantime (1910–1913), for teaching and learning purposes, he published a three-volume New Testament Introduction.45 The preface to 225–235, 305–320, 385–401; “Мази са Истока” (“Magi from the East”) 7 (1905), 3–11, 81–87, 161–170; “Одлазак св. породице у Египат” (“The Flight of the Holy Family into Egypt”) 9 (1906), 3–8, 81–86, 153–162; “Кушање Господа нашега Исуса Христа” (“The Temptation of Our Lord Jesus Christ”) 9 (1906), 282–305; “Генеалогија Господа нашега Исуса Христа” (“The Genealogy of Our Lord Jesus Christ”) 10 (1906), 76–89, 277–285; 11 (1907), 31–40, 224–230. 43 For a detailed analysis of Stefanović’s life and contribution to biblical scholarship in Serbia, see I. BULOVIĆ, “Dr Dimitrije Stefanović,” in Theology (n. 29) 1–2 (1980), 165– 170; V. TATALOVIĆ, “Димитрије Стефановић као професор Новог Завета на Богословском факултету у Београду” (“Dimitrije Stefanović as a New Testament Professor at the Faculty of Theology in Belgrade”), Serbian Theology in the Twentieth Century (n. 35) 2 (2007), 117–128. 44 When the Czernowitz Higher Theological School (Bukovina) grew into the Franz– Josephs–Universität in 1875, which consisted of three faculties (Orthodox theology, law and philosophy), this German speaking University (today: Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University) became one of the most important destinations for Serbian students at the turn of the twentieth century. Although Stefanović’s Doktorvater Dionysious Jeremijczuk taught practical theology, he explicitly declared himself a New Testament scholar (TATALOVIĆ, “Stefanović,” 117–118 [n. 43]). For more on the Serbian students at the University in Chernivtsi, see R. RAKIĆ, Православни богословски факултет у Черновцима (Faculty of Orthodox Theology in Chernivtsi) (Belgrade, 2009). 45 Having written an article on isagogics while still a Ph.D. candidate (see n. 44), “Апостол Павле и Филипљани” (“The Apostle Paul and the Philiphians”), Theological Herald (n. 3) 6 (1904), 65–83, Stefanović published his three-volume Introduction after his return from Chernivtsi, thus leaving aside Zeremski’s manuscript handbook (n. 38): Четири канонска јеванђелија (Four Canonical Gospels) (Sremski Karlovci, 1910; 2nd ed. Belgrade, 1954); Из новозаветне исагогике (Дела апостолска, Посланице Св. апостола Павла, Саборне посланице и Апокалипсис) (From the New Testament Isagogics [Acts, St Paul’s Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and Apocalypse]) (Sremski Karlovci, 1912; 2nd ed. Belgrade, 1957); Увод у Св. Писмо Новог Завета (опћи део) (Introduction to the Holy Scripture of the New Testament [General Part]) (Sremski Karlovci, 1913); this

54

Vladan Tatalović

this compendium evidently shows that Dimitrije was a true representative of the Serbian biblical theology tradition: The entire Introduction has not resulted from many years of teaching practice and experience but came into being in a rather short time in order to fulfill an unpleasant void that seminary teachers and students of the New Testament were particularly aware of. So, it should be perused with such an understanding, without seeking comprehensive, wellgrounded, acclaimed, and impeccable information in it.

Further on, Stefanović continues slightly more confidently: “Such a degree of perfection cannot be found in the best Roman Catholic and Protestant compendiums either, which I naturally used when writing this Introduction.”46 Like the Introduction, his papers and books in exegesis, which are of a predominantly didactic nature and range thematically from the Pauline epistles to the Gospels,47 also relied considerably on “the latest compendiums and third volume was previusly published in a series of articles in the Theological Herald (n. 3), printed under the same title: 22 (1912), 161–175, 249–267, 321–329; and 23 (1913), 1– 10. There are three other works of Stefanović in isagogics that should be mentioned here: “Четврто канонско јеванђелије” (“The Fourth Canonical Gospel”), Theological Herald (n. 3) 17 (1910), 241–250, 321–334, 401–413; and 18 (1910), 251–260, 323–328, 522– 528; and 19 (1911), 3–10, 99–106; “Синоптичка и четврто јеванђелије” (“The Synoptic and the Fourth Gospel”), Theology (n. 29) 2 (1927), 270–276; “Адресати посланице Ефесцима” (“Addressees of Ephesians”), Theology 4 (1932), 277–279. 46 D. STEFANOVIĆ, “Preface,” in Introduction, n. p. (n. 45). Stefanović’s use of foreign compendiums has not been without critics: an anonymous reviewer publicly complained about the similarities between his first introductory monograph (Four Canonical Gospels [n. 45]) and a work of the Roman Catholic biblical scholar Jakob Schäfer (1864–1933): Die Evangelien und die Evangelienkritik (Freiburg i. Br., 1908; 2nd ed. 1911). However, it may also be observed that these anonymous critics, whom Stefanović tended to refute convicingly, did not show up following the publication of the criticized monograph but rather at the moment its author applied for a full–time professorship at the FOTB in 1929! For more on this issue, see TATALOVIĆ, “Stefanović,” 119–120 (n. 43). 47 These are the following studies: “Пастирске посланице св. апостола Павла” (“The Pastoral Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul”), Theological Herald (n. 3) 13 (1908), 137– 150, 339–344; 15 (1909), 401–407; 16 (1909), 18–25, 161–165, 253–262, 342–348, 414– 422; and 17 (1910), 94–102; “Тумачење недељних и празничних јеванђелија” (“Commentary on Sunday and Festal Gospel Readings”), Theological Herald 15 (1909), 436– 440; and 16 (1909), 3–7, 95–101; “Посланице св. апостола Павла” (“Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul”), Theological Herald 19 (1911), 241–251, 321–330; and 20 (1911), 81–88, 161–164, 401–404; “Посланица Галатима св. апостола Павла” (“Epistle to the Galatians of the Holy Apostle Paul”), Theological Herald 25 (1914), 16–28, 105–111, 201–207, 377–387; Свето Јеванђелије по Матеју (Holy Gospel According to Matthew) (Sremski Karlovci, 1917; 2nd ed. Belgrade, 1924); Св. Апостола Павла две посланице Солуњанима (The Holy Apostle Paul’s Two Epistles to the Thessalonians) (Sremski Karlovci, 1919); Живот и рад Апостола Павла са тумачењем његових посланица Галатима, (2) Тимотију, Титу и Филимону (Life and Work of the Apostle Paul With the Commentary on His Epistles to Galatians, [2] Timothy, Titus and Philemon) (Belgrade,

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

55

commentaries of German Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars”.48 Generally speaking, with this zealous priest and tenured professor at the FOTB (1921–1943),49 the Serbian tradition got its first complete New Testament scholar in the modern sense of the word, who skillfully worked to unify domestic and foreign traditions, as well as contemporary developments in biblical studies. Therefore, it is not a strange coincidence that a pioneering translation of the New Testament from Nestle’s Greek edition into Serbian (1934) crowned his career.50 Although the papers and reviews of this prolific biblical scholar, most of which were printed in the journal Theology as an official organ of the newly 1926); “Апостол Павле о Цркви Христовој (Ефес. 2, 11–22)” (“Apostle Paul on Christ’s Church [Eph 2, 11–22]”) Theology (n. 29) 4 (1930), 277–282. 48 D. STEFANOVIĆ, “Preface,” in Life and Work, n. p. (n. 47). 49 TATALOVIĆ, “Stefanović,” 118 (n. 43). 50 Нови Завет Господа нашег Исуса Христа (New Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ) (Belgrade, 1934). Touching upon Stefanović’s translation, let us also refer to other translation endeavors in Serbia at that time, in addition to those already mentioned (n. 34). First of all, the New Testament translation by V. S. Karadžić (1847) into the vernacular won a broad audience, thus making the earlier version of A. Stojković (1824) in the unreformed (Slavoserbian) language unusable, as well as other minor attempts, but this rendition still lacked theological accuracy since it did not originate from Greek, but from Slavonic, German, and Latin base texts; furthermore, Karadžić himself was not a theologian. Thus, in the first decades of the twentieth century, an urgent need was felt for a more precise translation, particularly because of the progressive contributions of the newly opened FOTB to the Serbian theological atmosphere. As an answer to this need, a translation of the Fourth Gospel showed up first, made by V. M. Petrović and F. W. Kingston and published by London’s Central Translations Institute: Свето Јеванђеље по Јовану (The Holy Gospel According to John) (London, 1927). Not long afterwards, Dr. Lujo Bakotić (1867–1941), a Dalmatian Serb and thus also known under the pseudonym “Dalmatikus”, offered his translations of the New Testament: Novi Zavet (The New Testament) (Belgrade, 1930) and of the whole Bible: Sveto Pismo Staroga i Novoga Zaveta (The Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments) (Belgrade, 1933), having them published by the British and Foreign Bible Society (1804–), whose missionary branch was active in Serbia since 1868 (officially since 1918). However, neither of these newly published versions that used the Greek text and thus aimed to satisfy the “urgent need” were recognized as better – that is, as more traditionally Orthodox – than the Bible successfully completed in 1868 by Daničić [OT] – Karadžić [NT]. In reference to these two new translations, Stefanović wrote two pronouncedly negative reviews in the journal Theology (n. 29), entitled with the names of these freshly printed renditions: 3 (1927), 237–238; and 3 (1930), 230–231. As Stefanović observed – thus preparing the way for his own translation – even the use of the Greek text could not compensate for the fact that neither Petrović – Kingston nor Bakotić were theologians. And although he had rightly considered himself the one who was capable of answering the “urgent need” in the most accurate way, his translation did not experience the desired goal of ousting the popular version of Karadžić, which remained in use until the 1980s. For more on this issue, see TATALOVIĆ, “Stefanović,” 125–127 (n. 43).

56

Vladan Tatalović

established FOTB (n. 29), show an enviably deep understanding of contemporary global trends and thus added to the journal’s quality, their contents reflect a variety of influences.51 Having never attended the more renowned Orthodox schools, Stefanović did not acquire the habit of simply filtering the modern critical tradition but rather wanted to approach modern thought straightforwardly, independently, and more courageously than others had done. Although the academic orientation of the newly formed Faculty favored such an approach, his work was nonetheless not free of the apologetic spirit of his time. Inevitably challenged by the historical method, Stefanović deepened the apologetics of Zeremski, having dedicated a series of articles to the quest for the historical Jesus – or, to be more precise, to its reception in the framework of Serbian academic theology.52 Although these studies show that Stefanović was more aware of the overall cultural significance of the historical questions than his predecessor(s), they still lack an accurate scholarly method for delineating the traditionally nourished Gospel image of Christ; scholarly method was substituted by apologetics that self-confidently counted on the readers’ faith: Whoever today, in a time of criticism and doubt, sets about to delineate the personality of Jesus … has firstly, however briefly, to answer these two questions: did Jesus of Nazareth live and exist at all, and, if he did, whether … the Gospels contain fiction in addition to the truth.53

51 Stefanović’s scholarly affinities may also be traced through the titles of the foreign (mostly German) compendiums that he reviewed in Theology (n. 29), but that would not have even been reviewed (= recommended) for reading had he had a negative impression while studying any of them: “Dr. P. FEINE, Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig 19305,” 2 (1931), 167–169; “KNOPF – WEINEL, Einführung in das Neue Testament, Giessen 19344,ˮ 4 (1935), 438–441; “J. SCHNEIDER, Der Sinn der Bergredigt, Berlin,” 3–4 (1937), 356–360; “K. T. SCHÄFER , Grundriss der Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Bonn 1938,” 3–4 (1939), 329–332. 52 These articles were published in Theology (n. 29): “Личност Исуса Христа” (“The Personality of Jesus Christ”) 1 (1926), 5–14; “Речи Исуса Христа и њихова судбина” (“Words of Jesus Christ and Their Destiny”) 4 (1926), 303–309; “Исус Христос као Учитељ” (“Jesus Christ as a Teacher”) 3 (1929), 203–212; “Како је гласила анђелска химна о рођењу Исуса Христа?” (“What Was the Angelic Hymn about the Birth of Jesus Christ?”) 1 (1930), 44; “Исус Христос и Његови најближи” (“Jesus Christ and His Loved Ones”) 3 (1933), 198–203; “Исус Христос и Јован Крститељ” (“Jesus Christ and John the Baptist”) 1 (1934), 1–4; “Исус Христос и социално питање” (“Jesus Christ and the Social Question”) 3–4 (1938), 193–198; “Зашто је Исус Христос морао страдати?” (“Why Did Jesus Christ Have to Suffer?”) 2 (1939), 103–108; “Исус Христос пред јеврејским и римским трибуналом” (“Jesus Christ Before the Jewish and Roman Tribunal”) 2 (1940), 81–90. 53 STEFANOVIĆ, “Personality,” 5 (n. 52). Stefanović’s attitude towards the quest for the historical Jesus may also be traced through the titles of his (predictably positive!) reviews in Theology (n. 29): “Артур Ц. Хедлам, Исус Христос у историји и вери, с енглеског

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

57

Such a spirit had already been strikingly present in the Orthodox world because of the “selection method”, which was then the only way of dealing with new challenges. Indeed, this method fits with Albert Schweitzer’s characterization of the second phase of the quest of the historical Jesus as a division into the camps of aggression and apologetics.54 Therefore, Stefanović’s opus is permeated with apologetics in spite of being of high quality and despite his being well informed on global trends. In his rather independent and original attempts to offer apologetic answers to some challenges, he often resorted to Church doctrine as a key criterion. “Believe the Orthodox Church doctrine or the historical-critical school”55, he often wrote, frequently judging modern criticism for being destructive and ungrounded since “it does not teach or argue but rather defiantly goes against Tradition”.56 In this respect, the development of Serbian New Testament theology was not so much determined by scientific argumentation or even the academic articulation of Orthodox Tradition. Half a century later, the Serbian theological milieu became well aware of this deficiency when Stefanović was characterized as an exegete who “paid a toll to his time and his education since he did not delve deeply into the inexhaustible source of the Holy Fathers’ hermeneutics”.57 The development of Serbian New Testament theology was determined first and foremost by new findings that were reshaped in accord with the logic of a religious nation превео Драгимир Марић, Београд 1927” (“A. C. HEADLAM, Jesus Christ in History and Faith, translated from English by Dragomir Marić, Belgrade 1927”) 1 (1928), 78–80; “Dr. J. KLAUSNER, Jesus von Nazareth, Berlin 1930,” 1 (1932), 70–74; “F. M. WILLAM, Das Leben Jesu im Lande und Volke Israel, Freiburg im Breisgau 19344,” 1 (1936), 119–123; “H. FELDER, Jesus von Nazareth, Paderborn 1937,” 2 (1938), 168–171. 54 А. SCHWEITZER, Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen, 1906; 9th ed. 1984), 5. It is important to note that Stefanović did not remain alone in these sharp apologetics; his younger colleague Radivoj Josić (1889–1960), the first professor of apologetics at the FOTB, wrote an intriguing study: “Значај личности Исуса Христа за хришћанство” (“The Significance of the Personality of Jesus Christ for Christianity”), Theology (n. 29) 2 (1926), 153–176, and not too long afterwards a monograph of similar content: Борба против и за јеванђелског Исуса Христа (Struggle against and for the Gospel Image of Jesus Christ) (Belgrade, 1936). This title is of no surprise, for the first Serbian “Vita Jesu” novel appeared only two years earlier: D. DAMNJANOVIĆ, Живот Исуса Назарећанина (Life of Jesus of Nazareth) (Belgrade, 1934), but it was vocally condemned by the Church authorities and so doomed to failure. See: V. TATALOVIĆ, “Осврт на проблематику историјског Исуса у српској теолошкој средини I” (“Reviewing the Historical Jesus Problem in the Serbian Theological Milieu I”), Serbian Theology in the Twentieth Century (n. 35) 7 (2009), 9–18; Idem, “Осврт на проблематику историјског Исуса у српској теолошкој средини II” (“Reviewing the Historical Jesus Problem in the Serbian Theological Milieu II”), Serbian Theology in the Twentieth Century (n. 35) 8 (2010), 9–18. 55 STEFANOVIĆ, Four Canonical Gospels, 103 (n. 45). 56 Idem, 87–88 (n. 45). 57 BULOVIĆ, “Stefanović,” 167 (n. 43).

58

Vladan Tatalović

whose soul was pregnant with a deep faith that readers were expected to possess without question. In the age of Communism that followed, the Serbian people would be deprived of this very logic, but even in such times of ordeal, they were able to offer another solid approach through the personality of: 3.3 Emilijan Čarnić (1914–1995)58 Emilijan Čarnić was born in Čakovo (Ciacova, today in Romania). He studied at both the Faculties of Theology and Philosophy at Belgrade University, though he earned his Ph.D. degree in theology at the Athenian university, having written a doctoral thesis entitled, “Who Is the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews?”59 On his return to Belgrade, he was immediately appointed a lecturer at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology (1954),60 which was by then already expelled from the University (1952) by an Act of the Communist authorities and as such, being a Faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church,61 58 For a detailed analysis of Čarnić’s life and contributions to biblical scholarship in Serbia, see V. TATALOVIĆ, “Емилијан Чарнић као професор Новог Завета на Богословском факултету у Београду” (“Emilijan Čarnić as a New Testament Professor at the Faculty of Theology in Belgrade”), Serbian Theology in the Twentieth Century (n. 35) 1 (2006), 13–28 = Theology (n. 29) 1 (2006), 13–28. 59 E. ČARNIĆ, Τίς ὁ συγγραφεὺς τῆς πρὸς Ἑβραίους ἐπιστολῆς; (Who is the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrews?) (Athens, 1954). It may be important to note here that Čarnić spent little more than a year in Athens (1952–1954), where his doctoral father was the renowned scholar, Nicholaos Louvaris (1887–1961) – about whom see an extensive monograph: Νικόλαος Λούβαρις: ο φιλόσοφος, παιδαγωγός και θεολόγος (Nikolaos Louvaris: A Philosopher, Pedagogue and Theologian, ed. T. I. Dardaveses; Thessalonike, 2011). Although this period may seem too short for writing a Ph.D. thesis, even if it consisted of only 85 pages as Čarnić’s did, an FOTB archive document shows that he started to write the thesis a little earlier, spending an academic year (1951–1952) as a guest student at the Christkatholische Theologische Fakultät of Bern University, where he attended the lectures of noted NT scholars E. Gaugler (1891–1963) and W. Michaelis (1896–1965); see: TATALOVIĆ, “Čarnić,” 14–15 (n. 58). 60 TATALOVIĆ, “Čarnić,” 15 (n. 58). It is clear that Čarnić attended Stefanović’s lectures while studying at the FOTB, but it still remains unknown to us who delivered these subjects at the FOTB between 1943/1945, when Stefanović retired/passed away, and 1954, when Čarnić was appointed a lecturer. This ambiguity cannot be fully explained by the fact that these hard years for the whole nation might have demanded impovisations in the FOTB teaching system nor by the fact that Čarnić taught “New Testament Greek languageˮ as an assistant at the FOTB since 1947. Did he immediatelly replace Stefanović? For more on this, see TATALOVIĆ, “Čarnić,” 14 (n. 58). 61 This painful process has been analyzed in the following three articles published in Serbian Theology in the Twentieth Century (n. 35): D. BONDŽIĆ, “‘Нова власт’ и Богословски факултет у Београду 1944–1952” (“‘The New Authorities’ and the Faulty of Theology in Belgrade 1944–1952”), 1 (2006), 126–144; P. PUZOVIĆ, “Православни богословски факултет 1945–1952: Од државне до црквене институције” (“Faculty of Orthodox Theology 1945–1952: From State to Church Institution”), 1 (2006), 145–169; D.

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

59

was doomed to suffer five decades of unpleasant social isolation (1952– 2004). Under circumstances unfavorable for the development of any aspect of biblical theology – when the nation was struggling to recover from the wounds inflicted by Second World War62 and suffering under the totalitarian communist regime that followed shortly thereafter63 – deacon Emilijan Čarnić was delivering lectures on the “Holy Scripture of the New Testament” and the “New Testament Greek Language” until his retirement in 1980,64 when another Athenian Doctor of theology, at the time a hieromonk and now Bishop of Bačka, Irinej Bulović (1947–), succeeded his professorship in the Department.65 Professor Čarnić belongs to a circle of theologians who, after the Russian revolution, turned to Greek schools (Athens, Thessaloniki, Halki), which were, owing to a variety of factors, gradually gaining in academic potential and importance in the Orthodox world.66 In the decades to come, Athens

BONDŽIĆ, “Православни богословски факултет Српске православне цркве 1952–1960” (“Faculty of Orthodox Theology of the Serbian Orthodox Church 1952–1960”), 7 (2010), 79–92. Also consult R. RADIĆ, “Издвајање Богословског факултета из оквира Београдског универзитета” (“The Extradition of the Faculty of Theology from Belgrade University”), in Mǎrturisiri confluenţe (ed. I. Baba; Timişoara, 1997), 255–262, and pair the list of titles there with the following one: Č. S. DRAŠKOVIĆ, Bibliographie der orthodoxen Theologie in Jugoslawien 1945–1960 (Würzburg, 1961). 62 Let us mention here the personality of Savo Djukanović (1911–1942) who earned his Ph.D. in Bern, having defended the thessis Heiligkeit und Heiligung bei Paulus (Novi Sad, 1939) under the supervision of E. Gaugler (n. 59). Had not this young scholar suffered in Second World War, he might have been appointed a NT professor in Belgrade, since he got the position of assistant at FOTB shortly before the War broke out. For more on Second World War in Serbia, see, e. g., Serbia and the Serbs in World War Two (eds. S. P. Ramet and O. Listhaug; New York, 2011). 63 For more on the Communist repression in Serbia after Second World War, see the following two recently published studies: S. CVETKOVIĆ, Između srpa i čekića: represija u Srbiji 1944–1953 (Between the Hammer and Sickle: Repression in Serbia 1944–1953) (Belgrade, 2006); S. CVETKOVIĆ , Između srpa i čekića: represija u Srbiji 1953–1985 (Between the Hammer and Sickle: Repression in Serbia 1953–1985) (Belgrade, 2011). 64 TATALOVIĆ, “Čarnić,” 15–17 (n. 58). 65 For more on Bishop Irinej and his contribution to theological thought in Serbia, see the following section. 66 For more on these schools in the beginning of the twentieth century, see D. S. MPALANOS, Ἡ Θεολογική Σχολή τοῦ Πανεπιστηµίου Ἀθηνῶν (ἱστορική ἐπισκόπησις 1837–1930) (The Theological School of the University of Athens [A Historical View 1837–1930]) (Athens, 1931); G. S. ANDREADES, Ἡ Θεολογική Σχολή τοῦ

Πανεπιστηµίου Θεσσαλονίκης: Ἡ ἵδρυσις αὐτῆς ἀνάγκη ἐπιβεβληµένη, ἐπείγουσα, ἑπίκαιρος (The Theological School of the University of Thessaloniki: The Essential, Urgent and Opportune Character of Its Foundation) (Thessalonike, 1932); V. T. STAYRIDOU, Ἡ Ἱερά Θεολογική Σχολή τῆς Χάλκης: Μία συνοπτική θεώρησις (The Theological Faculty of Chalke: A Concise View) (Thessalonike, 1994).

60

Vladan Tatalović

would serve chiefly to imbue with meaning the return of the Serbian Church to authentically Orthodox roots – that is, Athens would help inspire the revival of Serbian patristic and liturgical tradition, thus spurring powers from within to create new ideas in biblical studies. Nonetheless, the title of Čarnić’s thesis proves that the Athenian theological climate at that time was still determined by some traditions that were soon after regarded as incommensurate with what was recognized and emphasized as truly Orthodox.67 Like the majority of the Greek professors educated at Western, German universities of the time, Čarnić’s mentor Louvaris could not but succumb to the strong influence of historical-criticism that, as is clearly exemplified in his candidate’s thesis, constantly incited Orthodox thinkers into creating some sort of scholarly mechanism that served to justify the Tradition academically, or at least to reconcile the Tradition with the results of historical-critical scholarship. The degree to which Čarnić’s doctoral thesis offered a scholarly answer to this challenge of a (still artificial) articulation of the Tradition, is not very difficult to conclude once we discern that this Athenian graduate applied an argument based on faith that he must have learned while in Belgrade. After arguing in countless pages pro et contra various theories, mostly of Western origin, related to the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews,68 he found it convenient to appeal to readers’ faith on the last page of his dissertation: The Holy Spirit, who acts through the author of the Epistle … and who dwells and operates in the Church, could not leave the Church in ignorance regarding [Paul as its] author.69

67 During the widespread changes in worldview that occurred by the middle of the twentieth century, a significant change of perspective in biblical scholarship also happened among the Orthodox Churches. However, although it may have progressed from apologetics to a broader acceptance of the historical sciences, it still was not capable of going further towards harmonizing the available achievements with the traditional approaches; rather, Orthodox biblical scholarship retained what may be considered a subtle kind of maternal apologetics, because of which critical scholarship found its safest ground in the domain of isagogics. This is the reason why many experts in isagogics emerged in midtwentieth century Orthodoxy, especially in Greece (where Communist threats to the Tradition were less felt), as is witnessed by Čarnić’s disciple at the FOTB and another Athenian doctor, today Serbian Metropolitan of Montenegro and the Littoral Amfilohije Radović (1938–): Историјски пресек тумачења Старог Завета (A Historical Review of the Interpretation of the Old Testament) (Nikšić, 1996; digital edition: Belgrade, 2001) n. p. [cited 20 July 2014]. Online: . 68 It is worth mentioning here that he used only two Orthodox monographs that, not surprisingly, originated from his doctoral mentor LOUVARIS: Ἐπιστολῶν Παύλου χαρακτῆρ (The Character of Paul’s Epistles) (Thessalonike, 1911); Εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τὰς περὶ Παύλου σπουδάς (Introduction to the Pauline Studies) (Thessalonike, 1919). 69 ČARNIĆ, Author, 84 (n. 59).

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

61

In other words, one cannot do anything else but believe the Tradition, which undoubtedly bore witness to the Apostle Paul as the authentic author of Hebrews. The later works of this most prolific Serbian biblical scholar proved more moderate in their attempts to rescue the sinking traditional standpoints from drowning in the all-embracing sea of critical doubt. After spending ten years proving the Pauline authorship of Hebrews and investigating the contexts and the contents of this epistle,70 Čarnić followed the example of his predecessors and fulfilled his teaching duty by writing the necessary textbooks,71 publishing his commentaries to almost every NT book,72 and translating the New 70 Having earned his Ph.D. on Hebrews, Čarnić did not cease to grapple with the question of this epistle’s author. Although his dissertation has never been translated into Serbian, he provided Serbian readers with the different theories about this problem by publishing a series of studies: after the first one, “Учење Посланице Јеврејима о Старом Завету” (“The Teaching of Hebrews on the Old Testament”), Herald of the Serbian Orthodox Church (n. 8) 1–2 (1955), 8–14, all others were published in Theology (n. 29): “Хипотеза о Варнави као писцу Посланице Јеврејима” (“Hypothesis about Barnabas as Hebrews’ Author”), 1 (1957), 80–86; “Хипотеза о Аполосу као писцу Посланице Јеврејима” (“Hypothesis about Apollos as Hebrews’ Author”), 2 (1957), 68–82; “Питање александризма Посланице Јеврејима” (“The Question of Alexandrism of Hebrews”), 1 (1958), 27–39; “Питање филонизма Посланице Јеврејима” (“The Question of Philonism of Hebrews”) 2 (1958), 9–26; “Хипотеза о Луки као писцу Посланице Јеврејима” (“Hypothesis about Luke as Hebrews’ Author”), 1–2 (1959), 40–45; “Посланица Јеврејима као литерарни проблем” (“Hebrews as a Literary Problem”), 1–2 (1960), 31– 46; “Питање адресата Посланице Јеврејима: део I” (“The Question of Hebrews’ Addressees: Part I”), 1–2 (1961), 33–51; “Питање адресата Посланице Јеврејима: део II” (“The Question of Hebrews’ Addressees: Part II”), 1–2 (1962), 57–78. Only after he exhausted these introductory questions about Hebrews did Čarnić begin to deal with its content. In so doing, he offered exposition of Christ’s high priesthood in Hebrews rooted in both patristic and modern literature; these studies were printed in Theology as well: “Архијереј по реду Мелхиседековом: део I” (“A High Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek: Part I”) 1–2 (1973), 17–42; “Архијереј по реду Мелхиседековом: део II” (“A High Priest according to the Order of Melchizedek: Part II”) 1–2 (1974), 17–48. The publication of his last study on Hebrews marks a crucial turning point in Čarnić’s scholarly work, reflected in his abandoning the overall climate of Orthodox biblical scholarship (n. 67) and in achieving an authentic exegetical expression, which unfortunately did not go much further than educating the students. 71 These are the following handbooks: Посланице апостола Павла: уџбеник за V разред богословије (Epistles of the Apostle Paul: A Handbook for Seminary's Fifth Grade) (Belgrade, 1967); Ерминевтика (Hermeneutics) (Belgrade, 1971); Увод у Свето Писмо Новог Завета: општи део (Introduction to the Holy Scripture of the New Testament: A General Part) (Belgrade, 1973); Увод у Свето Писмо Новог Завета: посебни део (Introduction to the Holy Scripture of the New Testament: A Special Part) (Belgrade, 1978). 72 Having defined the principles of Orthodox exegesis in “Православни принципи тумачења Светог писма” (“The Orthodox Principles of the Exegesis of the Holy Scripture”), Православна мисао (Orthodox Thought) 1–2 (1965), 1–14, Čarnić com-

62

Vladan Tatalović

Testament from the Greek original (1973).73 Ultimately, he integrated traditionally Orthodox ideas with an adroit use of modern critical tools, and he was often able to do so in such a way that these approaches became widely

menced to interpret NT books, providing his commentaries with his own translation of the NT from the Greek: Посланица Ефесцима св. апостола Павла (Holy Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians) (Belgrade, 1969); Јеванђеље по Матеју: део I, главе 1–11 (The Gospel according to Matthew: Part I, Chapters 1–11) (Belgrade, 1979); Јеванђеље по Матеју: део II, главе 12–28 (The Gospel according to Matthew: Part II, Chapters 12–28) (Belgrade, 1981); Јеванђеље по Марку (The Gospel according to Mark) (Belgrade, 1983); Јеванђеље по Луки (The Gospel according to Luke) (Belgrade, 1983); Дела апостолска (Acts) (Kragujevac, 1984; 2nd ed. 1989); Јеванђеље по Јовану (The Gospel according to John) (Kragujevac, 1986); Откривење Јованово (The Revelation of John) (Kragujevac, 1989); Посланица Галатима (The Epistle to the Galatians) (Kragujevac, 1992); Саборне посланице (The Catholic Epistles) (Belgrade, n. y.). 73 As is witnessed by a distinguished Serbian historian Dimitrije Bogdanović (1930– 1986), the Serbian Orthodox Church used a (revised) version of V. S. Karadžić’s NT translation (n. 34) after Second World War, although the version of Stefanović was available for decades; moreover, a sort of indifference towards efforts to reach a new and more accurate translation was even felt during the 60s and 70s: “Нови Завет у преводу Емилијана Чарнића” (“The New Testament in the Translation of Emilijan Čarnić”), Orthodox Thought (n. 72) 23 (1976), 127–131, 127. But despite the fact that this indifference was overcome by Čarnić’s translation in 1973 – made from the eighth edition of A. Merk’s critical edition of the Greek New Testament (Rome, 1957) – this attempt was evaluated by the Church authorities only as a “private one”, even though lone acknowledgements of its quality could be heard from a few bishops. The main reason for this negative reaction of the Hierarchy may be his resignation from the Church Committee that prepared the future edition of the Synodal translation (1984), as well as his eventual decision to finish the task of translation alone (TATALOVIĆ, “Čarnić,” 22–23 [n. 58]). However, the most positive review of Čarnić’s translation was given by a renowned Serbian philosopher Ksenija Atanasijević (1894–1981): “Превод на српски Новог Завета професора др Емилијана Чарнића” (“The Translation of the New Testament into Serbian by Professor Dr. Emilijan Čarnić”), Theology (n. 29) 1–2 (1973), 177–179. When we combine this with the no less enthusiastic evaluation of Bogdanović cited above, we may conclude that this NT rendition did not go unnoticed among the Serbian intellectuals of the time. For more on Čarnić’s translation principles, his three studies are to be mentioned here: “Поводом припрема за критичко издање византијског текста Светог Писма Новог Завета” (“About the Preparations for the Critical Edition of the Byzantine Text of the Holy Scripture of the New Testament”), Theology (n. 29) 1–2 (1963), 1–7; “Традиционални и нетрадиционални фактори у превођењу Светог Писма” (“Traditional and Nontraditional Components in Translating the Holy Scripture”), Theology 1–2 (1972), 31–41; “Нови завјет: превод Вука Стеф. Караџића” (“The New Testament: Translation of Vuk Stef. Karadžić”), Orthodox Thought (n. 72), 173–175. Finally, also worth mentioning are his numerous translations of liturgical texts from the Greek language into modern Serbian (listed in: TATALOVIĆ, “Čarnić,” 24–25 [n. 58]), which show his deep awareness of the need for Orthodox worship to be accessible to ordinary laypeople.

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

63

disseminated in Serbian theology.74 It is no coincidence, then, that Čarnić treated the accomplishments of the historical method in his mature scholarly years more freely, having obviously overcome the long-lived tension between science and the Tradition found among Orthodox biblical scholars: The Protestants work a lot on the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, especially in the profane field, i.e., philological, historical, and archeological. Therefore, their achievements may profitably help every Orthodox exegete.75

As hardly any biblical scholar in Serbia, he effectively valorized the historical method, providing readers with historical, archeological, and philological material, but he refrained from the application of this method in its full rigor. Indeed, his valorization of the historical method remained somewhat superficial, for he tended to assemble only the positive, mostly popular results of modern biblical scholarship, in order to obtain a broader audience. It is of no surprise, then, that the final crown of his exegetical opus was a Tetraevangelion accompanied by commentaries and entitled Jesus Christ: The Life and Deeds.76 In essence, Čarnić’s thought is permeated with the ethical and juridical spirit of the not-as-yet thoroughly reformed Orthodox system of thought.77 In 74

Though this attitude may be traced through the reviews he wrote, there is only one of them that is known to us: “K. H. SCHELKLE, Die Gemeinde von Qumran und die Kirche des Neuen Testaments, Düsseldorf 1960”, Theology (n. 29) 1–2 (1961), 122–124. 75 Hermeneutics, 37 (n. 71). 76 Belgrade, 1993. The present work cannot, however, list all of Čarnić’s popular papers of an exegetical nature. These papers bear witness to his courage in spreading the Gospel during the hard times of the Communist repression. One of his great contributions to the broader popularity of the Word was his active participation in preparing the Serbian edition of J. E. KRAUSE et al., Die Bibel. Ausgewählt, nacherzählt und illustriert für junge Menschen (Stuttgart, 1968; 15th ed. München, 1986): Илустрована Библија за младе (The Illustrated Bible for Youth) (ed. D. Krstić et al.; Belgrade, 1969; 5th ed. 1994). 77 Already in 1936, at the First Congress of Orthodox Theology in Athens, with his programmatic lecture G. Florovsky pointed to the need for a radical reform of Orthodox theology, proclaiming the need for a neo–patristic synthesis: “Patristics and Modern Theology,” in Procès Verbaux du Premier Congrès de Théologie Orthodoxe a Athènes, 29 Novembre – 6 Décembre, 1936 (ed. A. S. Alivizatos; Athènes, 1939), 238–242. He correctly observed that Palamite teaching on the divine ἐνέργειαι is hardly mentioned in most of the Orthodox textbooks and that this essential peculiarity of the Eastern tradition on the doctrine of God and His attributes has been completely misunderstood and even forgotten. Moreover, patristic doctrine on theosis has been more or less ignored in the modern systems of Orthodox education, while the doctrine of redemption has been most commonly expounded by Anselm of Canterbury or a later Post-tridentine authority. Florovsky argued that the Orthodoxy of his day completely overlooked the idea that the Resurrection is the climax and real source of victory over death, an idea strongly emphasized in patristic and liturgical traditions. Likewise, the idea of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ had been completely forgotten, as evidenced by the fact that theology

64

Vladan Tatalović

his view, “following Christ means, first and foremost, living the appropriate religious-moral life and bearing the Cross”78, while “the Last Supper is the feast of remembrance of Christ’s death and redemptive sacrifice for the sins of many”.79 That is why “the Holy Communion is the greatest good for a human being’s soul, a source of salvation, spiritual and moral strength, peace, consolation in life’s hardships, blessed calmness on a deathbed”.80 All in all, the gospel truth lies in the following: “Jesus founded the Kingdom of God on Earth, which has to completely dominate the souls of human beings … and which primarily depends upon the complete fulfillment of God’s will … that angels and the souls of the righteous in heaven fulfill in a perfect way.”81 These effective but rather old-fashioned Orthodox views were soon to be fundamentally reshaped in the Serbian context, through the works of Čarnić’s successor and another Athenian doctor of theology: 3.4 Irinej Bulović (1947–)82 Irinej Bulović was born in Stanišići (Vojvodina), and he studied theology in Belgrade, Paris, and Athens, where he earned his Ph.D. degree after a decadelong study in theology that culminated in defense of his thesis on the thought of St. Mark of Ephesus (1392–1444).83 Together with a few contemporaries professors have virtually no knowledge of the writings of Nicholas Cabasilas (1392) and Symeon of Thessalonica (1429). However, this call for an urgent and vital reform of theological education through the renewal of the patristic mentality still had to wait a long time for its realization (in Serbia), so this wave of renewal did not influence Čarnić's exegetical work, in which the inherited ethical concerns strongly prevail over ecclesiology – i.e., the Eucharistic catholicity of the Orthodox Church. 78 ČARNIĆ, Mark, 79 (n. 72). 79 ČARNIĆ, Jesus, 319 (n. 71). 80 ČARNIĆ, Mark, 111 (n. 72). 81 ČARNIĆ, Jesus, 118 (n. 71). 82 In addition to the fact that there are no published biographies or well-rounded opinions on the scholarly work of Bishop Irinej, the author of this study has plenty of scruples about expressing any definitive conclusions about the contributions to NT scholarship of a man who continues to be an active, full professor of “New Testament” and the “New Testament Greek language” at the FOTB. Nonetheless, as a resident of Serbia, who has witnessed the diverse circumstances of the last two decades at least, but also as an assistant of Bishop Irinej for almost a decade, the author of this study will take the risk of informing readers about several significant facts concerning our current topic. 83 E. MPOULOVITS, Τὸ Μυστήριον τῆς ἐν τῇ Ἁγίᾳ Τριάδι ∆ιακρίσεως τῆς Θείας Οὐσίας καὶ Ἐνεργείας κατά τὸν Ἅγιον Μᾶρκον Ἐφέσου τὸν Εὐγενικόν (The Mystery of the Distinction between the Divine Essence and Energy in the Holy Trinity according to Saint Mark of Ephesus the Courteous) (Thessalonike, 1983). With regard to the content of this dissertation, there are three more studies of Bulović to be mentioned here, which were published in the Serbian Orthodox Church’s journal Theological Views (n. 30): “Монаштво и проблем страдањаˮ (“Monasticism and the Problem of Suffering”),

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

65

who were already advanced in age, he belongs to the tradition of those Serbian monks, intellectuals, and Athenian doctors of theology who are to be thanked for a fundamental spiritual rebirth of the Serbian Church in the course of the twentieth century. This tradition commenced with Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović (1881–1956),84 a double doctorate graduate of Bern University,85 an erudite and ascetic, an affable persona yet a hesychast. Without being able to delve into the opus of this canonized saint (2003)86 and most prolific Serbian theologian,87 we must nonetheless emphasize the importance his expanisve spirit bore for scattered and crucified Serbian identity in the hardships of the twentieth century. Despite never teaching at the Faculty of Theology, not to mention the Department of New Testament, Velimirović interpreted the New Testament in a homiletic, pastorally popular but methodolog3 (1972), 172–190; “Јелинство и Православље” (“Hellenism and Orthodoxy”), 4 (1972), 263–270; “Теологија дијалога по Светом Марку Ефеском” (“Theology of Dialogue according to St. Mark of Ephesus”), 1 (1975), 5–35. 84 For more on Bishop Nikolaj, see BREMER, Struktur, 112–160 (n. 26); G. VAN DARTEL, “Nikolaj Velimirović (1880–1956). Eine umstrittene Gestalt der SerbischOrthodoxen Kirche,” Glaube in der 2. Welt 21 (1993), 20–26; F. D. M. ROGICH, Serbian Patericon: Saints of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Volume 1 (Forestville, 1994), 221–245; I. DOBRIJEVIĆ, “Bishop Nicholai Velimirovich: A Contemporary Orthodox Witness,” Serbian Studies 10 (1996), 198–209; R. BIGOVIĆ, Од Свечовека до Богочовка: хришћанска философија Владике Николаја Велимировића (From All–Man to God– Man: The Christian Philosophy of Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović) (Belgrade, 1998); R. C. GRILL, Serbischer Messianismus und Europa bei Bischof Velimirović († 1956) (dissertation; St. Ottilien, 1998); J. BYFORD, From “Traitor” to “Saint”: Bishop Nikolaj Velimirovic in Serbian Public Memory (Analysis of Current Trends in Antisemitism 22; Jerusalem, 2004). M. D. JANKOVIĆ, Епископ Николај – живот, мисао, дело (Bishop Nikolaj – Life, Thought, Works) (Belgrade, 2002); U. VON ARX, “Bischof Nikolaj Velimirović (1880– 1956) und seine Berner Zeit im Rahmen der christkatholisch-serbisch-orthodoxen Beziehungen,” IKZ 95 (2005), 1–33. 85 Bishop Nikolaj defended two doctoral dissertations in Bern, while he also spent some time at Halle, Oxford, and Geneva Universities (where he might have defended his third thesis, dedicated to the philosophical thought of George Berkeley). The first thesis belongs to the NT area and was written under the supervision of E. HERZOG (1841–1924): Der Glaube an die Auferstehung Christi als Grunddogma der apostolischen Kirche (Bern, 1910), while the second one belongs to the domain of philosophy and was supervised by P. Walker (1848–1924): Französisch-slavische Kämpfe in der Bocca di Cattaro 1806–1814 (Bern, 1910). 86 See B. BOŽOVIĆ, “Ein neuer Heiliger der Serbischen Kirche. Bischof Nikolaj (Velimirović),” Orthodoxie Aktuell 7 (2003), 3–6. 87 N. D. VELIMIROVIĆ, Сабрана дела епископа Николаја у 13 књига (Collected Works of Bishop Nikolaj in 13 Volumes) (Düsseldorf/Himmelsthür, 1976–1986; repr. ed. Valjevo, 2014); also consult the works listed in GRILL, Messianismus, 215–232 (n. 84), and additionally: I. KNEŽEVIĆ, “Дела Владике Николаја у преводу на енглески језик” (“Works of Bishop Nikolaj in English Translation”), Српска теологија данас (Serbian Theology Today) 2 (2010), 634–642.

66

Vladan Tatalović

ically accurate manner,88 and his interpretation is especially noted for its depth and clarity.89 In Serbian national and spiritual circles, but also further abroad, this archpriest’s image is inseparable from the personality of Archimandrite Justin Popović (1894–1979),90 an Athenian doctor of theology91 and professor of Dogmatics at the Faculty (1934–1948), who was confined to live within the premises of Ćelije monastery (Western Serbia) by order of the Communist authorities (1948–1979), a spiritual father and a role model to whom the young monk Irinej looked up.92 Justin Popović, also canonized as a 88 Nikolaj’s homilies are published in the sixth volume of his collected works (n. 87): Омилије на недељна и празнична јеванђеља епископа охридског Николаја (Homilies on Sunday and Festal Gospel Readings of Bishop of Ochrid Nikolaj) (Düsseldorf, 1976). 89 Therefore, Nikolaj was honored as the “New Chrysostom” in the Serbian Orthodox Church, a title that refers to the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Chrysostom (407). See: ROGICH, Patericon, 221 (n. 84). 90 For more on Justin Popović, see J. MEYENDORFF, “Archimandrite Justin Popovich,” St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 23 (1979), 118–119; E. HILL, “Justin Popović (1894– 1979),” Sobornost 2 (1980), 73–79; N. RADOVANOVIĆ, “Leafing through the works of Archimandrite Dr Justin Popović, 1894–1979,” Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 2 (1984), 48–52; BREMER, Struktur, 161–252 (n. 26); D. M. MAKOJEVIĆ, Christology: A Surrvey of the Teaching of Archimandrite Justin Popović (New York, 1995); A. JEVTIĆ, Човек богочовека Христа: споменица оцу Јустину Поповићу (1879–1979) (The Man of God–Man Christ: A Memorial to Father Justin Popović [1879–1979]) (Belgrade/Trebinje, 2004); B. LUBARDIĆ, Јустин Ћелијски и Русија: путеви рецепције руске философије и теологије (Justin of Ćelije and Russia: Ways of Reception of Russian Philosophy and Theology) (Novi Sad, 2009); Отац Јустин Поповић: живот и дело (Father Justin Popović: Life and Deeds) (ed. S. Denić; Vranje, 2010); V. TATALOVIĆ, “Ерминевтички принципи Архимандрита др Јустина Поповића” (“Hermenutical Principles of Archimandrite Dr Justin Popović”), Српска теологија у двадесетом веку (Serbian Theology in the Twentieth Century) (n. 35) 5 (2010), 17–29. 91 Fr. Justin earned his Ph.D. from Athens University in 1921, having written a thesis on St. Macarius of Egypt’s teaching on personality and cognition: I. POPOVITS, Τὸ πρόβληµα

τῆς προσωπικότητας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως κατὰ τὸν Ἅγιον Μακάριον τὸν Αἰγύπτιον (The Problem of the Personality and Cognition according to Saint Macarius the Egyptian) (Athens, 1926). 92 Following in the Archimandrite’s footsteps, Irinej arrived in Athens for his Ph.D. in theology, having joined there three other older disciples of Popović. Besides Metropolitan A. Radović (n. 67), then a hireomonk who researched Palamite trinitarianism – Α. RANTOVITS, Τὸ Μυστήριον τῆς Ἁγίας Τριάδος κατά τὸν Ἅγιον Γρηγόριον Παλαµά (The Mystery of the Holy Trinity according to Saint Gregory Palamas) (Thessalonike, 1973) – there was hiereomonk Atanasije Jevtić (1938–), today a retired Bishop of Zahumlje and Herzegovina, who wrote a thesis on Paul’s ecclesiology, A. GIEVTITS, Ἡ ἐκκλησιολογία τοῦ Ἀποστόλου Παύλου (The Ecclesiology of the Apostle Paul) (Athens, 1984), and also Artemije Radosavljević (1935–), a recently defrocked Bishop of Raška–Prizren and Kosovo–Metohija (2010), who defended his dissertation on St Maximus the Confessor’s soteriology: A. RANTOSAVLIEVITS, Τὸ Μυστήριον τῆς Σωτηρίας κατά τὸν Ἅγιον Μάξιµον τὸν Ὁµολογητήν (The Mystery of the Salvation

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

67

saint by the Serbian Orthodox Church (2010) and who enlivened the Serbian nation through the neo-patristic movement of modern Orthodoxy, was not a biblical scholar by vocation, though his work was unparalleled for its scope and influence.93 In slightly different ways, both of the saints maintained the rule that Justin Popović put succinctly in the following way: “Do to understand. It is the fundamental principle of Orthodox exegesis.”94 This may be the crucial reason why the exegesis of Nikolaj and Justin, aided in effect by their living examples, contributed to a fundamental spiritual change in Serbian church life (its advance being inversely proportional to the waning of the Communist totalitarian regime), while the exegesis of Belgrade New Testament scholars did not leave the Faculty premises (or, at least, had no need for doing so). Therefore, the challenge Bishop Irinej faced after being appointed a docent at the Faculty (1980), when the most fertile professional New Testament scholar abandoned the Department and the most influential Abba of modern Serbia abandoned the earthly living (1979), was not at all negligible: it required more than just a complex synthesis of both academic and Church traditions; it also required a synthesis capable of answering the needs of a society already estranged from Church life.95 Irinej’s scholarly according to Saint Maximos the Confessor) (Athens, 1975). On their return from Athens in the early 70s, both Radović and Jevtić were appointed professors at the FOTB, where they remained for decades. 93 Compared to Bishop Nikolaj, Fr. Justin’s exegetical work made use of more scholarly comments that were modeled upon patristic interpretations, but from within imbued with an authentic experience of profound but also traditional, folk faith. His Collected Works (Belgrade, 1998–) are planned to be published in 30 volumes, but this project is not complete. Among these works, the following contain exegetical content in the narrow sense: Тумачење Светог Еванђеља по Матеју (Commentary on the Holy Gospel according to Matthew) (Belgrade, 2000); Тумачење Светог Јеванђеља по Јовану. Тумачење посланица Св. Јована Богослова (Commentary on the Holy Gospel according to John. Commentary on the Epistles of St John the Theologian) (Belgrade, 2001); Тумачење посланица прве и друге Коринћанима Св. Апостола Павла (Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Corinthians of St. Paul the Apostle) (Belgrade, 2001); Тумачење посланице Ефесцима Св. Апостола Павла. Тумачење Посланице Филипљанима Св. Апостола Павла. Тумачење посланице Галатима и I и II Солуњанима Св. Апостола Павла (Commentary on the Epistle to the Ephesians of St. Paul the Apostle. Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians of St. Paul the Apostle. Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians and on I and II Thessalonians of St. Paul the Apostle) (Belgrade, 2002). 94 J. POPOVIĆ, Тумачење Светог Еванђеља по Матеју (Interpretation of the Holy Gospel According to Matthew) (Belgrade, 1979), 7. 95 This central concern of Bulović may be seen in his two works, published in Theology (n. 29): “Косовски Завет у светлости Новог Завета” (“The Testament of Kosovo in the Light of the New Testament”), 1–2 (1989), 1–9; “Откривење Јованово – књига за нас данас” (“The Revelation of John – a Book for Us Today”), 1–2 (1996), 3–9; also see his study: “Философски и хришћански појам о Богу” (“The Philosophical and the Christian

68

Vladan Tatalović

contributions to such an undertaking may be seen through works of various forms and through the newest, Synodal translation of the New Testament (1984).96 Irinej’s professorship, however, was largely impeded by his election as Bishop (1989), as well as by a wide range of duties that took their toll especially during the last decade of the twentieth century, when the Serbian nation was once again stricken by raging wars and migrations.97 Ultimately, his major contribution to Serbian theology in general, and therefore to biblical scholarship, is evident in his inconspicuous though unsparing struggle for the readmission of the Faculty to Belgrade University (2004), as well as for its survival amidst extremely complex ecclesiastical, political, and social relations. These circumstances inspired Bishop Irinej’s continuous endeavors to ensure versatile education to future generations at other academic and Church institutions, especially abroad.98 Concept of God”), in Појам Бога у филозофији (The Concept of God in Philosophy) (ed. M. A. Perović; Novi Sad, 1996), 125–131. 96 For more on the Synodal translation, see I. BULOVIĆ, “Нови превод Светог Писма Новог Завета” (“The New Translation of the Holy Scripture of the New Testament”), Православни мисионар (Orthodox Missionary) 160 (1984), 257–272; I. BULOVIĆ, “Вук и Црква” (“Vuk and the Church”), Theology (n. 29) 1–2 (1987), 53–63. 97 For more on this still not fully researched topic, consult E. MPOULOVITS, “Τὸ σηµερινὸ δρᾶµα τῆς Σερβίας καὶ ἡ δοκιµασία τῆς Ὀρθοδοξίας” (“The Present Drama of Serbia and the Trial of the Orthodoxy”) in Βαλκάνια και Ορθοδοξία (Balkans and Orthodoxy) (n. e.; Athens, 1993), 102–116; T. BREMER, Kleine Geschichte der Religionen in Jugoslawien. Königreich, Kommunismus, Krieg (Freiburg i. Br., 2003), 75–139, where other important works on the same issue are listed as well (140–141). 98 Bishop Irinej took his disciple Porfirije Perić (1961–) down the same spiritual and scholarly road that he himself traveled. Perić, a recently enthroned Metropolitan of Zagreb and Ljubljana (2014–), earned his Ph.D. in Athens, having defended his thesis on the reception of Paul’s gnoseology in Chrysostom’s works: P. PERITS, Τό δυνατόν τῆς

γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς τόν Ἀπόστολον Παῦλον κατά τόν Ἅγιον Ἰωάννην τόν Χρυσόστοµον (The Possibility of the Cognition of God in the Teaching of the Apostle Paul according to Saint John the Chrysostomos) (Athens, 2004), and he currently teaches “New Testament Theology” and “Pastoral Theology with Psychology” at the FOTB (2005– ). Beside these two archpriests, there are two other younger colleagues at the department of New Testament at the same Faculty, whose scholarly path was also determined by the decisions of Bishop Irinej: Prof. Dr. Predrag Dragutinović (1972–), who specialized in Bern and Athens, but who defended his doctoral thesis at the FOTB: Мисија и комуникација у раном хришћанству. Путовање хришћана као израз јединства Цркве у Новом завету и код апостолских отаца (Mission and Communication in Early Christianity: Christian Travelling as an Instrument of the Unity of the Church in the New Testament and Apostolic Fathers) (Belgrade, 2010); and the author of the present study (1977–), who specialized in Thessalonica and Münster, but whose dissertation on “The Son of Man in the Gospel and in the Revelation of John” has recently been defended at the FOTB (2014). Finally, the department of Biblical Scholarship as a whole currently includes three colleagues who specialized in the field of Old Testament in Germany, but who have or will receive doctoral degrees from the FOTB (Prof. Dr. Ilija Tomić [1952–], Prof.

Orthodox New Testament Scholarship in Serbia

69

4. Concluding Remarks To conclude our study, we will present three key insights, which in our view should serve as an agenda for any future work on Orthodox New Testament scholarship in Serbia: 1) First, returning to the initial thought of Podskalsky from the beginning of this study, according to which a scholarly assessment of the various streams of history is essential for understanding the development of the Serbian theological milieu, we should recognize that a complete consideration of the origin and development of Serbian New Testament scholarship could not be achieved in this work, even though almost all scholarly papers in the field of New Testament theology by the four previous professors at the FOTB were listed. We have been able only briefly to contextualize their thought historically and theologically, and we have mentioned only in passing the progress in translation attempts. Moreover, in the future, it will be necessary to shed light on the contributions of the professors of Old Testament, as well as the various other achievements in the field of biblical scholarship outside the faculty, which could have influenced the development of New Testament scholarship significantly. The Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars in Belgrade clearly shows that Serbian biblical scholarship has a future in international, cooperative endeavors. Indeed, the author of the present study does not hide his joy at the fact that those Serbian New Testament scholars present at this Symposium have experienced a profound encounter with their Western colleagues and their scholarly tradition, an experience that they had probably been waiting for their whole lives. 2) Second, the research above reveals that the question of exegetical method poses a central problem of pan-Orthodox and hence Serbian biblical scholarship. Despite all that has been hitherto achieved and the tendency of domestic professors towards the historical-critical method, the fact is that this environment has not caught up with the vivacious fountains of Western criticism. For instance, literary approaches have lately attracted considerable attention, but their real influence on the domestic ecclesiastic and scholarly atmosphere will not come for a good while, for we know that domestic thought only recently summoned up courage to cooperate seriously with the colossus of historical criticism. The attempt to offer a final presentation of any universal Orthodox method of interpreting Scripture bears a certain amount of risk, since it is based on a momentary and therefore fragmentary perception of contemporary biblical scholarship in the world and makes use of domestic scholarly resources weakened by various factors. Therefore, it is Dr. Rodoljub Kubat [1969–], and Nenad Božović [1985–]). In the future, their work will be significantly determined by the work of the first Serbian Biblical Institute, which was recently founded within the FOTB (2013).

70

Vladan Tatalović

all the more important to develop an Orthodox method by reexamining the authentic exegesis of the domestic context, while refining it through the corrective lens of biblical scholarship on a larger scale. There is no particular need to show that possibilities for such endeavors are significantly improved precisely with the Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars in Belgrade. 3) And finally, as a third observation, albeit one inseparable from the previous two, comes the fact that, given the circumstances, all previously mentioned Serbian biblical scholars pursued the improvement of teaching tools by sending young candidates abroad (on purpose), or by compiling textbooks, or giving lectures, or translating biblical texts and organizing seminars. Setting aside the entire problem of education in Serbia, which, along with inherent methodological and hermeneutical problems, has led to a whole range of consequences related to the decades-long isolation of the Serbian Orthodox region, the exegesis of domestic theologians who were not professional biblical scholars have indisputably played a decisive role in the revival of Church life. Therefore, being prone to a creative synthesis of traditional and modern, patristic and historical-critical approaches, Orthodox biblical scholarship in Serbia should strive towards a synthesis of S/spirit and science, hoping to create an academic exegesis, the method of which will be capable of the constructive rethinking of actual Church life – in other words, of offering perpetually active help in seeking authentic self-expression within the given framework. And so, as in the case of the previous two insights, with the closure of this third one, and hence the closure of this entire study, it is not particularly difficult to feel the prospects that open for such a synthesis precisely with the Sixth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars in Belgrade

Part Two: Papers from the Symposium

The Glory Returns: Spirit, Temple and Eschatology in Paul and John1 N. T. Wright

1. Introduction I am very grateful for the chance to explore this topic. Much has happened in the last thirty years to change the landscape of Europe, and much has happened in the world of New Testament studies in the same time, opening up new possibilities and options not only in the professional study of the Bible but also in its meaning and relevance for the wider world. I hope that this conference, and this lecture, will contribute to that larger task. My subject is one particular strand of thought which we find both in the letters of St Paul and in the gospel of St John. Scholars disagree, of course, as to which letters Paul wrote, and as to which John it was who wrote the gospel; but those are questions for another occasion, and they do not affect what I want to say. I shall draw attention to a theme which has not been sufficiently explored, and which opens up new possibilities for understanding the early Christians’ view of the Holy Spirit and of the church in a way which, I hope, may bridge some of the ancient divisions between eastern and western theology.

2. The Jewish Hope of God’s Return My proposal is based on a vital element in the hope of many Jews in the second temple period, which I have set out in more detail in my recent book Paul and the Faithfulness of God (London and Minneapolis: SPCK and Fortress Press, 2013), 104–7. Throughout the second temple period many Jews believed that Israel’s God, YHWH, had never returned to Jerusalem after the Babylonian exile. According to Ezekiel, the divine glory, the presence of 1

Public lecture given in the Assembly Hall of the State University of Belgrade, August 26, 2013.

74

N. T. Wright

Israel’s God himself riding on his throne-chariot, had abandoned the temple at the time of the Babylonian invasion, because of the wickedness of the people, and especially the priests. But Ezekiel also said that when God restored his people, cleansing them and renewing his covenant with them, the temple would be rebuilt, and the divine glory would at last return and dwell for ever in that renewed temple. This vision belongs with the larger temple-theology of ancient Israel. It goes back to the book of Exodus, which reaches its climax in the construction of the tabernacle, and then in the glory of Israel’s God coming to dwell in it. This had almost not happened at all, because of the sin of the golden calf; but Moses’ prayer in chapter 33 was effective, and YHWH consented to come after all and dwell with the people: Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting because the cloud settled upon it, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. Whenever the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, the Israelites would set out on each stage of their journey; but if the cloud was not taken up, then they did not set out until the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was on the tabernacle by day, and fire was in the cloud by night, before the eyes of all the house of Israel at each stage of their journey. (Exod 40:34–38 [the close of the book])

This scene forms the pattern for the two other great divine manifestations in Israel’s scriptures, one described and the other promised. In 1 Kgs 8 the glory comes to dwell in Solomon’s newly-built temple. We might also mention the vision of the same glory in Isa 6. But Ezekiel, as I said, prophesies the glorious return after the exile: And there, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the east; the sound was like the sound of mighty waters; and the earth shone with his glory … As the glory of the Lord entered the temple by the gate facing east, the spirit lifted me up, and brought me into the inner court; and the glory of the Lord filled the temple. (Ezek 43:2, 4–5)

This theme is central to several other exilic and post-exilic books. In Isa 40– 55 it forms a main subject. The ‘comfort’ promised in Isa 40 is based on the promise that ‘the glory of YHWH shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together.’ In chapter 52, this promise is expanded: Zion’s watchmen will lift up their voices and shout for joy, because in plain sight they see YHWH returning to Zion. Israel’s God will defeat Babylon, rescue his people, and set up his kingdom. The messengers will say to Zion, ‘Your God reigns.’ Your God, in other words, is coming back, and will be King. Other post-exilic prophets take up the theme. Zechariah insists that YHWH will indeed return, to judge and to save (Zech 2:4–5, 10–11). Haggai declares that God will once more fill his house with glory (2:7). Malachi is faced with bored priests who are bringing second-rate offerings, going through the motions of the temple liturgy with no sense that the God who had promised to live there had actually returned. So Malachi emphasizes that it will happen at

The Glory Returns

75

last: ‘the Lord whom you seek will indeed suddenly come to his temple’ (3:1–2). This is as much a warning as a promise: who will be able to abide the day of his coming, and who will be able to stand when he appears? This situation continues throughout the second-temple period. Indeed, we might suggest that this is part of the reason for the rise of visionary and mystical literature at this time: the God who did not seem to have returned to the temple might after all be reached by some other means, through special revelation or mystical practices. Within the early rabbinic movement, making the blessings of the temple available more widely, one sage proposed that the divine glory, the Shekinah, would come to dwell wherever two or three people sat together and studied Torah. Others declared that the divine spirit had been present in the first temple, but not in the second, leaving open the possibility of a different manifestation of the divine spirit through the new dispensation of Torah. This belief was obviously a great help when the temple was finally destroyed in 70 C.E.; but the ancient hope was not allowed to die, and in the final revolution of 132–135 C.E. some of the coins which were minted by the bar-Kochba regime portrayed the temple, as a statement of hope and intent. Perhaps YHWH would come back at last to rescue his people and live with them for ever. The only text which claims that the divine presence had indeed returned to the second temple is ben-Sirach 24. There, however, it is not the glory as seen by Ezekiel; nor is it the vision of God himself, flanked by the seraphim, in Isa 6. It is the presence of Wisdom, which is to be found in the Law. In other words, if the priests are teaching Torah in the Temple, the true Wisdom is dwelling there, and this is the true divine presence. Ben-Sirach was probably written around 200 B.C. I doubt if many second-temple Jews would have agreed with its proposal under the Hasmonean or Herodian regimes. Some have suggested other exceptions, such as the strange passage in Josephus about the angels leaving the temple as the Romans closed in. But if you had asked a Jew of the first century whether the promises of Isa 40; 52, or of Ezekiel, Zechariah and Malachi had been fulfilled, the answer would have been obvious. Of course YHWH had not come back. If he had, everything would have been transformed, the temple would have been rebuilt properly, the Romans would have been sent packing, and justice and peace would reign. My point now is fairly simple. It is that this hope, of the return of YHWH to Zion, shaped the earliest Christian beliefs about both Jesus and the Spirit, and that we can see this clearly in Paul and John.

76

N. T. Wright

3. The Return of YHWH in the Person of Jesus My topic today is the spirit, not Christology, so I shall not pause more than a moment here. Suffice it to say two things. First, all four gospels, in their very different ways, tell the story of Jesus as the shocking and unexpected mode of YHWH’s return. Mark opens with Isa 40 and Mal 3, two of the crucial returnof-YHWH passages. John makes the temple central to his presentation of Jesus, and when the Word becomes flesh and ‘tabernacles’ in our midst we are to see this as the beginning of a major theme: that in Jesus the divine glory has returned at last, though of course with the paradox that the full revelation of that glory comes on the cross. I have argued elsewhere that Jesus himself shared in this perception: he, in his own personal vocation, embraced a vision of what it would look like when Israel’s God came back in person to rescue and redeem his people. Second, in the earliest Christology for which we have evidence, that of Paul, we find a rich exploration of the same theme. Many scholars in recent years have asked how it was that the first Christians came so quickly to believe that in Jesus the one true God had returned to his people, to judge and to save. Many have produced theories about what drove them to attribute to Jesus texts and themes which had always been reserved for the one God. My own view, spelled out in my recent book on Paul, is that the movement went the other way. The first Christian believed that in Jesus’ resurrection the great rescuing event had taken place, leading them to conclude that Israel’s God had indeed returned in person, however startling that return had been. It was not so much that they found ways to speak of Jesus which exalted him to share in the unique divinity of the One God. It was rather, I think, that they found themselves forced to speak about what this one God had done, in person, and to do so by telling stories about Jesus. They were not so much telling God-stories about Jesus; they were telling Jesus-stories about God. That is a very short summary of a very long argument. But it leads me to my main theme today. The early Christians, as well as telling Jesus-stories, told Spirit-stories about the one God. Or, to put it more fully, they found themselves talking about the Holy Spirit in such a way as to echo, consciously and deliberately, the biblical passages which spoke about the presence and action of Israel’s One God himself.

4. The Return of YHWH in the Form of the Holy Spirit 4.1 Introduction The Holy Spirit has often been spoken of as ‘the forgotten person of the Trinity’, in exegesis as well as theology. Many have supposed that while the first

The Glory Returns

77

Christians were keen to show the exalted status of Jesus they did not work out so clearly what to say about the Spirit. The normal view has been that it was only with the fourth-century Cappadocian Fathers that the church thought through the divinity of the Spirit (though Irenaeus had earlier insisted on it as well). My proposal is that both exegetes and theologians, by not looking at the Jewish context of earliest Christianity, have missed the major theme which demonstrates that those Fathers were simply re-expressing, perhaps in less than fully satisfactory ways, what the very first Christians, thinking Jewishly, had thought and said about the Spirit all along. Basically, what we see in Paul and John is an Exodus-based soteriology and a temple-based ecclesiology. These two obviously go together. It was at the Exodus that the glorious divine presence led the people through the wilderness and came to dwell in the tabernacle. In both cases the early Christians give to the Spirit the role which in the Jewish narratives and symbols is played by YHWH himself. One cannot have a higher Pneumatology than this, nor a stronger basis for understanding what the church really is. 4.2 Paul, the Exodus and the Temple Early Christianity focused strongly on Exodus and Passover. Jesus’ choice of the Passover for his final visit to Jerusalem meant that from very early on his death and resurrection, and indeed his whole kingdom-inauguration, was seen in terms of the Passover. Thus Paul comes back repeatedly to the Exodus. He takes it for granted that the Exodus-story is being worked out in the Christian community (1 Cor 10) ‘Christ our Passover has been sacrificed for us’; God has delivered us from the kingdom of darkness, as he rescued Israel from slavery in Egypt (Col 1:13f). The word ‘redemption’ itself, apolytrōsis, carries the overtones not so much of slave-markets in general as of God’s rescue of his people from their Egyptian slavery. The prophets had longed for a new Exodus. ‘We are slaves in our own land’, Ezra and Nehemiah had complained. The early Christians believed that the ultimate Exodus had now occurred, even though it did not look like they had thought it would. But in Romans and Galatians, Paul goes a step further. At two decisive points in these letters (Rom 8; Gal 4) Paul draws in detail on the language and imagery of the Exodus. In Gal 4 he speaks of a young son who is no better than a slave, but who is redeemed when the appointed time arrives so that he can be spoken of as the true son. This is an Exodus-narrative, not merely as a type or example of something (as though Paul were merely snatching biblical allusions out of thin air) but as making the claim that the events concerning Jesus were indeed the ‘new exodus’. But not only the events concerning Jesus. In Gal 4:6–7 Paul speaks of the gift of the Spirit: more specifically, ‘the spirit of the son’. ‘Because you are sons’, he writes, ‘God sent the spirit of the son into our hearts, crying “Abba,

78

N. T. Wright

Father”. So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and, if a son, then an heir, through God.’ The spirit, in other words, is the one who makes the word spoken about Israel (‘Israel is my son, my firstborn’, Exod 4:22) into a reality. And it is this sonship which then gives full meaning to the concept of ‘inheritance’, which in the context of Galatians looks back to the promises to Abraham and hence to the covenant described in Gen 15, which itself also predicts the Exodus as the means by which Abraham’s family will inherit their promised land. As Paul says two or three times elsewhere, the Spirit is the ‘guarantee of the inheritance’, the ‘down-payment’, the advance instalment. (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5; Eph 1:14; Rom 8:23 (see below).) In Galatians this is followed by a remarkable claim. Just as at the Exodus the children of Israel were given a fresh revelation of the one true God, and the meaning of his name, so it appears that something similar has happened now. ‘Now that you have come to know God’, writes Paul, ‘or rather to be known by God …’ In other words, the gospel events of the sending of the Son and the sending of the Spirit of the Son constitute a fresh and final revelation of who the ‘one God’ really is. Within the implicit Exodus-narrative this means a stark choice: either you go with the threefold revelation of the one God – Father, Son and Spirit – or you are going back to slavery, back to Egypt, back to the rule of the principalities and powers. Thus, within the retold Exodus-story, Paul sees the Holy Spirit as the powerful personal presence of the One God of Israel, the One God who has sent his Son as the redeemer. This statement is very dense and compact. Paul says the whole thing in not much more than a hundred words. He makes no attempt to explain more fully what exactly he means. In addition, the statement does not appear controversial. Paul does not argue against people who are taking a different view of the Spirit. As with Christology, so with Pneumatology, we must assume that this remarkably high and dynamic vision of the Spirit was solidly established in the church from its earliest days. This points on to Romans, where Paul sets out the story of the Exodus more fully, and spells out some of the compressed points in Galatians. I have argued elsewhere that Rom 6; 7 and 8 constitute a large-scale retelling of the Exodus-story. Paul describes baptism in Rom 6 as the event by which those enslaved to sin are set free. When we place this alongside 1 Cor 10 we see that he regularly links baptism with the crossing of the Red Sea. From there, the Israelites journeyed to Sinai and were given the Law, with potentially disastrous consequences; Paul picks this up in Rom 7. Then they move on, wandering through the wilderness on the way to their ‘inheritance’, in other words, to the promised land. Paul follows exactly this sequence in Rom 8. And this is where his view of the Spirit is displayed in a way not usually noticed. You recall that in the book of Exodus the children of Israel made the golden calf, but that, following Moses’ intercession, the tabernacle was built after

The Glory Returns

79

all, and the divine glory came to dwell in it. The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night then led the Israelites through the wilderness to their inheritance. Two passages in Rom 8 pick up exactly these themes. First, in Rom 8:9–11 Paul speaks of the spirit of God ‘dwelling in’ the Christians. This theme of ‘indwelling’ can only be a reference to a temple-theology – or perhaps, granted the Exodus context, we should say a tabernacle-theology. Indeed, what Paul does with that theme in these verses is to humanize the theme of the temple’s destruction and rebuilding. The body is dead, he says, because of sin, but the spirit is life because of ‘righteousness.’ Thus the God who raised Jesus from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also, through the indwelling spirit (8:11). In other words, the resurrection of the body will be the fulfilment of the promise to rebuild the temple – and it will take place because your bodies are already the ‘new temple’. The divine glory has returned, both in Jesus and in the spirit. This makes perfect sense within the larger Exodus-narrative upon which Paul is here drawing. And it points on to the second key passage. Second, then, in Rom 8:12–16 Paul speaks of the people now being ‘led’ by the spirit as they journey towards their inheritance. Again he clearly has the Exodus-story in mind. They must not ‘go back to slavery’, as the wilderness generation were wanting to go back to Egypt. They are to go on, led by Israel’s God himself in the pillar of cloud and fire. At this point in the story Paul speaks of being led by – the Spirit. Paul is ascribing to the Spirit that which, in Exodus, is ascribed to the personal presence of Israel’s God. He has returned at last to rescue his people. All this takes place within a Jewish eschatological frame of reference. Israel’s hope for YHWH’s return had been fulfilled, but in a form nobody had imagined. The Messiah had come, as the true son of the one God, and had been crucified and raised from the dead. Only because of these foundational events could any of the picture be even thinkable. The events of Isa 40; 52 had taken place: Israel’s God had returned in person, to bring Israel’s prolonged exile to an end at last, and to bring about redemption for the whole world. The new-Exodus events of the new ‘tabernacle’, and the new ‘wilderness wandering’, led by the divine presence, mean what they mean within this eschatological framework. From this point of view it is easy to see why Paul’s vision of the church is what it is. When he speaks of the church as God’s temple, in 1 Cor 3; 2 Cor 6, this is not a random image plucked from the sky. It belongs closely with his overall belief that in Jesus and the Spirit Israel’s God had returned in person to redeem his people and to dwell in their midst – and now, in the church itself. So too with the individualized ‘temple’-promise: “Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which you have from God; you were bought with a price, so glorify God in your body.” (1 Cor 6:19–20) Here again the Exodusmotif is apparent in the notion of redemption, of being ‘bought with a price.’

80

N. T. Wright

And, as in the scriptural original, the point of the temple-theme, and the indwelling of God himself by the Spirit, is first and foremost the holiness of the people. For Paul, this holiness is no longer defined in terms of circumcision, Sabbath and the food laws; but it is still defined, just as solidly as within Judaism, in terms of adherence to the one God (albeit now freshly understood) and to the codes of sexual purity. In 2 Cor 6, this works out in terms of a new, Christian endogamy. Whereas before law-abiding Jews were expected to marry within their community, Paul redefines the family: marriage is to be between Messiah-believers, whatever their ethnic background. This points to the other great theme of Paul’s ecclesiology: unity. In 1 Cor 3 he uses the temple-motif to insist that the church collectively constitutes a single entity. Faced with factional fighting, Paul insists that if the church is the reality to which the temple had pointed, and if Israel’s God, the creator, now dwells in it in person, then there cannot be a divided church. In words which are even more challenging in today’s context than they were for the Corinthians, Paul insists that the temple, i.e. the church, is to be both united and holy. One further passage completes this outline of Paul’s Pneumatology. In 2 Cor 3; 4 Paul is facing an attack on his very status as an apostle. In reply, he draws on the book of Exodus, and particular the scene which follows the making of the golden calf, where Moses intercedes and YHWH agrees to come with the people after all. Paul is drawing on this passage to say, to the rebellious Corinthians, that the divine glory has come to dwell both in him and in them, and that this explains the nature of his ministry. Here too, then, as well as in Galatians and Romans (and with echoes in Ephesians and Colossians), we have an essentially Exodus-based and Temple-focussed eschatology in which the return of YHWH to his people and to his temple has become a reality through the Spirit. This treatment of Paul has obviously been brief. I hope I have said enough to show that for Paul the Spirit plays the role, within the new Exodus, that was played by the glorious presence of YHWH himself in the original Exodus. This undergirds his vision of the church as united and holy. He does not, in other words, add on some ideas about ‘the church’ and about ‘ethics’ to a ‘theology’ which is about other things. Rather, because he sees God’s action in Jesus and the Spirit in terms of the long-awaited fulfilment of Israel’s hopes, the notions of return from exile, of new Exodus, and above all the personal return of YHWH form the backbone of his thinking and teaching. Within that, the Son and the Spirit both play vital roles. There can be no stronger point to make about the Spirit, or about the meaning of the Spirit’s work for the life of the Christian and the church, than to say that the Spirit is YHWH himself, returning to take up his dwelling in his temple – the temple which now consists of all those who have been redeemed by the death of the son and restored to life in his resurrection.

The Glory Returns

81

This raises, of course, the question of transformation: in other words, of ‘deification.’ If the Spirit is YHWH in person, taking up residence in believers to change them ‘from glory to glory’, does this not mean that the divine life itself is at work in them? Yes, it does; but for fuller exploration of this theme we had better turn to the Gospel according to John. 4.3 John: New Temple, New Mission John signals his intention right from the start. His gospel announces itself, to anyone with ears attuned to the Jewish scriptures, as a new Genesis and a new Exodus. ‘In the beginning was the Word’: the echoes of Gen 1:1 are obvious. Not so obvious, but equally important, are the echoes of the climactic verse 14: the Word became flesh, and dwelt in our midst. The Greek is eskēnõsen en hēmin, in which we are clearly intended to hear that the Word tabernacled, pitched his tent, in our midst. This is the line which runs from Gen 1 to Exod 40, only now in the Christological and eschatological mode. The God who made all things has come to dwell in the midst of his people. Again we note, as with Paul, that this fresh presentation includes a sense, as in Exodus, that this happens despite the people’s unworthiness. The wilderness tabernacle was set up, and the divine glory came to reside in it, despite the golden calf. Now, ‘he came to his own, and his own did not receive him’; but to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave the power to become God’s children – again, an Exodus-motif. ‘And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled in our midst; and we have seen his glory, the glory as of the father’s only son, full of grace and truth.’ For John, the incarnation is the reality towards which the wilderness tabernacle, and then the Jerusalem Temple, had been pointing all along. This is basic for the whole gospel, as we find in the second chapter where Jesus speaks of the ‘temple’ of his body. That is why, in John, Jesus recapitulates the great feasts: Passover, Tabernacles, Hannukah and Passover again. This is the heart of John’s incarnational Christology: this is where the divine glory is at last displayed, particularly in the cross where the ‘son of man’ is ‘lifted up’. This is what it looks like when ‘the glory of the Lord is revealed’ – when, in second-Temple Jewish terms, Israel’s God returns to Zion at last. So far, this seems only to be about Christology. But for John the Spirit is again and again the one through whom the reality of the son’s incarnation becomes present, operative and effective in his followers. We can see this clearly at the end of the story: Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (John 20:21–23)

82

N. T. Wright

In the Synoptics, it is Jesus who claims to forgive sins, and is strongly criticized for usurping a divine prerogative. This probably means, in the terms of the day, that he was claiming to do something which normally happened in the Temple. Now here in John Jesus is giving his followers that same prerogative. The only explanation is the promise which sets the context, namely, the gift of the Spirit. ‘As the Father has sent me, so I send you’; in other words, as he was the Word made flesh, so they are to be words made flesh, divine words of forgiveness or judgment, constituting themselves thereby as the missionary church which is simply the outflowing of the mission of God himself. How has this happened? Are there signs in John, as in Paul, of the early Christian understanding of the Spirit as the personal return of Israel’s God to his temple – albeit to a very different, and newly constituted, temple? There are. As with Paul, we cannot give a full account, but I focus on certain central passages. First, we have the strange remark in John 7:37–39. Jesus has gone to Jerusalem for the Feast of Tabernacles, at which water was poured out to remind the people of God’s provision of water in the wilderness – as well as to evoke the promise of Isa 55, that anyone who is thirsty should come to the waters which Israel’s God is offering to all and sundry as part of his gift of new covenant and new creation, consequent upon the work of the Servant in Isa 53. All this is relevant, because Jesus gives the promise a new home base in himself and his work: Let anyone who is thirsty come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink. As the scripture has said, ‘Out of the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water.

And John adds his explanation: He said this about the Spirit, which believers in him were to receive; for as yet there was no Spirit, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

Three points in particular come out of this. First, the Spirit can only be given when Jesus has been ‘glorified.’ Why? Because, in John, the ‘glorification’ of Jesus is his death on the cross; through the cross, Jesus is going to purify his people, to make them a sanctified temple for the Spirit to dwell in. As in Paul, the gift of the Spirit is entirely dependent on the work of the Son. But, second, the Spirit is given, as we saw in John 20, to enable the mission of God through the church. Jesus does not say, ‘Into the believer’s heart shall flow rivers of living water’, but out of the believer’s heart. The ‘into’ is presupposed; these people start by being thirsty. But their drinking of the water is not for their own benefit, but so that they can be channels of blessing, of living water, for the world. Third, what does John mean by saying ‘as the scripture has said’, in verse 38? This has long been a puzzle for exegetes. The best answer is that refer-

The Glory Returns

83

ence is to Ezek 40–48, the extraordinary and almost dream-like vision of the restored Temple and city. In that passage, the new Temple is built in chapters 40–42.; the divine glory, as we saw, returns to it in chapter 43; and those who are to minister are given their duties in 44–46. Then the prophet sees the vision of water flowing from the Temple, in chapter 47 – a theme picked up, of course, in Rev 22, where, as here and in ben-Sirach 24, it appears to evoke Gen 2. This is new creation. The water will irrigate the land in a whole new way, and the land will be apportioned once more to God’s people. The book ends with the solemn and emphatic promise: The name of the city from that time on shall be ‘YHWH is there’ (48:35). All this is presupposed behind the brief and cryptic promise in John 7. If, throughout John, Jesus himself is the true Temple, the place where the divine glory has come uniquely to dwell for ever, then those who believe in Jesus are to be constituted as a kind of extended version of this Temple. The Spirit – as also in John 3; 4 – is the water of life which will be poured out not only for them but through them to the world, once Jesus has been ‘glorified’ so that they can be sanctified through his death. Once again, as in Paul, the themes of the Temple, and of the new Exodus and the return of YHWH to Zion, are powerful in the background, and give not only a rich explanation for a difficult passage but a sense of larger coherence to the intertwined themes of Christology and Pneumatology. These together form the basis for John’s theology of the church, which is above all a theology of mission. But for that we need to move to the Farewell Discourses. It is easy to get lost, or indeed bogged down, in John 13 to 17. There is so much rich and complex material, and often we naturally find ourselves, faced with these chapters, thinking of prayer or preaching rather than systematic theology. That is right and proper. But it is important, too, to realise how this whole section functions within John’s gospel as a whole. One of the features that students learn early on is that whereas in Mark and the other Synoptics Jesus comes to Jerusalem and, as we say, ‘cleanses the temple’, at the climax of the narrative, in John’s gospel it happens almost right at the start, in chapter 2. Scholars continue to argue whether this reflects actual history or whether it is part of John’s complex thematic arrangement. In terms of the structure of the gospel, by the time Jesus comes to Jerusalem for the last time, in chapter 12, we are already well used to the fact that a clash has been set up between the official Temple, the building in Jerusalem, and the new Temple which consists of Jesus himself. In terms of the narrative structure, John does something truly extraordinary. From chapters 9 and 10 he has been strongly hinting that Jesus is going to his death. In chapter 11 we see the Chief Priests plotting against him; in chapter 12 Jesus speaks quite openly of his forthcoming death, and we discern the time has arrived. “What shall I say? Father, save me from this hour? No: this was why I have come to this hour. Father, glorify your name.” (12:27–28) The seed must die if it is to

84

N. T. Wright

bear much fruit (12:23–24), the fruit that will consist of people from all the world coming to hear and believe (12:20–23). All this is increasingly clear. But then the extraordinary thing happens. John does not continue the story. He has led us to expect that now Jesus will once again go to the Temple, confront the Chief Priests, and generate the final crisis. But instead, Jesus takes his followers privately to an upper room, where he washes their feet and talks to them about love and its demands, about the ruler of the world and the coming persecution, and about God convicting the world of sin, of righteousness and of judgment. But, above all, he speaks about the Holy Spirit. He speaks in terms which can be confusing – until we realise that it is all Temple-language, all Exodus-language. He is leading his people out of slavery, and the slave-masters – the ‘world’ and its ‘rulers’ – will hate this, and will attack them. Jesus is telling them, above all, that the age-old promise of God’s return to the Temple is at last to be fulfilled – in them, and by the Spirit: If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate, to be with you for ever. This is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, because he abides with you, and he will be in you. (14:15–17) On that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you … Those who love me will keep my word, and my Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. (14:20, 23)

This is Temple-language. It is the theme that underlies the famous image of the ‘vine’ in John 15, where again the mutual indwelling of Jesus, the believers and the Father will reveal the Father’s glory and enable them to bear fruit. This, after all, is the ancient eschatological hope: that Israel’s God would return at last in glory, would dwell in the Temple for ever, and would cause blessing to flow out into the world – as well as calling the world to account for its residual wickedness. And the Spirit, not mentioned in the prayer of chapter 17 but powerfully present throughout that prayer, makes sense of the language of indwelling. Not for nothing is this known as the ‘high-priestly’ prayer of Jesus. John has brought us to Jerusalem, but instead of taking us to Herod’s temple and to the confrontation of Jesus with the chief priests, he has taken us to the heart of the new temple, there to reveal the glory – and the challenge! – which are given to the church by the outpouring of the Spirit. Then, and only then, does John take us back out, to the garden and Jesus’ arrest, and particularly to the spectacular confrontation between Jesus and Pilate, the kingdom of God and the kingdom of the world, arguing with one another about kingdom, truth and power, before Pilate does what Caesar always does and Jesus does what God always does, loving his own and loving them to the uttermost. And in that light we come back to John 20 and see much more clearly what Jesus means when he says, ‘As the Father sent me, so I am sending you.’

The Glory Returns

85

For John, then, no less than for Paul, the vision of the Holy Spirit is rooted in the Jewish themes of new Exodus and new Temple. Israel’s hope has come to pass; Israel’s God has returned to Zion; the Word has become flesh and ‘tabernacled’ in our midst. But this only makes sense if the Spirit is given so that the church can be the means of this hope being worked out in the world. What Jesus achieved, uniquely and decisively, the church must put into practice – the mission of love and healing, of hope and new life, of rivers of living water flowing out into the world; but also the mission of warning and challenge, of confrontation with the ‘powers’, of proving the world to be in the wrong about sin, righteousness and judgment. All this follows directly, as part of the very definition of the church, from John’s vision of inaugurated Jewish eschatology, made real in and through the Holy Spirit.

5. Conclusion There are, no doubt, many themes we could pick up from all this. In exegesis, it would be exciting to re-read the Acts of the Apostles and to show how the Jewish hope of God’s return stands powerfully underneath Ascension and Pentecost in chapters 1 and 2. In systematic theology, it would be exciting to explore ways in which traditional discussions of the Holy Spirit might be refreshed and redirected through a more explicit exploration of the Jewish roots of early Christian Pneumatology. But I choose to end more practically. I suspect that most Western churches, including my own, have not taken seriously enough the challenge which is there in both Paul and John to understand the full divinity of the Spirit and consequently the actual ‘divinization’ of the Christian community. We in the West have been rightly afraid of triumphalism, of an over-realized eschatology and a careless or arrogant ecclesiology, that we have backed off from understanding, let alone living out, what these classic texts actually say. At the same time, I suspect that churches in the modern East, no less than the modern West, need to embrace more fully the challenge which is there in John in particular: that when the Spirit comes he will not only guide the church into all truth, will not only comfort, lead, help and direct, but will also enable the church to convict the world of sin, righteousness and judgment. For John, this is at the heart of the church’s mission, which was and is the mission of Jesus and which, in John 20, he shared with his followers when he breathed on them. For us, this has all too easily become lost in the tangles of political and theological difficulties over the last generations. It will take humility and prayer to recover it. But if we are to embrace, or to be embraced by, the Pauline and Johannine visions of the Spirit, of the new Exodus, of the new Temple indwelt by the One God himself, there is no choice. We are called to be-

86

N. T. Wright

holy; called to be united; called to announce to the powers of the world that Jesus is Lord. If we are indwelt by the Spirit, we can aspire to no less.

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts: Personal Entity or Impersonal Power? A Synchronic Approach Christos Karakolis In modern research, we can trace both the position in favour of the personal character of the Spirit in Luke, as well as the one maintaining that Luke understands the Spirit as an impersonal divine power.1 It suffices to mention here, on the one hand, Jacob Jervell, who seems to be certain that the Holy Spirit in the work of Luke is an impersonal power of God,2 and on the other hand, François Bovon, who is convinced that in Luke-Acts the Holy Spirit is understood as a real person.3 In the long Orthodox theological tradition, however, the answer to this problem has been unanimous and above any questioning: The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Holy Trinity and consequently a real person.4 Even during the first centuries B.C.E., the question discussed was not primarily about the personhood of the Holy Spirit but about its divinity, or to put it in a dogmatically more precise way, the question about whether or not it should 1 Although this does not seem to be a central focus of contemporary research, cf. the excellent survey of Lukan pneumatology up to the year 2005 by F. BOVON, Luke the Theologian: Fifty-five Years of Research (1950–2005) (Waco, 2nd rev. ed. 2005), 225–274. 2 J. JERVELL, The Theology of the Acts of the Apostles (New Testament Theology; Cambridge, 1996), 44, 133; cf. along the same lines, J. A. FITZMYER, “The Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts,” The Unity of Luke-Acts (ETL 142; ed. J. Verheyden; Leuven, 1999), 178f. 3 BOVON, Luke, 251 (n. 1); cf. also the references of BOVON, Luke, 238, 250, to the relevant position of J. H. E. HULL, The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles (London, 1967), 171f. Cf. along the same lines, F. F. BRUCE, “The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles,” Int 27 (1973), 173. 4 Cf. on the Orthodox pneumatological tradition, among others, P. EVDOKIMOV, L’Esprit Saint dans la tradition orthodoxe (Paris, 1969); J. D. ZIZIOULAS, “Christ, the Spirit and the Church,” in Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, 1985), 123–142; T. STYLIANOPOULOS, “The Filioque: Dogma, Theologoumenon or Error?” in Spirit of Truth: Ecumenical Perspectives on the Holy Spirit (eds. T. Stylianopoulos and M. Heim; Brookline, 1986), 25–58.

88

Christos Karakolis

be understood as belonging to the same ontological level of God the Father or not.5 Consequently, the above-mentioned contemporary pneumatological question is a challenge to Orthodox theologians, not least because it disputes theological principles and understandings that in the Orthodox tradition have not been called into question for many centuries or have never even been thought about at all. In my opinion, reception of relevant, modern scholarly insights on the part of Orthodox theology can be very fruitful and constructive, although it would definitely appear dangerous to some. Personally, however, I am convinced that Orthodox theology, and in our case Orthodox biblical scholarship, has to be able to enter into dialogue with each and every era and culture, as the church fathers have done in their own respective times.6 I am fully aware that the question under consideration probably did not bother the historical author of Luke-Acts. This, however, does not mean that there is no answer to the question. It just means that we should proceed with extreme caution and not draw firm conclusions too easily. In this study, I will examine the references in both Luke and Acts to the Holy Spirit and compare them, on the one hand, with those to other characters of the narrative, and on the other hand, with other relevant, parallel semantic and narrative elements in Luke-Acts. This means that any theological conclusions will be based upon an analysis on the semantic and narrative levels. The question reflected upon here is not whether in Luke-Acts the Holy Spirit is indeed a person in the doctrinal sense of the word, according to the patristic7 and/or to the modern-day understanding of the term.8 Rather, the question is whether in Luke-Acts the Holy Spirit is an individual character or not, and on this basis, whether on the narrative and theological level it is understood as a personal entity or as an impersonal power of God. Therefore, I will not get involved in the modern philosophical discussion about the definition of “person”. The criterion I use for defining a person is the following: if in Luke-Acts πνεῦµα has values, properties, characteristics, behaviors, and reactions similar to other narrative characters, but dissimilar to clearly non-character elements of the narrative, then it also has to be a narra5

Cf., for instance, G. FLOROVSKY, The Eastern Fathers of the Fourth Century (Vaduz, 1987), 56f, 102–107, 134–137, on the pneumatologies of Athanasius, Basil, and Gregory of Nazianz. 6 Cf. G. FLOROVSKY, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View (Vaduz, 1987), esp. 107–113. 7 Cf. the milestone article of J. D. ZIZIOULAS, “From Mask to Person: The Birth of an Ontology of Personhood,” in Being, 27–49 (n. 4). 8 Cf., for instance, C. TAYLOR, “The Person,” in The Category of the Person: Anthropology, Philosophy, History (eds. M. Carrithers, S. Collins, and S. Lukes; Cambridge, 1985), 257–281.

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

89

tive character itself, and for the understanding of the author, it is probably also a personal entity, even outside of the narrative. There is no reason to suppose that for the implied author the narrative world would be different from the real world. Quite on the contrary, the implied author obviously intends to move his implied readership in the direction of believing in the direct and indirect claims within his narrative. His pneumatology is not an exception in this regard. I fail to see any sign at all that the implied author uses the narrative exclusively in a symbolic way in order to point towards eternal truths regardless of the narrative itself. My position is, therefore, that if the implied author presents the Holy Spirit as a normal, narrative character like all others characters of his narrative, then he aims at presenting the Holy Spirit also as a personal entity to his implied readers. At this point, I choose to speak of implied and not historical readers because the distance between what the text wants its readers to understand and what its readers indeed did or could understand can be significant. On this basis and for the aim of the present paper, I define person as a narrative character able to think, make decisions, and interact with other narrative characters, and presented by the implied author in such a way that it should or at least could also be understood as a person even outside of the narrative – that is, in the historical world of the real author and readers of the Lukan work.

1. The Concept of πνεῦµα The primary meaning of spirit, in Greek πνεῦµα,9 is wind or breath.10 Of course, in primitive thought, these two are connected with each other inasmuch as the wind is understood as originating from God – as are all weather conditions – perhaps even from the mouth or the nostrils of God’s anthropomorphic image.11 The question here is whether the author literally thinks of pneuma in this way or whether this original image has lost for him its initial 9 On the relation between the Hebrew ‫רוּח‬ ַ and its Greek rendering as πνεῦµα, see M. E. ISAACS, The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and its Bearing on the New Testament (HeyM 1; London, 1976), 10–17. According to Isaacs, “attempts to detect a significant change in the meaning of ruach, resulting from its translation in terms of πνεῦµα, are unfounded” (14). 10 Cf. G. W. H. LAMPE, “The Holy Spirit in the Writings of St. Luke,” in Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (ed. D. E. Nineham; Oxford, 1967), 160; FITZMYER, “Role,” 170 (n. 2). Due to the fact that the present paper has a synchronic approach, I will not examine the origin of the Lukan concept of πνεῦµα in light of its widely recognized Old Testament background; cf. D. MARGUERAT, The First Christian Historian: Writing the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ (SNTS.MS 121; Cambridge, 2002), 110. 11 On God’s spirit in the Old Testament, cf. W. BIEDER, “πνεῦµα,” TWNT 6: 363–6.

90

Christos Karakolis

semantic and metaphorical power. In my view, the following indications point in the direction of the existence and usage of such imagery in the Lukan narrative. In Luke-Acts, the Spirit is normally invisible just like the wind. People are not able to see the Spirit. To name just a few examples, the Spirit that comes upon Mary is invisible although it has a decisive impact on her existence and life (Luke 1:35).12 Jesus is driven to the desert in the Spirit, which again cannot be seen (Luke 4:1). The Spirit speaks to, with, and through people, while still remaining invisible (Acts 8:29; 11:12; 13:2; 21:4; 28:25). The Spirit can be sensed and even heard in a way similar to the wind. In the Pentecost narrative, a strong sound like a very violent wind signified its coming (2:2). Luke, however, uses at this point the word πνοή, which is synonymous to the word πνεῦµα, meaning both breath and wind.13 In this way, he is able to differentiate between the actual Spirit and the phenomena that declare or symbolize its presence.14 Indeed, in other contexts, when simply referring to the wind without any connection to the Spirit, Luke uses the words ἀήρ and ἄνεµος.15 Of course, the Holy Spirit is not to be understood as being an actual wind, but it can appear in the form of a wind.16 The Spirit can fill the interior of human beings, such as Elizabeth (Luke 1:41), Zacharias (Luke 1:67), and Stephen (Acts 6:5). This is also a property of the air or wind, which can be inhaled and fill the interior of a person in an invisible way, unlike, for instance, food or drink. Even when the Spirit is visible, its visible forms are notionally and semantically connected with the concept of wind. There are two examples of a visible appearance of the Holy Spirit. In Luke 3:22, the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus from heaven in the form of a dove. Obviously, the Spirit has not transformed itself into a real dove, but it has only adopted the external appearance of a dove in order to be seen and witnessed by the people present at the sce-

12

Luke’s parallel use of πνεῦµα and δύναµις in Luke 1:35 is not sufficient evidence for concluding, along with J. A. FITZMYER, The Gospel according to Luke (vol. 1; AB 28; New Haven, 1970), 350f, that the Spirit is here understood in its Old Testament sense as God’s impersonal power. 13 Cf. BDAG “πνοή,” 838. 14 Cf. F. F. BRUCE, The Book of Acts (NICNT 5; Grand Rapids, 1988), 50; J. ZMIJEWSKI, Die Apostelgeschichte (RNT 5; Regensburg, 1994), 106. 15 See Luke 7:24; 8:23–25; Acts 22:23; 27:4, 7, 14f. 16 When Luke compares the coming of the Holy Spirit to the disciples with a violent and strongly sounding loud wind from above (Acts 2:2), he uses a simile, a kind of a metaphor that allows him to compare one thing with another thing of a different kind in order to make his reference clearer and more emphatic; cf. on similes and metaphors, G. B. CAIRD, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia, 1980), 144–159.

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

91

ne.17 Apart from any particular, symbolic connotation of the dove according to the relevant Old Testament imagery,18 from a certain point of view, the dove’s natural habitat is not only the ground but also the air and in this sense also the wind. In Acts 2:3, tongues of fire appear upon every disciple. It is clear that the Spirit has not actually transformed itself into real fire (just as in the scene of Jesus᾽s baptism it has not transformed itself into a real dove).19 It only appears like (ὡσεί) fiery tongues. The appearance of tongues at this point means that the Spirit will immediately enable the christological witness of the disciples to reach all existing languages.20 The element of fire is one of the ways in which God reveals himself in the Old Testament (cf. Exod 19:16– 19). In the present context, it is also noteworthy that the existence of fire presupposes wind or at least air. Moreover, it is common experience that a strong fire grows even stronger where there is a strong (in our case, a violent) wind blowing. On the basis of the above, we can make the following observations: The πνεῦµα is elusive. On the one hand, it is powerful, it can be felt, and it has an impact upon people’s lives and their way of thinking and acting. On the other hand, it normally cannot be seen but only sensed. Only twice does the πνεῦµα appear in a visible way. However, in both of these cases, it is not the πνεῦµα itself that is seen but just an external manifestation of it, which functions as a narrative metaphor and/or a theological symbol. This means that even in these two instances the essence of πνεῦµα remains elusive. The πνεῦµα is connected with God, it comes from God, and it belongs to God. It is not any πνεῦµα, but the ἅγιον πνεῦµα. Already in the creation narrative of Genesis, the importance of God’s pneuma is evident.21 In just one

17 Cf. A. CORNILS, Vom Geist Gottes erzählen. Analysen zur Apostelgeschichte (TANZ 44; Tübingen, 2006), 45; L. MORRIS, Luke (TNTC 3; Leiceter/Grand Rapids, 1988), 109; M. WOLTER, Das Lukasevangelium (HNT 3; Tübingen, 2008), 170f. 18 Cf. esp. Gen 8:8–12 and a summary of the relevant discussion in J. HUR, Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (London, 2004), 158f. 19 On the comparison between Luke 3:22 and Acts 2:3, see J. ROLOFF, Die Apostelgeschichte (NTD 5; Göttingen, 1981), 42. 20 Cf. D. L. BOCK, Acts (ECNT 5; Grand Rapids, 2007), 98f; D. MARGUERAT, Les Actes des Apôtres (1-12) (vol. 1; CNT 5; Genève, 2007), 73f; ZMIJEWSKI, Apostelgeschichte, 107 (n. 14). 21 On Luke’s understanding of the Spirit in light of Genesis, see S. D. BUTTICAZ, L’identité de l’Église dans les Actes des apôtres: De la restauration d’Israël à la conquête universelle (BZNW 174; Berlin/New York, 2011), 94. R. P. MENZIES, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology with Special Reference to Luke-Acts (JSNT.SS 54; Sheffield, 1991), 122–130, on the contrary, sees any creative background of the Spirit in LukeActs as pre-Lukan, while he considers the Lukan conception of the Spirit as being of an exclusively prophetic nature.

92

Christos Karakolis

sentence: The πνεῦµα of God gives life.22 Furthermore, the pneuma is able to fill the people with its presence and thus to define their way of thinking, their actions, and their very existence. Just like the wind, the pneuma is everywhere, and it cannot be controlled. Its actions and reactions are not governed by human wishes or rules. Apart from the Holy Spirit, other πνεύµατα are mentioned in the Lukan narrative. In order to secure semantic clarity, we will briefly discuss the other categories of spirits, which are the following: A) The human pneuma as an anthropological category:23 In Luke’s Gospel, John the Baptist is presented as acting in the spirit and power of Elijah (Luke 1:17). The joy of Mary is presented as a rejoicing of her spirit (Luke 1:47). John the Baptist’s spirit is presented as being strengthened while he was growing (Luke 1:80). Upon dying, the human pneuma leaves the body, although it can return upon Jesus’s intervention (Luke 8:55). In Luke 23:46, just before his death, Jesus himself says that he is surrendering his spirit to his Father. This obviously refers to his human spirit, since he is about to die and according to Luke 8:55 death results in the separation of σῶµα and πνεῦµα.24 In Greek, ἐκπνέειν means to exhale for the last time in life and not to give up the spirit.25 This is also the case in Acts 7:59, where Stephen asks Jesus in prayer to accept his spirit. Evidently, he does not mean the Holy Spirit but his human spirit, which after his death will be in paradise with Jesus (cf. Luke 23:43).26 B) The demonic spirit as a self-standing spiritual entity: The demonic pneuma (πνεῦµα δαιµονίου) is an unclean (ἀκάθαρτον) or evil (πονηρόν) spirit.27 There are many such spirits, which are presented as the real reason behind illness (πνεῦµα ἀσθενείας, cf. Luke 8:2). In Luke 9:39 and 10:20, even plain πνεῦµα without an attribute can mean an evil spirit. The demonic spirit is also called a πνεῦµα πύθωνα (Acts 16:16).28 22

On the life-giving character of the Spirit in biblical thought, cf. J. D. G. DUNN, “‘The Lord, the Giver of Life’: The Gift of the Spirit as Both Life-Giving and Empowering,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology (eds. I. H. Marshall, V. Rabens, and C. Bennema; Grand Rapids, 2012), 1–17. 23 On the Jewish background of πνεῦµα as a component of human beings, see ISAACS, Concept, 35–42 (n. 9). 24 Cf. F. BOVON, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 1,1-9,50) (vol. 1; EKK 3; Zürich, 1989), 452. 25 Cf. BDAG, “ἐκπνέω,” 308. 26 Cf. ISAACS, Concept, 71 (n. 9). Another way of expressing this reality is by saying that the human being as a person will be with Jesus in paradise (cf. Luke 23:43). It is obvious that the human πνεῦµα can be used as an alternative expression of the human self or person. 27 Luke 4:33, 36; 6:18; 7:21; 8:2, 29; 9:42; 11:24, 26; Acts 5:16; 8:7; 19:12–16. On the Jewish conception of evil spirits, see ISAACS, Concept, 31–34 (n. 9). 28 On the particularity of this characterization, see BDAG, “πύθων,” 897.

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

93

C) Πνεῦµα denoting a ghost: This is the case in Luke 24:37. Perhaps this should not be understood differently from the first meaning of the human pneuma, which is believed to be able to appear as a ghost after its separation from its body. This is why Jesus says to the scared disciples that a pneuma, possibly meaning a ghost or a spirit separated from its body, does not have flesh and bones (Luke 24:39).29 Since not much can be said about ghosts, only the demonic spirits as exclusively spiritual beings are of interest to the present study. From a comparison of the references to the Holy Spirit with those to the demonic spirits, we can draw the following conclusions: The Holy Spirit is one and therefore always mentioned in the singular, while the evil spirits are many, even though in some instances there is a reference to just one of them (Luke 8:29; 9:42; 11:24; Acts 16:18). The Holy Spirit is the πνεῦµα of God (cf. Acts 5:32) or of Jesus (Acts 16:7)30 or of the Lord (Luke 4:18; Acts 5:9; 8:39). The evil spirits are often characterized as δαιµόνια,31 spirits of python (Acts 16:16), or spirits of illness (Luke 13:11), and are considered as being unclean (ἀκάθαρτα)32 and evil (πονηρά).33 On the other hand, since the same lexeme is used for both the πνεῦµα and the πνεύµατα, we should conclude that semantically and therefore also narratologically there is some common ground between the two.

2. The Actions of the Holy Spirit In narrative texts, verbs are extremely important because they are the signifiers of the subjects’ – and thus more often than not also of the narrative characters’ – actions.34 I will therefore begin my analysis by examining the verbs that are governed by the Holy Spirit as their subject.35

29 On πνεῦµα as meaning a ghost, see the comment of L. T. JOHNSON, The Gospel of Luke (SP 3; Collegeville, 1991), 401. 30 Cf. R. I. PERVO, Acts: A Commentary (Hermeneia 5; Minneapolis, 2009), 390. 31 Luke 4:33, 35, 41; 7:33; 8:2, 27, 29f, 33, 35, 38; 9:1, 42, 49; 10:17; 11:14f; 18–20; 13:32; Acts 17:18. 32 Luke 4:33, 36; 6:18; 8:29; 9:42; 11:24; Acts 5:16; 8:7. 33 Luke 7:21; 8:2; 11:26; Acts 19:12f, 15f. 34 On the primary importance of a character’s actions compared to his or her inner world in a narrative, see the analysis of CORNILS, Geist, 43f (n. 17). 35 J. FREY, “How Did the Spirit Become a Person?” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration and the Cultures of Antiquity (Ekstasis 5; eds. J. Frey and J. R. Levison; Berlin/Boston, 2015), 363, following F. AVEMARIE, “Acta Jesu Christi. Zum christologischen Sinn der Wundermotive in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Die Apostelgeschichte im Kontext antiker Historiographie (BZNW 162; eds. J. Frey, C. K. Rothschild, and J. Schröter; Berlin/New York,

94

Christos Karakolis

The verb διδάσκειν is normally connected with the teaching of Christ and the apostles, having therefore a positive meaning.36 In Luke 12:12, Jesus says that the Holy Spirit will teach the disciples what to say when questioned by the Jewish and Roman authorities. From a narratological point of view, it would seem that only a character can concretely teach other characters what to say in a certain situation. The Holy Spirit never simply comes (ἔρχεσθαι). It comes upon a character (ἐπέρχεσθαι: Luke 1:35; Acts 1:8). In Luke-Acts, when not connected with the Holy Spirit, the verb ἐπέρχεσθαι bears the negative meaning of an intrusion or an affliction (Luke 1:22; 21:26; Acts 8:24; 13:40; 14:19). However, in the case of the Holy Spirit, it describes its descent from heaven upon concrete people. The same meaning of descending is also expressed by the verb καταβαίνειν (Luke 3:22), which is almost exclusively used in the narrative for describing an action of concrete persons.37 We can observe a similar usage of the synonymous verb ἐπιπίπτειν, which in Luke-Acts can refer to the embracing of human beings (Luke 15:20; Acts 20:10, 37), to sudden changes of feelings (Luke 1:12; Acts 19:17), or to the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:16; 10:44; 11:15). Therefore, the use of this verb is not conclusive as such within the scope of the present paper. The possibility seems to remain open for this particular verb to imply that the Holy Spirit could be something analogous to an impersonal, inner procedure within human existence. The verb ἐκπέµπειν is used both for denoting the sending out of Paul and his collaborators from Thessaloniki to Beroea (Acts 17:10), and for the Spirit’s sending out the apostles from one place to another (Acts 13:4). Here, too, the Spirit seems to be acting in a way similar to the characters in the narrative. The decision of the so-called apostolic synod includes the notable sentence, ἔδοξεν γὰρ τῷ πνεύµατι τῷ ἁγίῳ καὶ ἡµῖν (Acts 15:22). In all other usages of the verb δοκεῖν in Luke-Acts, an individual38 or a collective

2009), 558, speaks of the Spirit in Acts as being an “acting subject”. Cf. also MARGUERAT, Historian, 113 (n. 10). 36 Luke 4:15, 31; 5:3, 17; 6:6; 13:10, 22, 26; 19:47; 20:1, 21, 37; 23:5; Acts 1:1; 4:2, 18; 5:21, 25, 28, 42; 11:26; 15:1, 35; 18:11, 25; 20:20; 21:21, 28; 28:31. 37 Luke 2:51; 6:17; 8:23; 9:54; 10:15, 30f; 17:31; 18:14; 19:5f; Acts 7:15, 34; 8:15, 38; 10:11. Luke 10:15 refers to the population of Capernaum and in this sense to a narrative character. The reference in Luke 22:44 is an exception to this rule, although from a textcritical point of view the authenticity of 22:43f is highly doubtful. The expression in Acts 8:26, τὴν ὁδὸν τὴν καταβαίνουσαν ἀπὸ Ἰερουσαλὴµ, does not refer to an action but is a description of a permanent trait. Acts 10:11 and 11:5 is the only clear case in Luke-Acts in which the verb καταβαίνειν describes the movement of a “non-character.” 38 Luke 1:3; 8:18; 10:36; 22:24; Acts 12:9; 17:18; 25:27; 26:9.

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

95

character39 thinks, believes, concludes, and utters an opinion. In the case of Acts 15:22, the Holy Spirit actually co-decides along with the apostles. The fact that it precedes the apostles could even imply that its contribution to the final, common decision of the apostolic synod has a greater significance than that of the apostles. In all the twelve cases that the verb κωλύειν is used in the Lukan work, it has a person as its subject.40 Most interesting is the case of Acts 16:6, in which Paul and his associates are prevented by the Holy Spirit from preaching the Gospel in Asia Minor. Again, the Holy Spirit acts here as a narrative character, exerting power over Paul and his associates, and deciding about the course of their missionary activity. In an analogous way, the verb ἐᾶν always has concrete narrative characters as its subject.41 In the particular case of Acts 16:7, it is the Holy Spirit that does not allow Paul and his associates go to Bithynia, but leads them towards Troas. From a semantic point of view, a very interesting case is the verb διαµαρτύρεσθαι, a middle-voice verb with an active meaning.42 Of course, only true narrative characters can make official verbal statements and give official witness.43 This is also what the Holy Spirit does, when in Acts 20:23 it solemnly reveals to Paul that in the imminent future he is going to have to endure imprisonments and tribulations. Furthermore, the verb τιθῆναι always has a character as its subject.44 It is interesting that in Acts 20:28, the Holy Spirit is presented as the character who had appointed bishops to shepherd the church of Christ. The work of appointing bishops is a very responsible work that can only be undertaken by a true character with special qualities. So here, too, the Holy Spirit is presented as a character of the narrative. According to the book of Acts, the Holy Spirit talks (λαλεῖν: Acts 28:25; cf. 23:9) and articulates words (λέγειν: Acts 20:23; 21:11) to the faithful, while it also speaks through the faithful.45 On the other hand, in Luke, the Spirit’s talking is only indirectly performed through people who are filled with it (Elizabeth: Luke 1:41–45, Zacharias: Luke 1:67–79, Simeon: Luke

39

Luke 12:40, 51; 13:2, 4; 19:11; 24:37; Acts 15:22, 28; 27:13. Luke 6:29; 9:49f; 11:52; 18:16; 23:2; Acts 8:36; 10:47; 11:17; 16:6; 24:3; 27:43. 41 Luke 4:41; 22:51; Acts 14:16; 16:7; 19:30; 23:32; 27:32; 27:40; 28:4. 42 Luke 16:28; Acts 2:40; 8:25; 10:42; 18:5; 20:21; 20:23; 20:24; 23:11; 28:23. 43 Cf. also Acts 5:32 and the relevant comment of FREY, “Spirit,” 363 (n. 35). 44 Luke 1:66; 5:18; 6:48; 8:16; 9:44; 11:33; 12:46; 14:29; 19:21f; 20:43; 21:14; 22:41; 23:53, 55; Acts 1:7; 2:35; 3:2; 4:3; 4:35, 37; 5:2, 4, 15, 18, 25; 7:16, 60; 9:37, 40; 12:4; 13:29, 47; 19:21; 20:28, 36; 21:5; 27:12. 45 Acts 2:4, 17; 4:31; 6:10; 18:25; 19:6; 21:4; cf. ISAACS, Concept, 88 (n. 9). 40

96

Christos Karakolis

2:25–32).46 According to Luke, in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit speaks through the prophets47 or even through wisdom (Luke 11:49). Of course, only true narrative characters have the ability to speak.48 The Spirit also gives people the gift of speaking in tongues,49 which should be understood as being connected to its own ability to talk.50 In Acts 13:2, the Holy Spirit declares in the first-person singular that it has invited (προσκαλεῖσθαι) Barnabas and Saulos to do its work. This verb is always connected with a concrete individual or collective character in the Lukan narrative – namely, the Jews (5:40), God (Acts 2:39; 16:10), Jesus (Luke 18:16), John the Baptist (Luke 7:18), the Τwelve (6:2), Barjesus (Acts 13:7), a Roman commander (Acts 23:23), Paul (Acts 23:17f), and even parable characters (Luke 15:26; 16:5). Lastly, the Spirit can snatch away (ἁρπάζειν) someone and subsequently transfer him to another place. This is what happens to Philip after baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:39). This snatching away seems to be purposeful, as is the case in Acts 23:10, in which the Roman commander sends his troops to snatch Paul from the hands of the Jews and bring him to the barracks.51 The depiction of evil spirits in Luke-Acts merits consideration here, too. The evil spirits get into people and possess them, thereby depriving them of their free will. Thus, the (ἐν)οχλούµενοι (Luke 6:18; Acts 5:16) need to be cured and freed from them. The evil spirits talk through the people whom they have possessed (Luke 4:33, 41; Acts 19:15), interact with narrative characters (Luke 8:30; 9:39), go away (Luke 8:29, 35, 38; 11:24) and return back (Luke 11:26), are in the company of other evil spirits (Luke 11:18, 26), yield to the apostles (Luke 10:17, 20; Acts 19:12) and of course to Jesus (Luke 4:35f, 41; 8:29; 13:32), whom they fear (Luke 8:31), and finally have superior knowledge compared to human knowledge (Luke 4:41; Acts 19:15). Through the semantic juxtaposition between verbal expressions used in connection with the Holy Spirit and analogous ones used to describe the activity of the evil spirits, the following conclusions can be drawn: The evil spirits are obviously real characters of the narrative. They can think, they 46 According to H. GUNKEL, Der heilige Geist bei Lukas. Theologisches Profil, Grund und Intention der lukanischen Pneumatologie (WUNT II.389; Tübingen, 2015), 42f, the presupposition for being filled with Holy Spirit is their being righteous. 47 Acts 1:16; 4:25; 28:25. Characteristically, the subject of an Old Testament prophecy can alternatively be either God or the Holy Spirit (cf., apart from the above-mentioned references, also Acts 2:17f). 48 Cf. HUR, Reading, 151 (n. 18). 49 Acts 2:3f, 11; 10:46; 19:6. 50 Obviously, one cannot give a gift that he or she does not possess in the first place. 51 I will here leave out for the time being the actions of the Spirit with regard to Jesus. This is a crucial issue that will have to be examined in its own right.

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

97

have feelings (since they fear Jesus), they have knowledge, they interact with other characters, and they have a clear place in the character-hierarchy of the Lukan narrative, according to which they are normally more powerful than human beings, although they have no chance against Jesus and his disciples. The fact that the narrative speaks of multiple spirits (πνεύµατα or δαιµόνια in the plural) makes it clear that these are understood as individual, and thus also as personal, entities. Had they just been metaphors for evil in general or impersonal manifestations of it, they could certainly not have been counted, as is the case in Luke 8:30 (λεγιών) and 11:26 (ἑπτὰ πνεύµατα). If, moreover, the evil spirits are not just narrative characters but are also conceived as personal entities that can interact with other persons in the world outside of the narrative, there is no reason to assume that this does not apply to the Holy Spirit as well. Apart from cases in the Lukan narrative in which the Holy Spirit is the acting character, there are also numerous cases in which it is connected with narrative characters in other ways. From a grammatical point of view, apart from being the subject of verbs with an active meaning, the word πνεῦµα is also used as an object, a constituent of a prepositional phrase, a subject governing a verb of passive voice and meaning or even an adverbial modifier (Luke 10:21). By examining the way in which the Holy Spirit interacts with other narrative characters, we can draw some useful conclusions about its own identity as a character of the Lukan narrative. The following examples are characteristic: People can be filled with the Holy Spirit by God52 and thus be full of the Holy Spirit.53 In this case, the Holy Spirit could theoretically be an impersonal power belonging to God.54 However, why should this be the case when equivalent expressions are used in the Lukan narrative about the personal evil spirits that possess human beings according to the above analysis? The following concrete examples should be considered: Jesus rejoices in the Holy Spirit (Luke 10:21). The whole existence and work of Jesus is defined by the presence of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4:18). While the evil spirits trouble the possessed people (ἐνοχλούµενοι: Luke 6:18; ὀχλούµενοι: Acts 5:16), the Holy Spirit not only makes Jesus rejoice but is also the reason for the joy of the members of the Christian community (Acts 13:52). Since everything Jesus does is connected with the Holy Spirit, this applies even to his last com-

52 Luke 1:15, 41, 67; Acts 2:4; 4:8, 31; 9:17; 13:9; these are cases of passivum divinum, cf. C. W. STENSCHKE, Luke’s Portrait of Gentiles Prior to Their Coming to Faith (WUNT II.108; Tübingen, 1999), 370. 53 Acts 6:3, 5; 7:55; 11:24. 54 Cf. M. A. SALMEIER, Restoring the Kingdom: The Role of God as the “Ordainer of Times and Seasons” in the Acts of the Apostles (PTMS 165; Eugene, 2011), 73, note 169.

98

Christos Karakolis

mandments to his disciples “through the Holy Spirit” before he departs from earth to heaven (Acts 1:2). While the evil spirits seem to be acting of their own accord,55 the Holy Spirit is given by God.56 This, however, does not necessarily mean that the Holy Spirit is not an actual, individual narrative character. Throughout biblical history, God’s individual representatives speak and act on his behalf. In the Old Testament, such persons are mainly the prophets, while in Luke-Acts it is Jesus Christ and the apostles who play this role.57 Since Jesus and the apostles are clearly individual characters, this could and actually should apply to the Holy Spirit as well. ∆ωρεὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος (Acts 2:38; 10:45) is a difficult expression from an exegetical point of view. It could mean the gift, namely the Holy Spirit itself, or alternatively, it could mean the gift given by the Holy Spirit. While the first exegetical alternative is self-evident, the second one is also possible since the Holy Spirit indeed endows people with the gift of speaking in tongues (Acts 2:3f, 11; 10:46; 19:6). In Acts, we also find the similar and possibly parallel expression ἡ δωρεὰ τοῦ θεοῦ (8:20). It is clear that God gives people the Holy Spirit, while he also sends Jesus Christ to the world (Luke 9:48; 10:16). Moreover, Luke cites Old Testament prophecies about the coming of Jesus Christ,58 while he also refers to prophecies about the gift of the Holy Spirit.59 If what applies to Jesus also applies to the Holy Spirit, why should only Jesus be a proper narrative character? Ultimately, the expression δωρεὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος does not offer convincing evidence against the individuality of the Holy Spirit as a narrative character.60 Paul’s being bounded to the Holy Spirit (δεδεµένος τῷ πνεύµατι in Acts 20:22) is an expression that refers to his commitment to doing the will of the Holy Spirit and/or following its guidance. In the Lukan narrative, only a character can bind another character.61 A characteristic example of a human

55 Although according to Luke 11:15–20, the evil spirits also obey their own “king” – namely, Satan himself – which is the actual reason for their power. 56 Acts 2:17; 2:33; 5:32; 15:8; cf. the expression τὸ πνεῦµα Ἰησοῦ in Acts 16:7, which in the light of Acts 2:33 implies that Jesus also participates (as a mediator) in the giving of the Holy Spirit by God to the human beings; cf. HUR, Reading, 143f (n. 18). 57 On the prophetic character of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, see MENZIES, Development, 114–279 (n. 21). 58 Cf., for instance, Luke 1:35: πνεῦµα κυρίου ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σὲ καὶ δύναµις ὑψίστου ἐπισκιάσει σοι, which happens to refer both to Jesus the Messiah, as well as to God’s Spirit that would be bestowed upon him. 59 Cf. the promise of the risen Christ to his disciples about the coming of the Holy Spirit (Acts 1:8: λήψεσθε δύναµιν ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος). 60 Cf. the relevant discussion in HUR, Reading, 156 (n. 18), who at this point speaks of a “person-unlikeness of the Spirit.” 61 Luke 13:16; 19:30; Acts 9:2, 14, 21; 12:6; 20:22; 21:11, 13, 33; 22:5, 29; 24:27.

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

99

being bound by a spiritual being is the binding of the bent woman by none other than Satan himself for eighteen years (Luke 13:11, 16). In this case, a narrative character – and one that is clearly a personal entity – binds another narrative character with an illness.62 People can try to tempt the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:9; cf. 15:10) or to lie to it (Acts 5:3; cf. 5:4), behaviors that end up with tragic consequences (Acts 5:5, 10). Such actions clearly imply that the Holy Spirit is indeed a narrative character, since tempting and lying can only have a narrative character as their object. People can also try to oppose (ἀντιπίπτειν) the Holy Spirit (7:51). Although in this case it may be possible to oppose an impersonal power of God, it is even more probable that such opposition is addressed towards a concrete narrative character.63 The above evidence clearly suggests that Luke presents the Holy Spirit as a distinct narrative character. However, this evidence is not yet fully conclusive. Therefore, after having examined Luke’s references to the Holy Spirit in the light of similar references to other narrative characters, we will have to juxtapose these references with the way Luke refers to God’s impersonal powers. Here the question will be whether Luke utilizes different language and imagery when speaking on the one hand about the Holy Spirit and on the other hand about such powers, or whether in both cases his language and imagery are similar or even identical.

3. The Holy Spirit and God’s Impersonal Powers. In Luke-Acts, the most characteristic word denoting God’s power is the word δύναµις.64 ∆ύναµις is used in proximity with ἅγιον πνεῦµα, sometimes as a parallel expression connected through καί and thereby giving the impression of a synonymic parallelismus membrorum implying an identical meaning expressed in two different ways. A characteristic example in this regard is the angel’s word to Mary in 1:35: “The Holy Spirit (πνεῦµα ἅγιον) will come upon you and the power (δύναµις) of the Highest will overshadow you.” At this point, the Holy Spirit could indeed be understood as being another word for God’s impersonal power. In Luke 4:14, however, Jesus returns 62 The use of ἐγώ – that is, of the personal pronoun – in Acts 20:22 shows that perhaps the participle δεδεµένος is in the middle voice, meaning that Paul let the spirit bind him. 63 W. H. SHEPHERD, Jr., The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 147; Atlanta, 1994), 172, interprets the narrative character of the Spirit as God’s narrative presence and not as an individual person. It remains to be seen whether this conclusion is justified by the evidence of Luke-Acts. 64 Luke 1:35; 4:14, 36; 5:17; 6:19; 8:46; 9:1; 10:13; 19:37; 21:27; 22:69; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:22; 3:12; 4:7, 33; 6:8; 8:10, 13; 10:38; 19:11. On power in Luke-Acts, see the relevant excursus of PERVO, Acts, 42f. (n. 30).

100

Christos Karakolis

to Galilee in the power of the Spirit (ἐν τῇ δυνάµει τοῦ πνεύµατος). This clearly implies that the Spirit has a power of its own that is connected with Jesus. If the Spirit had been identical with God’s power, the wording of this sentence should have been: ἐν τῇ δυνάµει τοῦ θεοῦ or alternatively ἐν τῷ πνεύµατι τοῦ θεοῦ, but not ἐν τῇ δυνάµει τοῦ πνεύµατος. In Acts 1:8, a very important distinction between the power and the Spirit is made. There the risen Jesus says to his disciples: “But you will receive power after the coming of the Holy Spirit upon you” (ἀλλὰ λήψεσθε δύναµιν ἐπελθόντος τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος ἐφ᾽ ὑµᾶς). Here, reception of God’s power is not identical with the coming of the Holy Spirit but only the result of its coming.65 Furthermore, in Luke-Acts, unlike ἅγιον πνεῦµα, the lexeme δύναµις does not bear any personal features whatsoever. ∆ύναµις does not talk, decide, communicate, interact, prophesy, guide, or prevent, to name a few of the properties that do characterize the Holy Spirit.66 The same observation applies also to the lexemes χαρά67 and χάρις.68 In Luke-Acts, these are clearly presented as impersonal powers and gifts of God that lack any personal properties or narrative character traits. The only exception could be the Lukan concept of σοφία, which at first sight does indeed seem to have personal properties. As is the case with δύναµις, σοφία should not be identified with the Holy Spirit, since it is mentioned along with the Holy Spirit as a relevant but also at the same time distinctive gift of God.69 This is obvious in Luke’s reference to Stephen in Acts 6:5, according to which he (along with the other six so-called deacons) was filled with Spirit and wisdom (6:3), and consequently also spoke with wisdom and Spirit (6:10). According to Luke 7:35, “the wisdom was justified by all its children” (καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς).70 Furthermore, according to Luke 11:49, the wisdom of God has said (in the first-person singular): “I will send to them prophets and messengers, and they will kill and persecute many of them” (ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσιν καὶ διώξουσιν). These two 65

Cf. ZMIJEWSKI, Apostelgeschichte, 60 (n. 14). Luke 1:17, 35; 4:14, 36; 5:17; 6:19; 8:46; 9:1; 10:13, 19; 19:37; 21:26f; 22:69; 24:49; Acts 1:8; 2:22; 3:12; 4:7, 33; 6:8; 8:10, 13; 10:38; 19:11. 67 Luke 1:14; 2:10; 8:13; 10:17; 15:7, 10; 24:41, 52; Acts 8:8; 12:14; 13:52; 15:3. 68 Luke 1:30; 2:40, 52; 4:22; 6:32–34; 17:9; Acts 2:47; 4:33; 6:8; 7:10, 46; 11:23; 13:43; 14:3, 26; 15:11, 40; 18:27; 20:24, 32; 24:27; 25:3, 9. 69 On the background of the relationship and eventual identification of σοφία and πνεῦµα in Judaism, see ISAACS, Concept, 20–26 (n. 9). Such an identification cannot, however, be traced in Luke-Acts. 70 In all other cases in Luke-Acts, the verb δικαιοῦν is only used in connection with real persons: Luke 7:29; 10:29; 16:15; 18:14; Acts 13:38f. 66

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

101

references seem to portray God᾽s wisdom as a real character. In the case of Luke 7:35, wisdom can only be justified if what she has already said in the past is now being fulfilled in such a way that those who have been gifted with her can connect their present reality with her prophetic words. The same principle applies even more clearly to Luke 11:49, in which wisdom appears as the speaking subject. In both cases, only those who have already listened to wisdom’s voice are able to apply her words to their present reality.71 Nevertheless, whenever σοφία is mentioned as a gift or power of God in the present, it does not reveal any personal properties, and therefore, it is definitely not a distinct character of the narrative. In other words, wisdom does not play any active role in the Lukan narrative, and therefore her personification should be considered strictly metaphorical in nature.72 At this point, Luke seems to be following the Old Testament metaphorical concept of personified wisdom.73 According to this conclusion, in the two aforementioned Lukan quotations, the voice of wisdom is not actually the voice of a real person but just the voice of implied wisdom-literature texts, which supposedly go as far as metaphorically depicting God’s wisdom as dictating to the authors of these texts who thus become her voice. As we have seen, the Holy Spirit does have clear character traits and personal properties that we can also trace in other Lukan characters as well. Truly impersonal divine powers and gifts, however, clearly lack these very traits and properties.

4. The Holy Spirit and Jesus In the Third Gospel, Jesus’s unique traits are one way or another connected with the Holy Spirit. This becomes obvious when comparing Jesus with the “greatest amongst all those born by a woman” (Luke 7:28) – namely, John the 71 The fact that modern-day readers cannot track down the supposed texts that Luke has in mind here does not necessarily mean that such texts did not exist at all in the first place; cf. F. BOVON, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 9,51-14,35) (vol. 2; EKK 3; Zürich, 1996), 235f. 72 Cf. BOVON, Evangelium, 1:382 (n. 24). Apart from wisdom, God’s spirit seems to have been metaphorically personified in rabbinic Judaism without of course ever being understood as a real person; cf. M. TURNER, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (Eugene, 2015), 43. However, contra Turner, what distinguishes the Lukan Spirit is that it is not just a personification of God’s immanent presence, but that it interacts with concrete human beings in historical time and geographical space, just like all other persons of his narrative. This phenomenon cannot be explained as mere metaphor. 73 Cf. J. L. CRENSHAW, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction (3rd ed.; Louisville, 2010).

102

Christos Karakolis

Baptist. John the Baptist is conceived through a miraculous act of God (Luke 1:7, 13, 24, 36). The angel predicts that he will be filled (πλησθήσεται) with the Holy Spirit already while in the womb of his mother (Luke 1:15). Moreover, he will possess the spirit and the power of Elijah (Luke 1:17), although he will perform his baptism in plain water (Luke 3:16). Jesus’s conception is of a totally supernatural character since it is directly attributed to a unique and unheard-of divine intervention through the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35).74 Jesus is never portrayed as being filled with the Holy Spirit but only as being full with Holy Spirit (4:1).75 This differentiates him in a radical way from other “righteous” (cf. Luke 1:6; 2:25; 23:50) characters of the gospel’s narrative, such as Mary (1:35), Elizabeth (1:41), Zacharias (1:67), and Simeon (2:25).76 Rather differently from John the Baptist, Jesus will baptize in the Holy Spirit and in fire (Luke 3:16). During Jesus’s own baptism, the Holy Spirit descends upon him in the form of a dove, a unique manifestation of the normally invisible Spirit, which is followed by the voice of God coming from heaven and asserting that Jesus is his beloved son (3:22). It is exegetically and theologically misguided to imply that at this moment Jesus received something that he had previously lacked.77 Being the Messiah from the very beginning of his earthly existence,78 he has always been full of the Spirit, too. The descent of the Spirit and 74 Cf. ISAACS, Concept, 119 (n. 9); J. B. GREEN, The Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, 1997), 91. 75 Cf. LAMPE, “Spirit,” 168 (n. 10); BOVON, Luke, 239 (n. 1); GUNKEL, Geist, 67–69, 107 (n. 46). Jesus is not filled with a prophetic spirit but only with the Holy Spirit. This does not speak in favor of his being interpreted in Luke as the “new Elijah”; cf. O. MAINVILLE, L’Esprit dans l’oeuvre de Luc (CTHP 45; Québec, 1991), 222; LAMPE, “Spirit,” 176f (n. 10). 76 Compare the use of the verbs ἦλθεν in the case of Simeon (Luke 2:27) and ἤγετο in the case of Jesus (Luke 4:1), as well as the expression πνεῦµα εἶναι ἐπί + personal pronoun, which is used for both Simeon and Jesus (Luke 2:25; 4:18; cf. also 1:35; 3:22), in contrast with the expression πλήρης πνεύµατος (Luke 4:1), which in the Third Gospel is only applied to Jesus. The attribution of this expression also to other narrative characters in Acts (6:3, 5; 7:55; 11:24) but to no character in Luke’s Gospel, shows that it is only possible to be full of the Holy Spirit after Christian baptism. Moreover, the use of the verb πιµπλᾶναι in connection with πνεῦµα implies that narrative characters other than Jesus are not always full of the Holy Spirit and do not necessarily speak or act according to its guidance; cf. TURNER, Power, 168 (n. 72). 77 Cf. HULL, Spirit, 92f (n. 3); J. D. G. DUNN, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Reexamination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (Philadelphia, 1970), 24; GUNKEL, Geist, 76 (n. 46); contra H. KLEIN, Das Lukasevangelium (KEK 3; Göttingen, 2006), 177; JERVELL, Theology, 32f (n. 2); P. DOBLE, The Paradox of Salvation: Luke’s Theology of the Cross (SNTS.MS 87; Cambridge, 1996), 242. 78 Cf. FITZMYER, Gospel, 480 (n. 12); ISAACS, Concept, 121 (n. 9); GUNKEL, Geist, 66 (n. 46); contra LAMPE, “Spirit,” 168–170 (n. 10); JERVELL, Theology, 45 (n. 2).

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

103

the voice of God are just means for demonstrating to the whole people of Israel (ἅπαντα τὸν λαόν, Luke 3:21) who are present at the scene of Jesus’s baptism79 that Jesus is indeed the Messiah, because the Spirit is upon him (cf. Luke 4:18f; Acts 10:38) and because God recognizes him as his beloved son according to Old Testament messianic ideology and relevant contemporary Jewish expectations (cf. Luke 3:22; 9:35; cf. 20:13).80 Although these narrative details could also be viewed in an adoptionist manner, the Lukan context does not allow for such an interpretation.81 After his baptism, Jesus is not presented as being guided into the desert by the Spirit (the equivalent expression in Greek would be ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύµατος, cf. Acts 13:4; 16:6), but in the Spirit (ἐν τῷ πνεύµατι, Luke 4:1; cf. 10:21).82 While semantically ἐν τῷ πνεύµατι can be interchangeable with ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύµατος (cf. Luke 2:26f), it is never used for describing the relationship of Jesus with the Holy Spirit. This means that this relationship cannot possibly be misunderstood as one of superiority of the Spirit to Jesus83 but as one of inseparable unity between the two.84 In 4:18f, Jesus cites Isaiah, clearly implying that the prophecy refers to him as the one anointed by the Lord and that due to this fact the Spirit of the Lord is upon him. This prophecy reveals that Jesus has the Spirit because he is the Messiah (πνεῦµα κυρίου ἐπ᾽ ἐµέ,85 οὗ εἵνεκεν ἔχρισέ µε). Since Jesus is the Messiah from the very beginning,86 it is self-evident that he has 79

Cf. HUR, Reading, 158 (n. 18); GUNKEL, Geist, 74f (n. 46); contra TURNER, Power, 196 (n. 72). 80 Accordingly, GUNKEL, Geist, 73 (n. 46), speaks of a “Demonstrationscharakter” of the passage. In the same direction, MENZIES, Development, 154 (n. 21), speaks of the “inauguration of Jesus’ messianic task,” while FITZMYER, Gospel, 481 (n 12), understands the Lukan account of Jesus’s baptism as the announcement of Jesus’s identification as “Son.” 81 Cf. I. H. MARSHALL, The Gospel of Luke (NIGTC; Exeter, 1978), 154; GUNKEL, Geist, 76 (n. 46); MENZIES, Development, 153f (n. 21); W. J. LARKIN, Jr., “The Spirit and Jesus ‘on Mission’ in the Postresurrection and Postascension Stages of Salvation History: The Impact of the Pneumatology of Acts on Its Christology,” in New Testament Greek and Exegesis. Essays in Honor of Gerald F. Hawthorne (eds. A. M. Donaldson and T. B. Sailors; Grand Rapids, 2003), 129; contra FITZMYER, “Role,” 172 (n. 2); GREEN, Gospel, 186 (n. 74). 82 Contra Ibid. 83 Cf. WOLTER, Lukasevangelium, 179 (n. 17). 84 Cf. ISAACS, Concept, 121 (n. 9); contra MENZIES, Development, 157 (n. 21). 85 The expression ἐπί + personal pronoun for describing the relationship of the Spirit to a narrative character is normally applied to other narrative characters, not however to Jesus, with the exception of 4:18, which is a citation of an Old Testament prophecy and therefore not Lukan usage. This rule even includes Simeon, about whom both expressions πνεῦµα ἐπ᾽ αυτόν and ἐν τῷ πνεύµατι are used. 86 According to the witness of the angels right after his birth, as well as the one of Simeon forty days thereafter.

104

Christos Karakolis

also had the Spirit since the very beginning. The narrative about his exchange with the teachers in the temple of Jerusalem at the age of twelve (Luke 2:46f) implicitly confirms this conclusion.87 The relationship between Jesus and the Spirit is also the theme of the crux interpretum in Acts 2:33: τῇ δεξιᾷ οὖν τοῦ θεοῦ ὑψωθείς, τήν τε ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύµατος τοῦ ἁγίου λαβὼν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, ἐξέχεεν τοῦτο ὃ ὑµεῖς [καὶ] βλέπετε καὶ ἀκούετε. In the Lukan narrative, there is no indication whatsoever that the resurrected Jesus has somehow lost the Spirit that he had possessed during his earthly work. Therefore, he does not need to ascend to heaven in order to receive it.88 This is also the reason for the lack in Luke-Acts of any ἐπαγγελία of the Holy Spirit addressed to Jesus himself,89 as well as for the careful formulation τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ πνεύµατος τοῦ ἁγίου λαβών, instead of (for instance) τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον λαβών. Consequently, in Acts 2:33, Jesus does not actually receive the Holy Spirit per se;90 rather, Jesus receives only the fulfillment of the promise of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit made twice by himself to his disciples in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4.91 In both of these cases, as well as in Acts 2:33, Jesus seems to be functioning as the mediator of the Holy Spirit between God the Father and his disciples.92

87

Cf. ISAACS, Concept, 130 (n. 9). I cannot enter here into the extensive discussion about whether Jesus is presented in Acts 2:33 and 5:31 as being enthroned or installed into a new status; cf. GUNKEL, Geist, 133f (n. 46). I am only noting that the use of the verb ὑψοῦν should primarily signify the movement of the resurrected from the earth to heaven and not his installment into a new position. Moreover, the titles ἀρχηγός and σωτήρ, which are attributed to Jesus in 5:31, apply to him not only as ascended but also during his earthly life; cf. Luke 2:11; Acts 3:15; 13:23. Therefore, in my opinion, Jesus’s ascension represents the possession of the position which he already owns rather than his installment into a new status, which he only reaches through his resurrection and ascension. 89 Contra PERVO, Acts, 83 (n. 30). 90 Contra JERVELL, Theology, 44 (n. 2); MAINVILLE, Esprit, 340 (n. 75); GUNKEL, Geist, 114 (n. 46); FITZMYER, “Role,” 181 (n. 2), who speak of a second gift of the Spirit to Jesus from God that is of another quality – in other words, not the messianic Spirit but the ecclesiological Spirit. This differentiation between partial and consequently incomplete bestowals of the Spirit on Jesus is, in my opinion, not found in the text itself. 91 Cf., in the same direction, the interpretation of E. GRÄSSER, “Die Lösung des Problems der Parusieverzögerung in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Idem, Forschungen zur Apostelgeschichte (WUNT 137; Tübingen, 2001), 54; E. HAENCHEN, Die Apostelgeschichte (KEK 5; Göttingen, 7th ed. 1989), 185; MARGUERAT, Historian, 115 (n. 10). The “power from above” in Luke 24:49 is explained in Acts 1:4 as the result of the descent of the Holy Spirit and not as being identical with its bestowal. 92 Cf. HULL, Spirit, 173 (n. 3); FREY, “Spirit,” 362 (n. 35); GUNKEL, Geist, 114, 135f (n. 46); quite differently in Acts 2:38, Peter does not speak to his audience about the promise (ἐπαγγελία) but about the gift (δωρεά) of the Holy Spirit. 88

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

105

The above analysis of the relationship between Jesus and the Spirit does not shed any more light on the question about the identity of the Holy Spirit as a distinct narrative character in the Lukan work. It is nonetheless interesting that Jesus and the Spirit have a unique relationship with each other compared to the Spirit’s relationship with all other characters of the narrative. While the Holy Spirit reveals Jesus’s identity; however, Jesus does not reveal the Holy Spirit’s identity, which remains more or less an enigma in the gospel narrative.93 The only thing Jesus reveals about the Holy Spirit is that it will indeed come upon the disciples after his departure from the world (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:14).

5. The Holy Spirit and the Church It is in the book of Acts that the identity and the work of the Holy Spirit is revealed in and through the community of Jesus Christ’s believers.94 Through their baptism in the Holy Spirit and in fire (cf. Luke 3:16; cf. Acts 1:5; 11:16),95 the disciples receive the divine power to become witnesses of Jesus Christ to the end of the world (Acts 1:8), as well as to transmit the gift of the Spirit to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ.96 The Holy Spirit commands and guides the apostles and Christian missionaries in a way similar to how Jesus Christ guided his disciples during his earthly life.97 The Holy Spirit communicates with Christian leaders by talking personally to them (Acts 11:12; 13:2; 20:23), while it also talks through them to other persons who do not have direct communication with it (Acts 4:8, 31; 6:5, 10; 11:28; 13:9–11; 16:18; 18:25; 21:11).98 It guides or prevents them from heading to certain places (Acts 13:4; 16:6f; 20:22). The apostles and Christian missionaries submit themselves to the authority of the Spirit,99 93

Cf. HUR, Reading, 130f (n. 18). As MARGUERAT, Historian, 112 (n. 10), rightly puts it, “The Spirit reaches only believers”; cf. also H. STEICHELE, “Geist und Amt als kirchenbildende Elemente in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Kirche im Werden. Studien zum Thema Amt und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament (ed. J. Hainz; München, 1976), esp. 203; BUTTICAZ, L’identité, 144 (n. 21); ISAACS, Concept, 92 (n. 9). 95 It should be evident by now that the baptism of the faithful is radically different from the baptism of Jesus, contra DOBLE, Paradox, 242 (n. 77). Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist in plain water (Luke 3:21), while he already has the Spirit (Luke 1:35). On the other hand, the faithful are baptized in the Holy Spirit and in fire (Luke 3:16), and through their baptism they receive the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). 96 Cf. MARGUERAT, Historian, 115 (n. 10); LARKIN, “Spirit,” 130f (n. 81). 97 Cf. SHEPHERD, Narrative Function, 210 (n. 63); HUR, Reading, 142f (n. 18). 98 This also applies to the prophets of the Old Testament (Acts 1:16; 4:25; 28:25). 99 Cf. MARGUERAT, Historian, 124 (n. 10). 94

106

Christos Karakolis

which quite characteristically uses the imperative when communicating with them (Acts 8:29; 13:2). The Holy Spirit chooses certain people for doing its work (Acts 13:2).100 It participates in the “apostolic council” and contributes to its final decision along with its participants (Acts 15:28). It prophetically reveals to Christian leaders the future (Acts 21:4, 11). It appoints bishops for shepherding the church of God (Acts 20:28). It even urges and inspires the Christian prophet Agabos to warn Paul about the life-threatening danger that he is about to face if he goes to Jerusalem (Acts 21:11).101 Furthermore, the presence of the Holy Spirit has a very important impact upon the lives of all members of the Christian church. Thus, the gift of prophesying or speaking in tongues is attributed to the Spirit as an immediate consequence of its bestowal (Acts 2:4; 10:45f; 19:6). The church expands with the fear of the Lord and with the comforting of the Holy Spirit (Acts 9:31). Some members of the community are especially gifted by being full of the Holy Spirit, such as Stephen and Barnabas (Acts 6:5; 11:22–24; cf. 13:52). The fact that the Holy Spirit is the bearer of various spiritual gifts to the community is not conclusive evidence in favour of its individuality as a narrative character in Luke-Acts. However, the fact that it communicates with Christians on a personal level by speaking with them and leading them to concrete decisions and actions is sufficient proof that the Spirit is indeed understood by the author of Luke-Acts as an individual character of the narrative.102

6. General Conclusion From the presentation above, it should have become obvious that in LukeActs the Spirit is understood and presented as a distinct narrative character. It interacts with other narrative characters, it makes decisions, it has special relations with several characters, it has concrete behavior patterns, and it belongs to a certain character hierarchy in the narrative.103 The fact that the Holy Spirit is actually unveiled as a complete narrative character in the book 100

Cf. GUNKEL, Geist, 290 (n. 46). Cf. ISAACS, Concept, 89 (n. 9). 102 According to GUNKEL, Geist, 192–194 (n. 46), in Acts the personal character of the Holy Spirit becomes clear also by the presentation of its actions as being parallel to those of the angels (cf. esp. Acts 8:29; 23:8f); contra A. GEORGE, “L’Esprit Saint dans l’oeuvre de Luc,” RB 86 (1979), 532, who holds that even this kind of evidence is insufficient. 103 Cf. HUR, Reading, 129 (n. 18). In this sense, it is hardly enough to characterize the Holy Spirit as a sign of Jesus who is present in the preaching and in the eucharist, or as a symbol of the anticipated eschatology of the Christian community, as P. POKORNÝ, Theologie der lukanischen Schriften (FRLANT 174; Göttingen, 1998), 74, puts it. 101

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

107

of Acts, and not yet in the Third Gospel, corresponds with Luke’s theological principle, according to which the Holy Spirit can only be adequately revealed in its fullness by its presence in the post-Easter community of believers – namely, within the Christian church.104 Provided that the above analysis is correct and that Luke indeed presents the Holy Spirit as a narrative character, we would have to suppose that Luke also understands and wants his readers to understand the Holy Spirit as a real, personal entity. The Holy Spirit has all basic characteristics that a real person should have.105 From a theological (and not a narratological) point of view, the only remaining question is whether the attribution of such personal traits to the Holy Spirit on the part of Luke could actually be of a symbolic or even allegorical nature.106 However, for such an assumption to be founded, we would have to find at least one clear case of a narrative character in LukeActs who would on the one hand have clear personal traits and on the other hand not be meant as a real person in the world outside of the narrative.107 The fact that according to the above analysis no such character exists in Luke-Acts,108 leads us to the conclusion that there is no sufficient reason whatsoever for suspecting that while Luke indeed presents the Holy Spirit as a narrative character, he does not understand it as a real person outside of the narrative world.109

104

Cf. ZMIJEWSKI, Apostelgeschichte, 61 (n. 14). HUR, Reading, 157f (n. 18), is right in pointing out that the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts is a divine character of the narrative, but he does not see a clear answer to the question about its being a real person or not, due to some of the Spirit’s enigmatic and impersonal traits. This seems to be due to his narrow definition of “person” within the limitations of human experience. On the basis of my broader interpretation of the concept of “person”, however, it should be clear that the Spirit’s personal traits outweigh by far its “impersonal” ones. The latter can be explained by the divine, and therefore also spiritual, existence of the Spirit, which both on the narrative and on the theological level is comparable with the existence of God himself. 106 FITZMYER, “Role,” 178 (n. 2), speaks of a “personification” of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts, which he bases on the Old Testament understanding of God’s spirit. 107 In antiquity, such an example would be talking animals in Aesop’s fables, which are fully developed narrative characters within the world of the fables but are not meant as real persons within the real world (but only as resembling real persons); cf. H. NORTHWOOD, “Making Music with Aesop’s Fables in the Phaedo,” in Plato’s Animals: Gadflies, Horses, Swans and Other Philosophical Beasts (eds. J. Bell and J. Naas; Bloomington, 2015), 20– 22. 108 See above on the exceptional case of God’s wisdom (σοφία). 109 Contra SHEPHERD, Narrative Function, 66 (n. 63), who, while affirming that the Spirit in Luke-Acts is indeed a character of the narrative, leaves aside the theological question about its personhood in the real world. 105

108

Christos Karakolis

7. Some Hermeneutical Afterthoughts According to the Lukan narrative, while Jesus Christ lived among the people of his own historical time, the Holy Spirit lives continually within the people of the historical time of the church. The role of Jesus Christ had been to perform miracles, to preach the coming of the kingdom of God, and to sacrifice himself for the salvation of humankind. The Spirit is the divine person that actualizes Jesus’s work by materializing it within and among the members of the church. This is the reason that Luke never says that someone is full of Christ, while he does clearly state that the members of the church are full of the Spirit. Nevertheless, the Spirit is not fully merged and identified with the faithful. In other words, it is not transformed into a mere attribute of human beings. Rather, it always remains a distinct person, which talks with them, commands them, guides them, gives them power, joy, and especially the ability to become witnesses of Christ to the world. Indeed, in Acts, the work of the Spirit is very much understood in close connection with the missionary work of the Christian community and with its witness of faith. Mission is planned and commanded by the Spirit itself. The Spirit connects the Old Testament prophecies with the charismatic witness to Christ. The speaking of tongues also belongs to a missionary context.110 By being a distinct divine person and not some part of a subjective system of beliefs or ideas, the Spirit secures the objectivity of the content of faith and the experience of the church. At the same time, through the presence of the Spirit within each and every faithful, the transcendence of God is preserved. Thus, God the Father is able to fully communicate with his own people without at the same time ceasing to remain fully transcendent. Through the real presence of the Spirit in all eras of the history of salvation,111 from the Old Testament through the period of the earthly life of Christ and up to the era of the church, the unity of this history is preserved, even if the Holy Spirit is only revealed as a true person in the final time-period of the church. Orthodox Christian theologians often tend to perceive Orthodox Christianity in an ahistorical way as the only church that has preserved the faith of early Christianity through the ages basically unaltered in content and form. Tradition, however, does not only entail preservation but also development and evolution. Scholarly study of the New Testament, as well as of other early Christian texts, in their own historical contexts and in their own right, 110

Cf. LARKIN, “Spirit,” 126f (n. 81); G. K. A. BONNAH, The Holy Spirit: A Narrative Factor in the Acts of the Apostles (SBB 58; Stuttgart, 2007), 270; FREY, “Spirit,” 362f (n. 35). 111 Cf. JERVELL, Theology, 46f, 79f (n. 2); MAINVILLE, Esprit, 337 (n. 75); FITZMYER, “Role,” 171 (n. 2).

The Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

109

will enable Orthodox theology to grasp more adequately the complexity of historical developments and eventually to proceed to a much-needed selfassessment on a local and ecumenical level in the light of the faith and life of the early Christians. It is broadly acknowledged that the gradual institutionalization of the church, which started already in her early days, has often expelled the experience of the Holy Spirit from the lives of the faithful. Leaving aside a minority of “charismatic” communities or individuals, the faithful as a whole may well believe in the divine personhood of the Holy Spirit on a theoretical level, but they they fail in practice to communicate with it and to let it guide their lives.112 From a meta-hermeneutical-transformative perspective,113 this is something that the Orthodox church and theology should be seriously concerned with.

112 GUNKEL, Geist, 361 (n. 46), speaks in this regard about a “Geistvergessenheit” that should not have occurred in the first place and that the church has to seriously deal with in the present. 113 According to the relevant analysis of T. STYLIANOPOULOS, The New Testament: An Orthodox Perspective (vol. 1; Brookline, 1997), 214–238; cf. also M. WENK, CommunityForming Power: The Socio-Ethical Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts (London, 2004), 315– 318.

The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts: A Western Perspective Daniel Marguerat Let me begin in medias res. A very odd story is recorded in chapter 19 of the book of Acts: the “Johannites of Ephesus”. This story has long puzzled scholars. The text states that the apostle Paul returning to Ephesus comes across “some disciples” (19:1). So Paul asks, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you became believers?” They answer, “We have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit!” Paul continues, “To what then were you baptized?” And they say, “The baptism of John!” Paul then declares, “John baptized with a baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in the one who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” After hearing Paul, the disciples are baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus and when Paul has laid hands on them, the Holy Spirit comes upon them; they speak in tongues and prophesy (19:2–6).1 What a strange story! Scholars have asked: Where do these people come from? Where do these “disciples” come from, who know nothing of the Holy Spirit and only know the baptism of John? This question has greatly occupied scholars since Ferdinand Christian Baur in the mid-nineteenth century. But it is not only theologians of the Western perspective who have wondered about them. To our knowledge, St. John Chrysostom is the first to have declared that these people were disciples of John the Baptist.2 It was inconceivable to him that Christians should only know the baptism of John and have no knowledge of the Spirit. This viewpoint has also been supported by many scholars. Today, however, the tide has turned. Most experts on the book of Acts agree, and in my opinion correctly, that the group called the “Johannites of Ephesus” is a Christian group.3 Two clues lead to this outcome. First, they 1

Biblical quotations follow the NRSV. Homilia in Acta Apostolorum 40.536d. 3 A. LOISY, Les Actes des Apôtres (Paris, 1920), 711; E. KÄSEMANN, “Die Johannesjünger in Ephesus,” in KÄSEMANN, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I (Göttingen, 1964), 162 (“ein unausgereiftes Christentum”); F. AVEMARIE, Die Taufererzählungen der Apostelgeschichte (WUNT 139; Tübingen, 2002), 438–439 (a Christianity without knowledge of the Spirit); K. BACKHAUS, Die “Jüngerkreise” des Täufers Johannes (Paderborn, 1991), 207–212 (adherents of the pre-Easter Jesus). State of research: W. THIES2

112

Daniel Marguerat

are called “disciples” (µαθηταί) by the narrator, but the term µαθητής in Acts refers without exception to followers of Jesus.4 Second clue: Paul asks them if they received the Holy Spirit when they “became believers” (πιστεύσαντες, 19:2); their act of faith is considered as a past event (the verb πιστεύω is in the aorist), which Paul does not question, and besides, Paul does not convert them. The question only becomes trickier: How can Christians stand apart from baptism in Jesus and the Holy Spirit? I will not resolve here the question of the origin of this group, which Luke estimates at a dozen men (19:7). I only note that Luke gives us here very valuable historical information: in the middle of the first century C.E., there were groups linked with faith in Jesus who performed a baptism of water the way John the Baptist did – a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3) – but without reference to the Holy Spirit. “As for me, I baptize you with water”, says the Baptist in the Gospel, “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (Luke 3:16). Jesus was to explicitly ratify what we may call the disqualification of Johannine baptism prior to Pentecost: “John baptised with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit in a few days.” (Acts 1:5) Paul in Acts is fully in line with this perspective: John baptized with a baptism of repentance, but he adds that the Baptist told the people to “believe in the one who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus” (19:4).5 The preparatory value of the Baptist’s baptism is heightened; John himself was pointing to faith in Jesus. The group is then baptized, and when Paul lays hands on them, they receive the Holy Spirit, which is visibly evident through glossolalia and prophecy: “they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (19:6). Why did I choose to start with this strange story, which represents the only case of re-baptism in the New Testament? I choose it because it illustrates perfectly the understanding of the Holy Spirit in Acts. It tells us three things: a) The Christian condition is irrevocably linked to the action of the Spirit, beginning with the founding event, which is Pentecost (Acts 2); b) The Holy Spirit works over and within the believers (this action in Ephesus is materialized through glossolalia and prophecy); c) The gift of the Spirit is related to baptism. These three themes will form the three parts of my presentation on Lukan pneumatology. I will discuss the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost (1), then its

SEN, Christen in Ephesus. Die historische und theologische Situation in vorpaulinischer und paulinischer Zeit und zur Zeit der Apostelgeschichte und der Pastoralbriefe (TANZ 12; Tübingen, 1995), 61–70; S. SHAUF, Theology as History, History as Theology: Paul in Ephesus in Acts 19 (BZNW 133; Berlin, 2005), 107–110. 4 Acts 6:1, 2, 7; 9:1, 10, 19, 25, 26, 38; 11:26, 29; 13:52; 14:20, 22, 28; 15:10; etc. 5 See my Paul in Acts and Paul in His Letters (WUNT 310; Tübingen, 2013), 22–47.

The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

113

modes of operation among believers (2), and finally the link between baptism and the Holy Spirit (3).6

1. The Spirit of Pentecost Announced by the Risen One at the end of the Gospel (Luke 24:49) and confirmed at the beginning of Acts (Acts 1:5.8), the coming of the Spirit occurs at Pentecost. From the Lukan perspective, Pentecost is the founding event of the Church. It is indeed from Pentecost onwards that the twelve disciples become apostles, that is to say, acting witnesses of the Risen One in the world according to his promise: You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. (1:8)

Let us note at the outset that the Church is born of the coming of the Holy Spirit. This coming is a constituent part of the birth of the Church, so much so that for Luke, a Church devoid of the Spirit is unthinkable. This is the

6 Selected bibliography on the pneumatology of Luke-Acts: H. VON BAER, Der Heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften (BWANT III.3; Stuttgart, 1926); G. BETORI, “Le spirito e l’annuncio della parola negli Atti degli Apostoli,” RivBib 35 (1987), 399–441; F. BOVON, Luc le théologien (3d ed.; Le Monde de la Bible 5; Genève, 2006), 207–251; F. F. BRUCE, “The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles,” Interpretation 27 (1973), 166–183; M.-A. CHEVALIER, “Luc et l’Esprit saint,” RSR 56 (1982), 1–16; J. D. G. DUNN, The Christ and the Spirit (vol. 2; Edinburgh, 1998), 207–242; J. A. FITZMYER, “The Role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts,” in The Unity of Luke-Acts (ed. J. Verheyden; BEThL 142; Leuven, 1999), 165–183; A. GEORGE, “L’Esprit Saint dans l’oeuvre de Luc,” RB 85 (1978), 500–542; H. GIESEN, “Der Heilige Geist als Ursprung und treibende Kraft des christlichen Lebens,” in GIESEN, Glaube und Handeln 2 (Frankfurt, 1983); G. HAYA-PRATS, L’Esprit, force de l’Eglise (LeDiv 81; Paris, 1975); J. H. E. HULL, The Holy Spirit in the Acts of the Apostles (Lutterworth, 1967); J. HUR, A Dynamic Reading of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (JSNTSup 211; Sheffield, 2001); O. MAINVILLE, L’Esprit dans l’oeuvre de Luc (Montréal, 1991); D. MARGUERAT, The First Christian Historian: Writing the “Acts of the Apostles” (SNTSMS 121; Cambridge, 2002), 109–128; R. P. MENZIES, Empowered for Witness: The Spirit in Luke-Acts (JPTS 6; Sheffield, 1994); W. H. SHEPHERD, The Narrative Function of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (SBLDS 147; Atlanta, 1994); J. B. SHELTON, Mighty in Word and Deed: The Role of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts (Peabody, 1991); M. B. TURNER, “Jesus and the Spirit in Lucan Perspective,” TynB 32 (1981), 3–42; TURNER, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts (JPTS 9; Sheffield, 1996); A. WUCHERPFENNIG, “Acta Spiritus Sancti. Die Bedeutung der vier Sendungen des Geistes für die Apostelgeschichte,” ThPh 88 (2013), 194–210; A. W. ZWIEP, Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God: Essays on the Acts of the Apostles (WUNT II.293; Tübingen, 2010), 100–119.

114

Daniel Marguerat

reason why Paul, in Ephesus, was to reduce that aberration – that is, a Johannite belief – to a Christian condition without Spirit.7 1.1 Jesus and the Spirit The Spirit then comes at Pentecost. But what was the situation before Pentecost? In the infancy narrative, Luke speaks of the Holy Spirit that John the Baptist is filled with (Luke 1:15), like his mother Elizabeth (1:41) and his father Zechariah (1:67). We perceive here the OT concept of the Breath that animates inspired men and women. But a curious thing happens. From his birth onward, Jesus alone is the beneficiary of the Spirit. We can say this even more pointedly: from birth, Jesus exclusively monopolizes the Spirit. It is credited to no other. Why this focus on Jesus? The answer lies in the angelic revelation to Mary: “The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you.” (Luke 1:35) Whichever way one interprets this verse – and these ways are different among us – one thing is clear: the child to be born is the work and the will of God through his Spirit.8 This intervention of the Spirit, which explains the unique status of the Son, is to be achieved in Jesus through both therapeutic power (his miracles) and the therapeutic effect of his word (his teaching). His inaugural sermon in Nazareth clearly states that in the words of Isaiah 61:1–2: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, to return sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free and to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord. (Luke 4:18–19)

“Today this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing”, said Jesus to the surprised and scandalized listeners of the synagogue in Nazareth. From then till the end of the Gospel, the Spirit is related to Jesus only. In other words: Jesus is the only charismatic of the Gospel before Easter, but he is that as the Son, that is to say, as no one else was to be. 1.2 The Post-Easter Coming of the Spirit to Believers Therefore, Luke confines to Pentecost the coming of the Holy Spirit to believers. He makes it very clear through the words of the apostle Peter in his Pentecost speech: Exalted at the right hand of God, [Christ] has thus received the promised Holy Spirit from the Father and he has poured out this, which you see and hear. (2:33)

Nevertheless, this formulation is curious. Did Jesus not already possess the Spirit? Yes, but it is with the Spirit destined for believers that Christ is now 7 Some parts of the following exposé go back to my book, The First Christian Historian, 109–128 (n. 6). 8 See M. B. TURNER, “Jesus and the Spirit in Lucan Perspective” (n. 6).

The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

115

endowed. In this conception of the Spirit, both attributed to Jesus and destined for believers, Luke marries two Jewish scriptural traditions without confusion. One endows the Messiah with the Spirit (Isa 11:2; 42:1; 61:1), while the other attributes the Spirit to the regenerated people of God (Num 11:29; Ezek 39:29; Joel 3:1). In fact, in the same declaration, Luke articulates three affirmations: 1) the Spirit only appears after the Resurrection; 2) it emanates from the Father and 3) it is transmitted by the Son.9 A pretty pre-Trinitarian formula indeed. Dating the coming of the Spirit after the Resurrection, is not original to Luke. He expresses a conviction shared by the whole of early Christianity: the pouring out of the Spirit was a post-Easter reality; it is not the work of the earthly Jesus but of the risen Christ (John 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; Gal 4:6; 2 Cor 3:17; cf. Matt 28:19–20). Historically, Jesus himself seems to have spoken little of the Spirit whom he did not give to his disciples. This historical fact is confirmed by the hesitation of the first Christians to project their charismatic experience into the Gospels. As a result, for Luke, as for the first Christians, Jesus is the sole bearer of the Spirit before Easter and as the Risen One is the mediator of the Spirit to the believers. 1.3 Spirit of Pentecost But what happens at Pentecost? In Acts 2, Luke attributes to the pneuma a precise function: “You will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you” (1:8). The Spirit is a power; he enables the disciples to be witnesses of Jesus from Jerusalem to the ends of the earth. Once again, what is of interest in this programmatic verse is that it locates the origin of the venture of Christianity in the founding gift of the Spirit. Moreover, the gift of the Spirit is the power to “be Church” in witnessing to Jesus. The entire unfolding of the mission in Acts confirms this function of the Spirit as the enabling power to witness. Luke has edited the Pentecost narrative (2:1–13) in a way that evokes the great theophanies of the Hebrew Bible, but especially the gift of the Law at Sinai (Exod 19:8, 16–19 LXX). The Spirit is both visible and audible: the sound of the storm, the flames of fire that come down on each of the Twelve, the noise that arises from the many languages’ being spoken! In my opinion, Luke has rewritten a traditional narrative that was centered on speaking in tongues and has transformed it into an event of universal communication: the strange formula “to speak in other languages” (λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις, 9

O. MAINVILLE sees in Acts 2:33 the key verse of Luke’s pneumatology (L’Esprit dans l’oeuvre de Luc, p. 49–316) (n. 6).

116

Daniel Marguerat

2:4b) could be a rereading of an original expression known to the first Christians: “to speak in tongues” (λαλεῖν γλώσσαις, Acts 10:46; 19:6; 1 Cor 12:30; 13:1; 14:2.39). From this perspective, Luke turned glossolalia into xenolalia.10 Anyway, in its present state, the text describes this miracle: the Twelve lose their Galilean particularism and become the core of the universal Church (2:6–11). The crowd gathered in Jerusalem, composed of Jews from the entire Roman Empire coming on pilgrimage to the feast, can understand in their own language what the apostles say. The miracle is that this core of the Church, consisting of the twelve disciples of Jesus, makes the great acts of God understandable to the Jewish crowd in Jerusalem, which symbolically represents a microcosm, a kaleidoscope of nations, the entire oikumene. In his speech, Peter interprets the event using the quotation from Joel 3:1– 5, which promises the coming of the Spirit upon the entire population. So in the last days, says God, I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, your old men shall dream dreams; yes, on my servants and on my handmaidens in those days I will pour out my Spirit and they shall prophesy. (2:17–18)

These last words “and they shall prophesy” were added by Luke to the Greek text of Joel. (I will come back to this below). I emphasize the fact that the gift of the Spirit, announced for the end of time by the prophet and now realized, is granted to all classes of people, sons and daughters, young and old, male and female slaves. This text was not chosen at random by Luke; he certifies that the Holy Spirit, reserved in the Jewish tradition for the few greatly inspired (prophets in the first instance), now reaches everyone.11 We can talk of Pentecost as a democratization of the Spirit in the heart of the Christian community. To sum up: the Church, created by the Spirit through this birth, has four distinctive features: a) it is a missionary community, not by vocation but by definition; b) everyone in the community receives the Spirit in order to testify, a sign of the eschatological times; c) the witness of the Church has a uni-

10 E. LOHSE, “Die Bedeutung des Pfingstberichtes im Rahmen des lukanischen Geschichtswerkes,” EvTh 13 (1953), 422–436; repr. in LOHSE, Die Einheit des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen, 1973), 178–192, esp. 190. C. Wolf asserts to the contrary that the preLukan tradition already presents λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις with the meaning of speaking in foreign tongues (“λαλεῖν γλώσσαις in the Acts of the Apostles,” in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of A. J. M. Wedderburn (eds. A. Christophersen, C. Claussen, J. Frey, and B. Longenecker; JSNTSup 217; Sheffield, 2002), 189–199. 11 G. Gilbert has shown the influence here of the universalism of Roman propaganda; the Lukan response is that universality can only be realized by the Spirit: “The List of Nations in Acts 2: Roman Propaganda and the Lukan Response,” JBL 121 (2002), 497– 529.

The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

117

versal scope; d) the Church cannot understand herself without her roots anchored in Israel. 1.4 Pentecost: the Reminders But Pentecost is not the only Pentecostal event in the narrative of Acts. Surprisingly, a Pentecost-like event is repeated twice: at the meeting of the apostle Peter in the house of Cornelius (10:44–48) and the Johannites of Ephesus baptized by Paul (19:6). Such recurrence, typical of the Lukan vision of history, shows how God drives his community in order to enlarge the Pentecostal nucleus to worldwide dimensions.12 The Spirit drives the community of believers in spite of itself to reach beyond the boundaries of Israel, to go beyond the limits of the Law, to exceed the boundaries of Asia and to arrive in Rome, the world’s center. On the occasion of these expansions, a reminder of the first Pentecost echoes – here clearly, there vaguely.13 Let me show this. First, Samaria is won over, evangelized by Philip (Acts 8) and the Samaritans “receive the Holy Spirit” from the hands of Peter and John (8:17). But the decisive opening to the Gentiles occurs in the encounter of Peter and Cornelius, an event superbly narrated by Luke (Acts 10:1–48), which should be called the conversion of Peter rather than of Cornelius.14 Facing two assaults from God, through an ecstatic experience and then a message of the Spirit (10:9–16, 19–20), Peter has to come to grips with the unbelievable: the Holy Spirit falls on the house of Cornelius, for the first time incorporating Gentiles into the community but at the same time destroying the centuries-old barrier that separated the Gentiles from the people of God. Faith in Christ no longer proceeds by way of the Torah. Peter tells the story in a beautiful exercise of a theological reading of reality: As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning. And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, ‘John baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ If then God gave the same gift to them as he gave to us when we believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand God? (11:15– 17)

The key argument of Peter is: to baptize amounts to endorsing God’s action, which drove the event and placed Gentiles and Jews on an equal footing. The unexpected arrival of the Spirit, which swept down on the house of Cornelius, has the effect of status equalization between Israel and the nations. Most importantly, this theological reading of the event acknowledges God’s initia12

E. RICHARD, “Pentecost as a Recurrent Theme in Luke-Acts,” in New Views on Luke and Acts (ed. E. Richard; Collegeville, 1990), 133–149. 13 M. GOURGUES, “Esprit des commencements et Esprit des prolongements dans les Actes: Note sur la 'Pentecôte des Samaritains' (Act., VIII, 5–25),” RB 93 (1986), 376–385. 14 There is no change in Cornelius’s life but in Peter’s theological conviction (10:28).

118

Daniel Marguerat

tive that goes beyond the Church and with which the Church must comply. The Holy Spirit is recognized as the medium through which God precedes his own and leads history. Following this second Pentecost we have come to call the “Pentecost of the Gentiles”, the Spirit continues to direct the progress of the Church. The selection of Barnabas and Paul for the first missionary journey to the Gentiles is ordered by the Spirit (13:2). Paul and Silas’s leaving Asia is motivated by the Spirit who blocks all other paths, forcing them to go towards Europe (16:6–10). A pouring out of glossolalia of the Pentecost type takes place in Ephesus, as we saw before (19:6). Then the apostle to the Gentiles, who understands that he is “bound in the Spirit” (20:22), sets off for Jerusalem, where the long route to martyrdom that will lead him to Rome begins. In each of these pivotal episodes, where salvation history moves to a higher level, it is the Spirit that draws the believing community ahead in order that the plan of God may be accomplished. I conclude this first point. It has allowed us to see that the story of Pentecost is the Lukan version of a common belief among early Christians: the post-Easter coming of the Spirit given by the Risen Lord to his disciples. The recurrence of the unexpected coming of the Holy Spirit embodies the acts of God in history, who precedes and leads his people to spread the Word in the world. This ongoing initiative of God through the Spirit explains why Oecumenius, a Father of the seventh century, has nicknamed the second book of Luke Acta Spiritus sancti. Or to say it with a recent commentator: the Holy Spirit is “a character” in the Lukan narrative.15 There are 106 mentions of πνεῦµα in the Gospel and in Acts, which amounts to 28% of the New Testament occurrences of the term. Of the three great theologians of the Holy Spirit in the NT – namely, Paul, Luke, and John – Luke is the only one who narrates the work of the Spirit. He is alone in developing a narrative pneumatology, which contrary to Paul and John does not explain, does not argue, but shows the Spirit at work. In this regard, I would say that he develops a pragmatics of the Spirit, which leaves the reader here or there in the dark.

2. The Activity of the Spirit My second point is to ask the question: How does the action of the Spirit become a reality? How does the Spirit work in the hearts of believers? The first thing to mention has already emerged in our reading of the first Pentecost. The Spirit makes the apostles speak; he enables them to communicate understandable words about God and his wonders (2:4.11). If the gift of tongues can be described as an ecstatic gift, it does in no way consist in dis15

W. H. SHEPHERD, The Narrative Function (n. 6).

The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

119

possessing the individual and acting in his place. On the contrary, the Pentecostal outpouring of the Spirit makes the apostles into agents of communication, actors in spreading the Word. The Spirit makes the apostles witnessing subjects. It does not act without raising the strength and intelligence of the testimony in the believers.16 2.1 A Witnessing Spirit An original dimension of Luke's pneumatology, when compared to that of Paul and John, thus emerges: the Holy Spirit is the power of witnessing given to the believer. Is the Spirit at the origin of faith, as Paul clearly affirms (1 Cor 12:3.9)? Luke never says so, and it remains an obscure point with him.17 Maybe he respects human freedom too much to give the impression that God would alienate the individual by instilling faith in him. Regardless, in LukeActs, the Spirit comes after faith to give the individual the power to testify.18 A statement from Peter to the crowd at Pentecost plays a programmatic role in this regard: “Repent, let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins, and you shall receive the gift the Holy Spirit.” (2:38)19 Carefully note the sequence: conversion / baptism for the forgiveness of sins / gift of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit comes last like a grace granted to the believer after his/her integration into the community through baptism. For the author of Acts, since Pentecost, the Spirit gives the believer the power to speak clearly. That is why, in Acts 2, the traditional formula λαλεῖν γλώσσαις has been reinterpreted as λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις (2:4b). In both echoes of the first Pentecost that we observe in the book, the same emphasis is noticeable. In the house of Cornelius where the ”Pentecost of the Gentiles” takes place, it is said that listeners “heard them speaking in tongues and celebrating the greatness of God” (λαλούντων γλώσσαις καὶ µεγαλυνόντων τὸν θεόν, 10:46). Here, the καί has a consecutive value: 16 J.-N. ALETTI, “Esprit et témoignage dans le livre des Actes,” in Raconter, interpréter, annoncer: Parcours de Nouveau Testament: Mélanges offerst à Daniel Marguerat pour son 60e anniversaire (ed. E. Steffek and Y. Bourquin; Le Monde de la Bible 47; Genève, 2003), 225–238. 17 One possible exception: Acts 15:9 speaks of God's motive of “cleansing their hearts by faith” (oral communication of D. P. Moessner). 18 A. W. Zwiep is right in observing that the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost is a “corporate event” (Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God, 110–114 [n. 6]). But he does not take into account that the activity of the Spirit is more and more individualized as the narrative goes on (10:19; 11:12, 28; 13:4, 9; 15:28; 20:22–23; 20:28; 21:4, 11). See my statistics in The First Christian Historian, 110–113 (n. 6). 19 K. ALAND, “Zur Vorgeschichte der christlichen Taufe,” in Neues Testament und Geschichte: Festschrift O. Cullman (ed. H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke; Tübingen, 1972), 1– 14.

120

Daniel Marguerat

they speak in tongues and consequently celebrate the greatness of God. Luke is keen to point out that this ecstatic speaking consists in praising God and that it is decipherable as such. The same intent can be spotted during the baptism of the Ephesian Johannites by Paul: “they spoke in tongues and prophesied” (ἐλάλουν τε γλώσσαις καὶ ἐπροφήτευον, 19:6). Speaking in tongues is reinterpreted here as a prophecy; one needs to remember that the same author had annotated the quotation in Joel 3:2 in 2:18 by adding “and they shall prophesy” (καὶ προφητεύσουσιν). If the Spirit empowers the testimony, it is similar to prophecy. Luke here walks on the safe ground of the Hebrew Bible, which strongly identifies the divine Breath with the spirit of prophecy. It is as human beings inhabited by the Spirit that Peter (4:8), Stephen (6:5, 7:55), Agabus (11:28), Paul (13:9; 19:21), the Jerusalem community (4:31; 15:28), and Apollos (18:25) contribute to the spreading of the word of God. 2.2 A Spirit of Communion What has been less noted in research, which has focused primarily on the prophetic dimension of Lukan pneumatology, is its ethical dimension. I would like to show this in conjunction with the three summaries that punctuate the early chapters of Acts. The first is the best known one: They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. Awe came upon everyone, because many wonders and signs were being done by the apostles. All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. Day by day, as they spent much time together in the temple, they broke bread at home and ate their food with glad and generous hearts, praising God and having the goodwill of all the people. And day by day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved. (2:42–47)

This summary operates in the narrative of Acts as the programmatic demonstration of unity in the faith community, a communion (κοινωνία) as much spiritual as it is material, realized both in prayer and in the division of property. Luke delivers here the ethical programme of the Church.20 What is the relationship with the Spirit? At first glance, the text does not present any. But to stop there is to commit the methodological error – frequent in exegesis – of failing to examine the text rigorously in its literary context. Where is this first summary placed? In a way, it concludes the long Pentecostal sequence that includes the account of the event, Peter’s speech, and the reaction of the people. Verse 42 goes on without any transition, whereas the beginning of chapter 3 marks a break (change of time and location). Luke 20

On this text, see my commentary: Les Actes des apôtres (1–12) (CNT 5a; Genève, 2007), 99–110.

The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

121

actually conceives the Pentecostal sequence from 2:1 to 2:46 as a whole, culminating with the summary. This literary composition requires interpretation in terms of its overall theological effects, and in my opinion, the following conclusion is necessary: the outpouring of the Spirit reaches its climax in the unification of the believing community. Even if we refuse to see in the Spirit the new Torah’s regulating Christian existence and Pentecost’s functioning as a new Sinai revelation, it remains true that the irruption of the breath of God, creating the Church, finds its ethical realization in the unity of believers. Edgar Haulotte has spoken well of “life in communion, the ultimate phase of Pentecost”.21 The result is even clearer with regard to the second summary (4:32–35). It expands more realistically the practice of property division in the community. After giving a positive model of sharing in the person of Joseph, called Barnabas (4:36–37), there is the famous (and terrible) example of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1–11). Seeing they sold a piece of property for the benefit of the community and, without saying so, retained a part of the sum, Ananias and Sapphira are unmasked by Peter and struck down at his feet. The sentence of death that eliminates them is carefully justified: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?” (5:3) I propose the following reading for this text: the crime of the couple is not in withholding finances, but in offending against the principle of sharing everything in common (4:32). Ananias and Sapphira have not sinned against morality; their offence is not just a lie, or even the desire to retain part of the proceeds (Peter recognizes this in 5:4). They resisted the action of the Spirit in hiding not a part of their wealth but a part of themselves. They have sinned against the Spirit in his work of creating unity among the believers. Acts 5, then, is the picture of original sin in the Church, which introduces the Christian community to the realm of the equivocal. The reader learns of how the Church, in its infancy, was directed by the Spirit while being exposed as well to Satan and how God has protected it (in a terrible way) from the attacks of evil.22 Let us conclude this second point. When working in the heart of believers, the Holy Spirit empowers witnessing, whereby the baptized share in spreading the Word around the world. But it also leads to a community life, whereby it participates in the building up of unity in the Church. In this sense, the Spirit works for the emergence of a truly human brotherhood. If we connect this relational dimension to the “Pentecost of the Gentiles” (Acts 10), where 21

E. HAULOTTE, “La vie en communion, phase ultime de la Pentecôte,” CBFV 19 (Paris, 1981), 69–75. 22 See D. MARGUERAT, The First Christian Historian, 155–178 (n. 6). Recently, A. LE DONNE, “The Improper Temple Offering of Ananias and Sapphira,” NTS 59 (2013), 346– 364.

122

Daniel Marguerat

the irruption of the Spirit sanctions the destruction of the ancient barrier between clean and unclean, between Jews and non-Jews (10:28.34–35), we can speak of the Spirit as a participant in the creation of an open “social identity”.23 To recognize the admission of Gentiles into the covenant of salvation and to integrate them by baptism is to be oriented towards an allocentric stance, open to others. These considerations ought to provide a deterrent to the endless discussion on the absence of the “sanctifying Spirit” in the pneumatology of Luke.24 While it is true that Luke does not focus on the future of believers in the new life, his insistence on naming the κοινωνία in the number of the notae ecclesiae (2:42) signals, to those who wish to hear, that this theologian is not indifferent to the path the Spirit opens in the heart of the converted.

3. Spirit and Baptism The above-mentioned instructions of Peter to the Jerusalem crowd at the first Pentecost allow me to set the problem. I recall the text: “Repent, let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and you shall receive the gift the Holy Spirit.” (2:38) The formulation is as clear as the three-stage structure: conversion / baptism / reception of the Spirit. In the clause καὶ λήµψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος, the καί has a consecutive value: let everyone be baptized for the forgiveness of sins and as a consequence “you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit”. Note that baptism in Acts is never called a “gift” (δωρεά). The author of the gift is none other than God, obviously. Systematizing a bit, I suggest that in this process, conversion is the human part while the gift of the Spirit is the divine part; between the two, baptism is a ritual act where God’s action and human action are combined. (This is why Christian dogmatics has given it the name sacramentum.) Thus, the instructions in 2:38 provide a well balanced approach on the part of both human beings and God in the process of integrating individuals into the community of salvation. The problem does not arise from this verse but from the fact that the story does not completely confirm the rule that it implements. Namely, on three occasions, the sequence of 2:38 is broken. In 8:14–17, while the Samaritans were baptized by Philip the Hellenist, Peter and John come down from Jerusalem that they may receive the Holy Spirit. Another exception is found in 10:44–48 (the “Pentecost of the Gentiles”), where Cornelius and his relatives receive the Spirit though they have not been baptized. And finally, the episode of the Ephesian Johannites (19:1–7), where a baptism in the name of 23 24

A. WUCHERPFENNIG, “Acta Spiritus Sancti” (n. 6). See F. BOVON, Luc le théologien, 207–251 (n. 6).

The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

123

Jesus Christ grants the Spirit to Christians already baptized, but through John's baptism, which is a baptism of water. How does Luke manage the relationship between baptism and Spirit? Should we think of water baptism as distinct from the gift of the Spirit? Or should we think that the rule stated by Peter in Jerusalem is an ideal that is not confirmed in ecclesial practice? 3.1 The Pentecost of the Gentiles We begin with the Pentecost of the Gentiles. What was said before on the significance of the coming of the Spirit enables us to understand this odd pneumatic irruption in the house of Cornelius. The coming of the Spirit articulates the divine ratification of an event. In this case, the outpouring of the Spirit at Cornelius’s bears out the validity of Peter's speech that “God is impartial (προσωπολήµπτης) and that in every nation, anyone who fears him and practices justice is acceptable to Him” (10:35).25 The coming of the Spirit at Cornelius’s ratifies this theological conviction: Cornelius and his family, non-Jews, are welcomed into the covenant of salvation from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Therefore, concludes Peter, bolstered by the strength of the evidence: “Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (10:47) Baptism, as integration into the community of salvation, can only serve as a confirmation of a welcome God has already and visibly granted. Reversing the sequence in 2:38 (first the baptism and then the Holy Spirit) is now understandable: Peter lags behind God's time. God has already hoisted the flag of reception for those whom Peter regarded as outsiders to salvation. God has moved history forward, and the Church (in the person of Peter) will yield to this divine swiftness. After reflection, the Cornelius episode does not invalidate the rule of 2:38; it represents the exception, for God in this case moved faster than his own people. In other words, Peter, by performing the baptism, restores the normality which God's initiative had shaken up. 3.2 In Samaria The Samaritan episode is more difficult. Why, after evangelizing Samaria, is Philip’s baptism inadequate because it lacks the Spirit? Why is it that Peter and John have to come down from Jerusalem to lay hands and cause the Spirit to come? Was Philip a deficient Evangelist? His portrait in Acts (8:5–8, 12– 13) does not allow such an interpretation. Theses have grown in numbers trying to explain this apostolic visit to Samaria. It was argued that the faith of the Samaritans was defective and depriving them of the Spirit, but there is no 25 To express this revelation, Luke chooses a word derived from the old formula of the Septuagint: λαµβάνειν πρόσωπον, literally: take (or receive) the face (Deut 10:17; Job 34:19; Sir 35:13).

124

Daniel Marguerat

hint of it in the text.26 Institutional centralism of the proto-catholic type, involving control by Jerusalem over peripheral areas, has been suspected.27 The supposition of ministerial hierarchy between the apostles and Philip the evangelist has also been advanced.28 These assumptions entirely miss the point of Luke's thought, which is not interested in institutional issues; such assumptions are, in addition, based on anachronisms. Actually, what has been said of Acts 10 also applies to this situation. Where are we in the Acts scenario? Samaria is the first region evangelized outside Jerusalem. These people, whom Judeans consider to be religiously deviant, half-Jewish and half-pagan according to Flavius Josephus, are halfway between Jerusalem and the nations.29 However, the evangelization of Samaria is presented in Acts as a consequence of the persecution that occurred in Jerusalem (8:1b–4). Believers fled, among them Philip the Hellenist (8:5). That his mission was successful, in spite of Simon Magus’s competition, is a sign that God was with him (8:5–8). But Luke is more careful than any other theologian of the New Testament to draw links of continuity in the expansion of the Word; this link needs to be legitimized. It can only be done by God, but through the mother church in Jerusalem. The Spirit, as God's signature, seals the communion between the original Jerusalem community and new converts. So, the link baptism/Spirit is restored afterwards. It should be noted that the two apostles, Peter and John, do not act as power holders. The author of Acts carefully specifies that they pray “for the Samaritans that they might receive the Holy Spirit”, and they imposed their hands, and then the Spirit came upon them (8:15, 17). Prayer and the laying on of hands is a double indicator that the apostles, for the sake of believers in Samaria, plead for a gift that is not theirs but which depends on God. The imposition of hands is a rite that the Church has taken up from Judaism. It is done during baptisms (Acts 8:17; 19:6), when sending someone on a mission (13:3), at induction into a ministry (6:6), or with prayers of healing (5:12; 9:12, 17; 28:8). The gesture is not restricted to the apostles but can be administered by a believer (9:12, 17) or the entire community (6:6; 13:3). It implies awareness, on the part of the Church, of being the channel of the grace received from God. In Luke, the Spirit keeps his inviolable freedom. From this, we understand why, strictly speaking, the gift of the Spirit is not conferred through baptism, but by laying on of hands. If it is related to water baptism,

26 J. D. G. DUNN, “They Believed Philip Preaching (Acts 8:12),” in DUNN, The Christ and the Spirit 2, (Edinburgh, 1998), 220. 27 E. KÄSEMANN, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen I (Göttingen, 1960), 131, 165–167. 28 W. DIETRICH, Das Petrusbild der lukanischen Schriften (BWANT 94; Stuttgart, 1972), 249–251. 29 Ant. 9.291.

The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

125

its status is different because it comes from God's freedom. What we learn from the episode of Samaria is that water baptism and the coming of the Spirit are coordinated with each other, but they can be differentiated in time. 3.3 At Ephesus The last episode is the one with which I began my presentation: the rebaptism of the Ephesian Johannites (19:1–7). Here, Paul overcomes a deficit in the baptism of John, which includes the essence of conversion and forgiveness of sins (Luke 3:3), but is lacking the Spirit. That is why they receive the baptism, says the author, “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (19:5). The turn of phrase “in the name of” (here εἰς τὸ ὄνοµα, but sometimes also ἐν or ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόµατι) is common in the writings of Luke.30 It is the heir of the Hebraic theology (namely, Deuteronomy’s) of the divine name. In this concept, the name is representative of the person. The divine Name releases a sphere of power in and through which the Lord acts. To be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ is to enter the sphere of power where we belong to the Lord and where we are associated with his life. The gift of the Spirit seals that relation of membership and nearness. The story of the Johannites is interesting because it has preserved the memory of a form of Christianity long gone.31 The astonishment of some researchers, who refuse to admit the Christian identity of Johannites (“how can you be a Christian and ignore the Spirit?”) reflects, in my view, a distorted understanding of Christian origins. Imagining Christendom originally united but gradually diversified by the ravages of time and history – this image is pure fantasy. We now know that Christianity was pluralistic from the beginning and that this diversity is the result of her ability to adapt to different cultures. In fact, Acts reflects a situation where the understanding of baptism varies considerably. A baptismal-rite conversion is encountered in Ephesus without a link to the Spirit (19:2–3), and in Samaria, a baptismal rite occurs in the name of Jesus without the outpouring of the Spirit (8:14–17). Luke tries to show how these differences have been reduced by the adoption of the dual rite “water baptism/gift of the Spirit”. But we must realize, by becoming aware of these deviations from the norm of 2:38, that Luke fights for the recognition of the link baptism/Spirit as it relates, in all likelihood, to the rite of the Christianity to which it belongs. However, his narrative keeps track of other practices in other streams of Christianity. Did these other practices survive in his time, that is to say in the 80s, when Luke wrote his work, or do they only point to memories of the past? I would not be surprised if the 30

Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5. W. THIESSEN, Christen in Ephesus, 75–86 (n. 6); S. SHAUF, Theology as History, History as Theology, 144–161 (n. 6); W. PAROSCHI, “Acts 19:1–7 Reconsidered in Light of Paul’s Theology of Baptism,” AUSS 47 (2009), 73–100. 31

126

Daniel Marguerat

Lukan norm, which was to become the standard for the great Church’s combining the legacy of Peter and Paul in the second century, was not universally recognized in Luke’s time and that the unresolved situation explains the author's insistence on this point.32 This should be demonstrated through a historical investigation. 3.4 In the Wilderness Before concluding, I refer lastly to the story of the Ethiopian eunuch’s baptism in the desert (8:26–40). This is a baptism of water – and this is absolutely certain because the eunuch stopped his chariot near water, asking “What prevents me from receiving baptism?” (8:36)! This is a water baptism, but without the Spirit. Moreover, it lacks any reference to a conversion. Curiously, it is not the lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit that bothered the scribes in the manuscript tradition, but the absence of confession. That is why the Western text (it, vg, syh, mae, Irenaeus, and Cyprian) added v. 37: “Philip said to him, ‘If you believe with all your heart, it's in order.’ He replied: ‘I believe that the Son of God is Jesus Christ.’”33 We have here a signal that very soon, the gift of the baptismal Spirit would become much less important than the creed’s orthodoxy. Let us return to our text. I believe Luke has kept to the minimum here. Quite accurately, he has only retained the features that mattered for the story’s aim. The eunuch is portrayed as a pagan who comes to Jerusalem to worship, although his religious status and position as eunuch denied him access to the Temple (8:27). He comes to worship God but is banned from the Temple. The meeting with Philip and the Christological reading of the song of the Servant of Isaiah (Isa 53:7–8) convince him that access to God is open through Him who takes human suffering upon himself – the suffering that echoes the exclusion he is subjected to. His request for baptism fits very precisely in this scenario: Am I included in this covenant of salvation? Philip will respond positively. As for the rite of baptism, the purifying water only is then important. That the eunuch “continues on his way with joy” (8:39) is the seal of salvation received and integrated. So, on this occasion, if Luke does

32 J. C. O’Neill tries to solve this problem with the help of source criticism: 19:1–7 would be the result of the conflation of two texts: “The Connection between Baptism and the Gift of the Spirit in Acts,” JSNT 63 (1996), 87–103. This kind of literary solution has shown its weaknesses in the past. 33 M.-E. BOISMARD, Le texte occidental des Actes des apôtres (EtB 40; Paris, 2000), 157.

The Work of the Holy Spirit in Luke-Acts

127

not discuss the entire liturgical practice of baptism, it is because the story of the eunuch is a “missionary story with a distinctive profile”.34

4. Conclusion May I take a risk in my conclusion? The risk is to ask: What are the strengths and what are the weaknesses of Luke, as a theologian, in formulating his narrative presentation of the Spirit’s work? How should we evaluate his theological performance? First of all, no New Testament author expresses as strongly as Luke the founding role of the Spirit who builds the Church as a missionary community and endows it with unity. Luke does not see the Spirit as the source of faith but sees him taking hold of believers, in response to their prayer, in order to integrate them into the witness to Christ. No other New Testament author so boldly involves the Spirit in history, going so far as to interpret the setbacks of the missionaries as the movement of the breath of God (16:6–7; 20:22). Luke draws back neither from the diversity nor from the material nature of the Spirit’s interventions. Nevertheless, we perceive the limits of Luke’s reflection on the subject. These limits are dictated, at least in part, by the constraints of a narrative. By telling the work of the Spirit, rather than talking about him, he offers his readers a pragmatics of the Spirit. The risk of distortion by systematization is high when we are dealing with a narrative theology.35 In vain, one waits for an elucidation with regard to the discerning of spirits, such as both Paul (1 Cor 14) and John (1 John 4:1–6) offer. The Lukan fixation on the Spirit as Spirit of prophecy flows directly from the Old Testament, in a way that might be described as naive. We find no equal to the grand Pauline theme of the Spirit’s participation in the regeneration of the believer. Luke is less interested in the sanctification of the person than in the sanctification of the world. The individual is of interest to him in the sense that s/he participates in the great universal mission. Regarding the miracles, Luke is so determined to link them back to Christology that their connection to pneumatology remains obscure. For Luke

34

J. SCHRÖTER, “Die Taufe in der Apostelgeschichte,” in Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism. Waschungen, Initiation und Taufe (eds. D. Hellholm, T. Vegge, O. Norderval, C. Hellholm; BZNW 176/1; Berlin, 2011), 557–586, quotation 576. 35 “I suspect that the drive at systematization is simply one of the fruits of Enlightenment rationalism. As soon as method reaches its boundary, the exegete should be at the alert and not succumb too quickly to the temptation of filling in the gaps. A bit of Gadamerian resistance against method would not be bad.” (A. W. ZWIEP, Christ, the Spirit and the Community of God, 106 [n. 6]).

128

Daniel Marguerat

keeps repeating that the miracles are performed “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (3:6, 16; 4:10, 30; 16:18; 19:13); they are to be seen as the work of the Risen One and the sign of his presence among his own. Have we to conclude that this Christological intransigence makes for a deficiency in Luke’s pneumatology?36 It is also possible to reason that Luke is silent on what was for him, as for the first Christians, self-evident: the miracle-worker’s power comes from God through the Spirit. This could be documented with the quotation of Isaiah 61:1–2 in Jesus’s inaugural sermon in Nazareth, where “the Spirit of God is upon me” is concretized by the liberation of captives, the healing of the blind, and the deliverance of the oppressed (Luke 4:18; cf. Acts 10:38). In summary, the reader is not invited to reflect on the Spirit but to live from him and to discern his path throughout history. For the command of the Resurrected One to his disciples to be his witnesses in all the earth (1:8) is not yet accomplished for Luke. Acts ends like an open book: Rome, where the narrative concludes, is not “the end of the earth”. We notice here that Luke’s eschatology is not a matter of calendars, but of geography.37 As readers, we are involved in this movement and engaged to take part in the mission all over the world.

36 37

E. SCHWEIZER, “πνεῦµα,” TDNT 6: 404–415. M. A. CHEVALLIER, “Luc et l’Esprit saint,” RevSR 56 (1982), 1–16, esp. 7.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John A Discourse Analysis of John 20:19–23 Predrag Dragutinović Last of all John, perceiving that the external facts (τὰ σωµατικά) had been made plain in the gospels, being urged by his friends and inspired by the Spirit … composed a spiritual gospel (πνευµατικὸν … εὐαγγέλιον).1

1. General Remarks Whatever Clement may have meant by designating the Gospel of John as “spiritual”, he made a point: In opposition to the synoptic tradition, the Spirit plays a considerable role in the story about Jesus in the Gospel of John. In the synoptic tradition, the Spirit (πνεῦµα), a power never clearly defined or explained, is mentioned several times, for example in the description of the baptism and the temptation of Jesus (Mark 1:8–12par), the casting out of demons (Matt 12:28; Luke 11:20), the persecution of disciples (Mark 13:11par), and so forth. In the Gospel of Luke, however, the Spirit plays a more significant role: it is already present at the beginning, at the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:35, 67; 2:27), then his public activity (Luke 4:14, 18), and the encouraging of his disciples to pray (Luke 11:13). However, in the Gospel of John, the Spirit possesses a somewhat hermeneutical role.2 It is equally 1

Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposis, in Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.14.7 (NPNF2 1:261). See F. PORSCH, Johannes-Evangelium (SKK NT 4; Stuttgart, 1988; 5th ed. 2001), 161: “Wie ein roter Faden durchziehen die Aussagen über das Wirken des Geistes dieses Evangelium, und ohne Übertreibung kann man sagen, dass es dynamisch auf die Gabe bzw. das Kommen des Geistes ausgerichtet ist.” See also U. SCHNELLE, “Johannes als Geistestheologe,” NovT 40 (1998), 17–31, 30: “Umfassender als beim 4. Evangelisten kann das Wirken des Geistes nicht gedacht werden, Johannes ist Geistestheologe. Von entscheidender Bedeutung ist darüber hinaus, dass die Pneumatologie auch den Schlüssel zum Verständnis der vorliegenden Gestalt des 4. Evangeliums liefert. Der durch den Geist gewährte nachösterliche Rückblick ist für Johannes gleichermaßen theologisches Programm und Erzählperspektive, er ermöglicht es dem 4. Evangelisten, theologische Einsich2

130

Predrag Dragutinović

present in both of the main parts of John, chapters 1–12 (“the book of signs”) and chapters 13–20 (“the book of glory”), unlike the title “Son of Man”, for example, which disappears entirely in this second part.3 In a certain sense, as we shall see, the Spirit holds the gospel narrative dynamically together. The gospel tradition is also generally lacking with regard to the notion of the “Church” (ἐκκλησία). The concept itself is almost absent, with the exceptions of Matt 16:18 and 18:17, and even there it is worth noting that there is no connection of the Church to the Spirit. With regard to the Gospel of John, there are various opinions among scholars. While some have tried to write a monograph on the topic of ecclesiology in the Gospel of John,4 others, like R. Bultmann and E. Käsemann, have argued that it did not explicitly develop any ecclesiology.5 In Johannine studies, however, one may encounter terms like “implicit” or “indirect” ecclesiology,6 an ecclesiology that is hidden in the deep structure of the text and therefore must be recovered through a specific technique of reading. This kind of ecclesiology is then narrowly linked with other components of the narrative, either with the “disciples” (µαθηταί) who are considered figures with whom the Johannine ecclesial community

ten in erzählte Geschichte umzusetzen.” See also J. FREY, “Vom Windbrausen zum Geist Christi und zur trinitarischen Person. Stationen einer Geschichte des Heiligen Geistes im Neuen Testament,” JBTh 24 (2009), 121–154, 146–147. See also C. DRONSCH, “Der Raum des Geistes. Die topographische Struktur der Rede vom Geist im Johannesevangelium,” ZNT 25 (2010), 38–45. 3 Concerning the general literary structure of the Gospel of John, I follow Brown’s proposal for the division of the gospel into two parts: “the book of signs” and “the book of glory”. This makes sense especially with regard to the audience of Jesus on the level of the narrative. See R. BROWN, The Gospel according to John (I – XII) (AB 29; New York, 1966), 138: “It is quite clear that the end of ch. xii and the beginning of xiii specifically mark a break in the narrative. In xii 37–43 there is a summary description and analysis of Jesus’ public ministry and its effect on the people; xii 44–50 are the last words of Jesus directed to the people in general. In xiii 1–3 there is a shift in emphasis, marked by the words, it was the Passover feast, and Jesus was aware that the hour had come for him to pass ‘from this world to the Father.’ All Jesus’ words in chs. xiii-xvii are directed to ‘his own’ (xiii i).” 4 See, for example, J. FERRIERA, Johannine Ecclesiology (JSNTSup 60; Sheffield, 1998). This study is focused on chapter 17 and partly on the Farewell Discourse in the Gospel of John. According to this author, there is an essential connection between Christology and ecclesiology: “The Gospel places the emphasis on the community’s relationship with the johannine Jesus” (201). However, some methodological decisions and a very limited selection of passages from the gospel prevent this study from fulfilling what the title promises. 5 R. BULTMANN, Theologie des Neuen Testaments, (Tübingen 1953, 9th ed. 1984), 443; E. KÄSEMANN, Jesu letzter Wille nach Johannes 17 (Tübingen, 1967; 4th ed. 1980), 65. 6 J. ROLOFF, Die Kirche im Neuen Testament (GNT 10; Göttingen, 1993), 291.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John

131

would have identified,7 or with the figure of the “beloved disciple”, who plays a prominent role in the narrative,8 or even with the sacramental theology apparently present in some passages.9 In particular, the ecclesiological dimension of the Spirit and the spiritual dimension of the Church in the Gospel of John are widely acknowledged, with different emphases by various scholars.10 In the present paper, I will try to trace a discursive connection between the Spirit and the Church in the narrative of the Gospel of John. I will do this with the help of discourse analysis focusing on John 20:19–23, which is in many aspects a prominent text for understanding the gospel’s theology, particularly with regard to the relationship between the Spirit and the Church. Firstly, however, I would like to sketch some basic features of discourse analysis as I understand it.

7 See N. FARELLY, The Disciples in the Fourth Gospel: A Narrative Analysis of their Faith and Understanding (WUNT II.290; Tübingen, 2010), 162–194, esp. 190–194. According to R. BULTMANN, Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK 2; Göttingen, 1941; 19th ed. 1968), 537, the disciples represent the community (“Gemeinde”). See U. WILCKENS, “Der Paraklet und die Kirche,” in Kirche. FS G. Bornkamm (eds. D. Lührmann and G. Strecker; Tübingen, 1980), 185–203, 196. U. SCHNELLE, “Johanneische Ekklesiologie,” NTS 37 (1991), 37–50, 45: “Auf der textinternen Ebene spricht Jesus zu den Jüngern, der eigentliche Adressat der Abschiedsreden auf textexterner Ebene sind aber die johanneischen Gemeinden, denen der Evangelist mit dem Evangelium insgesamt und den Abschiedsreden im besonderen eine umfassende Sinndeutung ihrer Situation geben will.” 8 On the ecclesial role of the “beloved disciple”, see R. E. BROWN, The Community of the Beloved Disciple: The Life, Loves, and Hates of an Individual Church in New Testament Times (New York, 1979); ROLOFF, Kirche, 297–299 (n. 6); WILCKENS, “Paraklet,” 200–203 (n. 7): “Der Jünger, den Jesus liebte, repräsentiert die nachösterliche Gemeinde so, wie sie durch das Kommen des Parakleten neu konstituiert wird und aufgrund des Wirken des Geistes immer bleibt” (203). 9 SCHNELLE, “Johanneische Ekklesiologie,” 47–48 (n. 7). 10 R. SCHNACKENBURG, “Die johanneische Gemeinde und ihre Geisterfahrung,” Idem, Das Johannesevangelium. IV. Teil: Ergänzende Auslegungen und Exkurse (HThK IV.4; Freiburg u.a., 1984), 33–58; C. DIETZFELBINGER, “Paraklet und theologischer Anspruch im Johannesevangelium,” ZThK 82 (1985),389–408, 396–397; M. B. TURNER, “The Concept of Receiving the Spirit in John’s Gospel,” Vox Evangelica 10 (1977), 24–42, 34; SCHNELLE, “Johanneische Ekklesiologie,” 43–44 (n. 7); SCHNELLE, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Göttingen, 2007), 696; SCHNELLE, “Johannes als Geisttheologe,” 28–29 (n. 2); WILCKENS, “Paraklet,” 195 (n. 7); ROLOFF, Kirche, 294–297 (n. 6). It is interesting that J. ROLOFF, although he dedicates an entire chapter to the Spirit within the larger ecclesiological-thematic unit “Die Gemeinschaft der Freunde Jesu. Die johanneischen Schriften”, argues that the Spirit is irrelevant for the constitution of the Johannine community: “Für das Miteinander der Glaubenden in der Gemeinde spielt der Geist keine erkennbare Rolle” (297). This subject has to be discussed below more extensively.

132

Predrag Dragutinović

2. Discourse Analysis: A Theoretical Foundation 2.1 Language Since discourse analysis is a language-based approach, there is a need to briefly formulate some basic characteristics of language as such and its role in the process of understanding. I will single out some features that are particularly important for my investigation. The main achievement of postmodern language theory, known as the “linguistic turn” or “linguistic revolution”, which has had a huge impact also on biblical studies, is the insight that language is not merely an instrument we use to express some reality or some understanding. It does not play a secondary or derivative role in the procedure of understanding and getting to know something; rather, we understand through language. We do not first experience or understand some reality and then find words to name that understanding. We understand in and through the languages available to us, including the historical languages of the sciences.11 The second important insight is that the meaning of a text is not simply expressed or mirrored in language as a secondary act. The meaning of a text is rather constituted by language itself. We do not have meanings, which we express as a secondary step in words and sentences. All meanings are enabled only because we have language at our disposal in which these meanings can occur. Again, language does not help us to articulate our understanding, but we understand in and through language. The meanings of words can be properly grasped only by taking account of the relations between the words – that is, how the words relate to one another in their grammatical structure. Therefore, the meaning of words is not properly understood only from their history or etymology, but also from their contextual use. In other words: meaning is determined by the context in which a word is used.12 Semantics, the “science of meaning”, the main discipline within discourse analysis, deals with these relations. Finally, a text always points beyond itself. It is a communicative act. The texts do more than convey information; they aim at producing results, at mov-

11

D. TRACY, Plurality and Ambiguity: Hermeneutics, Religion, Hope (London, 1987),

48. 12 The book of J. BARR, The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford, 1961), is here groundbreaking work. See also J. P. LOUW, Semantics of New Testament Greek (Philadelphia, 1982), 67: “semantics crosses word boundaries”. See also TRACY, Plurality, 60 (n. 11): “… but texts are not dictionaries. In texts, words do not have meaning on their own. There are sentences, paragraphs, chapters, books – there are texts. There are composition, genre, style as strategies of producing meaning in the text. There is none of that in words alone.”

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John

133

ing their readers to certain actions. Pragmatics is interested in language in action and the effects that can be achieved by it.13 2.2 Discourse P. Ricœur writes: “The object of hermeneutics is not the ‘text’, but the text as discourse, or discourse as the text.”14 Before trying to explain what discourse analysis as an interpretative method of a text is or may be, I need to clarify the term “discourse”. The term comes from the Latin word discursus (a running to and from), and is used with the meaning of conversation, communication, discussion of a subject, a unit of connected speech or writing longer than a sentence. Given the broad field of possible meanings, it is hard to provide a single, commonly accepted, definition of the term: The concept has become vague, either meaning almost nothing, or being used with more precise, but rather different, meanings in different contexts. But, in many cases, underlying the word ‘discourse’ is the general idea that language is structured according to different patterns that people’s utterances follow when they take part in different domains of social life …15

Because there is no consensus as to what discourses are and how we should analyze them, one has to decide which definition of the term one will deal with. It is of great importance to clarify the relations between discourse, text, and language. According to P. Ricœur, a text is “a discourse fixed by writing”.16 Therefore, a text is a written discourse: something is written (or said) to someone (destination) about something. Writing, in comparison with speaking, is not only a new medium of discourse, but it also has a profound effect on its message. Discourse is created by language, which does not exist for its own sake but for referring beyond itself to the world.17 Furthermore, discourses do not neutrally reflect the world, identities, and social relations, but rather play an active role in creating and changing them. In summary, we can define discourse as “a semantic unit of communication which is more than one sentence in length, and forms a unified whole”.18 An analysis of such a unit is called discourse analysis or text-linguistics or text-grammar.

13

See J. MEIBAUER, “Pragmatik: Textlinguistisch,” LBH 450–451. P. RICŒUR, “Biblical Hermeneutics,” Semeia 4 (1975), 29–148, 67. 15 M. W. JØRGENSEN and L. J. PHILLIPS, Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method (London, 2002), 1–2. 16 P. RICŒUR, Interpretation Theory: Discourse and Surplus of Meaning (Fort Worth, 1976), 26–27. 17 Discourse is an actualization of the code of language (language). Discourse is, therefore, an event in time (parole). See Ibid., 9. 18 G. H. GUTHRIE, The Structure of Hebrews: A Text-Linguistic Analysis (Grand Rapids, 1994), 46. 14

134

Predrag Dragutinović

2.3 Discourse Analysis There is no single definition of discourse analysis. In biblical studies, discourse analysis is considered a synchronic approach or a series of interdisciplinary approaches to biblical texts. There are a variety of methods and reading techniques within the discipline that are applicable to the texts.19 Discourse analysis, as a language-based approach, is a process of investigation by which one examines the form and function of all the parts and levels of a written discourse, with the aim of better understanding both the parts and the whole of that discourse.20

S. Porter mentions three major categories of discourse analysis: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics.21 Syntax refers to the way that words or phrases relate to one another in order to create meaning (the grammatical structure of language), while semantics refers to the cohesion (the means of linking sentences into larger syntactical units22) and coherence (thematic units) of discourse.23 Pragmatics studies the ongoing communicative process between author and reader through “language in use”– the discourse fixed in the text.24 That there is a relationship grammatically, semantically and pragmatically between the various parts of a given text, and that there is a thematic element 19

Discourse analysis is related to the different disciplines and “criticisms” such as linguistics, literary criticism, and rhetorical criticism. See J. T. REED, “Discourse Analysis,” in A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament (ed. S. E. Porter; Boston, 2002), 189– 217, 189–194. About discourse analysis in general, see the following titles: G. BROWN and G. YULE, Discourse Analysis (Cambridge, 1983); H. G. WIDDOWSON, Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis (Maklen, 2004); J. P. GEE, An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (New York and London, 1999; 3rd ed. 2011); N. WOODS, Describing Discourse: A Practical Guide to Discourse Analysis (Oxford/New York, 2006); For the reception in biblical studies, see W. BODINE, Discourse Analysis of Biblical Literature: What It Is and What It Offers (SemeiaSt 27; Atlanta, 1995). 20 D. A. BLACK, Linguistics for Students of New Testament Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications (Grand Rapids, 1995), 171. 21 S. E. PORTER, “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Studies: An Introductory Survey,” in Discourse Analysis and Other Topics in Biblical Greek (eds. S. E. Porter and D. A. Carson; Sheffield, 1995), 14–35, 18. 22 BLACK, Linguistics, 171 (n. 20). 23 According to Ricœur, the task of semantics is the study of sentences – that is, of language in use or language used in particular situations (signs-in-use). See RICŒUR, Interpretation Theory, 7 (n. 16). A. C. THISELTON, “Semantics and New Testament Interpretation,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods (ed. I. H. Marshall; Grand Rapids, 1977), 75–104, 75: “What is at issue is the varied meanings and kinds of meanings which belong to the words and to sentences as they occur within a context that is both linguistic and extra-linguistic.” 24 J. B. GREEN, “Discourse Analysis and New Testament Interpretation,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (ed. J. B. Green; Grand Rapids, 2nd ed. 2010), 218–239, 218–223.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John

135

that flows through it, allows the listener/reader to recognize discourse as a cohesive piece of communication rather than a jumble of unrelated words and sentences. How is it, then, that the speakers go about forming texts into a cohesive unit? How do they combine relatively unrelated words and sentences into a meaningful whole? Discourse analysts repeatedly seek answers to such questions, attempting to identify how a language is used to create a cohesive communication.25 Discourse analysis is a way of reading or approaching a text. It is an approach based on comprehensive linguistic models of language structure and cohesiveness.26 A closer observation of language in use enables us to reveal the hidden motivation/message behind a text. By investigation of the way language creates relationships between the various sections of a discourse, one can gain fresh insights into the overall meaning of the text. In this regard, discourse analysis can be understood “as a preparatory mechanism to open up the main contours of a given text, to disclose its inner development and its main and sub-themes”.27 In the process of understanding a text as discourse, a significant role is played by discourse prominence – “that is, drawing the listener/reader’s attettion to important topics and motifs of the discourse and supporting those topics with other less prominent material”.28 That means that language can be used to single out certain entities in the discourse. With regard to the theme “Holy Spirit and the Church in the Fourth Gospel”, John 20:19–23 proves to be a prominent text, as we shall demonstrate. In the following section, I will try to show how this text is related to the other parts of the narrative, to the whole gospel, and to its immediate contexts in chapter 20 as well.

25 J. T. REED, “Discourse Analysis As New Testament Hermeneutic: A Retrospective and Prospective Appraisal,” JETS 39 (1996), 223–240, 234. 26 REED, “Discourse Analysis,” 194 (n. 19). 27 A. B. DU TOIT, “South African Discourse Analysis in Theory and Practice,” Verbum et Ecclesia JRG 29 (2008), 387–406, 405. 28 J. T. REED, “Identifying Theme in the New Testament: Insight from Discourse Analysis,” in Discourse Analysis, 101 (n. 21): “Prominence refers to those semantic and grammatical elements of discourse that serve to set aside certain subjects, ideas, or motifs of the author as more or less semantically or pragmatically significant than others.” See also R. D. BERGEN, “Text as a Guide to Authorial Intention: An Introduction to Discourse Criticism,” JETS 30 (1987), 327–336, 331. See also GREEN, “Discourse Analysis,” 227 (n. 24).

136

Predrag Dragutinović

3. Discourse Analysis of John 20:19–23 3.1 Description of the Small Discourse Unit John 20:19–23: Micro-structure 19 On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being shut, where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came (ἦλθεν), and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you (εἰρήνη ὑµῖν).” 20 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad (ἐχάρησαν οὖν οἱ µαθηταὶ), when they saw (ἰδόντες) the Lord. 21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you (εἰρήνη ὑµῖν). As the Father has sent me (ἀπέσταλκέν µε), even so I send you (πέµπω ὑµᾶς).” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed (ἐνεφύσησεν) on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit (λάβετε πνεῦµα ἅγιον). 23 If you forgive the sins (τὰς ἁµαρτίας) of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” (RSV)

This short unit describes the appearance of Jesus to the gathered disciples. The text is structured in two somewhat parallel sections: vv. 19–20 and vv. 21–23. In the first part, Jesus comes to the disciples and is recognized by them, while in the second part he gives to the disciples the Holy Spirit through his breath and sends them (πέµπω ὑµᾶς) to forgive or retain sins. The text is carefully composed and placed within its immediate context through indications of time, place, and acting persons. The event occurs on the second day of Passover. The disciples are gathered in a closed room “because of fear of the Jews”. Jesus comes and greets the community with the traditional Jewish greeting, “Peace be with you!” Seeing Jesus alive, the disciples rejoice. After the second greeting, Jesus speaks the first word of commissioning, breathes the Spirit on the disciples, and eventually speaks the second word of commissioning.29

29 The whole atmosphere of the text is suggestive of the Old Testament, especially the traditional Jewish greeting, and the evocative verb ἐνεφύσησεν is an allusion to Gen 2:7 and Ezek 37:9 (see also Wis 15:11). See J. BEUTLER, “Resurrection and the Forgiveness of Sins: John 20:23 against Its Traditional Background,” in Resurrection of Jesus in the Gospel of John (WUNT 222; eds. C. R. Koester and R. Bieringer; Tübingen, 2008), 237–251, 246–251. The reading of John 20:19–23 against the Old Testament background led some scholars to the conclusion that this story is about “new creation”. See J. D. G. DUNN, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Re-examination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (London, 1970; 2nd ed. 2010), 173–182; H. THYEN, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6; Tübingen 2005), 767: “Wir haben hier also den Anfang der neuen Schöpfung vor Augen.”

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John

137

3.2 Analysis of John 20:19–23 within its Wider Narrative: Macro-structure 3.2.1 Macro-structure I: The Whole Narrative John 20:22 belongs to the explicitly narrated events that involve the word “Spirit”.30 This is also the last mention of the Spirit in the Gospel; therefore, it has a special hermeneutical position in the narrative as a whole. The other explicitly narrated events that involve the word “Spirit” (John 11:33; 13:21; 19:30) have a rather anthropological dimension.31 In John 20:22, in contrast, the Spirit is the Holy Spirit, the coming power repeatedly announced by Jesus, and this Holy Spirit is now given to the gathered disciples. Most explicit references to the Spirit in the Gospel occur in sayings, either of John the Baptist (1:32–33; 3:34), or Jesus (3:5–6, 8; 4:23; 6:63; Farewell Discourses), or the author himself (7:39). In any case, I would argue that in John 20:19–23 Johannine pneumatology, and perhaps Johannine theology in general, reaches its full height. The gift of the Spirit comes as a concluding salvific event. This position is based upon the following observations. John 20:19–23 is a text carefully composed and well linked with other texts of the Gospel, providing a fitting conclusion to numerous aspects of the text. The semantic field attests a strong connection with the whole narrative. The intended cohesion is evident. A) John 1:32–33 (the first reference to the Spirit) and 20:19–23 (the last reference to the Spirit) create a significant inclusio with regard to the Spirit, since the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus is now in a sense repeated towards the disciples. The first and the last mention of the Spirit signify the salvific event described in the Gospel: Jesus is the one who has the Spirit (1:33) and gives it to others (20:22). B) The appearance of Jesus in the closed room is described with the verb ἔρχοµαι. The verb is used quite frequently in different forms in chapter 20. In our case, the coming of Jesus is obviously a signal for the reader that his promise in 14:18–19 has now become reality. In 14:18, Jesus had said to the disciples: Οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑµᾶς ὀρφανούς, ἔρχοµαι πρὸς ὑµᾶς. ἔτι µικρὸν καὶ ὁ κόσµος µε οὐκέτι θεωρεῖ, ὑµεῖς δὲ θεωρεῖτέ µε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑµεῖς ζήσετε. The coming of Jesus in John 20:19 is the fulfilment of John 14:18.32 John 14:28 is also remarkable in this regard: ἔρχοµαι πρὸς ὑµᾶς. εἰ ἠγαπᾶτέ µε ἐχάρητε ἄν. This is exactly what happens in John 20:19–20. 30

John uses different terms to designate one and the same reality: πνεῦµα ἅγιον, πνεῦµα, παράκλητος, πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας. 31 The anthropological understanding of John 19:30 (“to hand over the spirit”), at least, is not shared by all scholars. For a survey with an interesting thesis, see C. BENNEMA, “The Giving of the Spirit in John’s Gospel – A New Proposal?,” EQ 74 (2002), 195–213, esp. 200, 212–213. 32 See BEUTLER, “Resurrection,” 239–240 (n. 29); BULTMANN, Evangelium des Johannes, 536 (n. 7). Whether the verb contains an eschatological dimension is hard to decide

138

Predrag Dragutinović

C) Jesus had not only promised to his disciples to come again, but also that he would bring them his peace. His greeting of peace in v. 19 and v. 21 is actually a reference to 14:27 and 16:33. In 14:27, Jesus said: εἰρήνην ἀφίηµι ὑµῖν, εἰρήνην τὴν ἐµὴν δίδωµι ὑµῖν. In 16:33 again: ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑµῖν ἵνα ἐν ἐµοὶ εἰρήνην ἔχητε.33 D) The reaction of the disciples is simply described with ἐχάρησαν οὖν οἱ µαθηταί.34 This reaction had been anticipated in John 14:21–22: ὑµεῖς λυπηθήσεσθε, ἀλλʼ ἡ λύπη ὑµῶν εἰς χαρὰν γενήσεται (see also 16:6).35 John Chrysostom writes in this regard: Do you see the word issuing in deeds? For what he said before the crucifixion, that “I will see you again and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no one will take from you”, this he now accomplished in deed.36

E) “Sending” is one of the prevailing themes in the Gospel of John (3:34; 5:23–24, 30, 36–38; 6:38, 44; 7:28–29, 33; 8:26, 29, 42; 9:4; 12:44–45, 49; 13:20; 14:24–26; 16:7; 17:3, 18, 25). In John 20:19–23, it is mentioned one last time. The sending of the disciples is a reference to John 17:18. The disciples are ἡγιασµένοι ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (17:18), consecrated in truth, which inevita-

with certainty. The “coming” of Jesus belongs here in the narrative flux. He “came” again also later, when Thomas was present (20:26). However, the presence of Jesus on the first day of week, after his violent death on the cross, can be understood as the “eschatologischer Tag …, der jederzeit für den Glaubenden anbricht, dessen Treue durchhält und den Anstoß überwindet.ˮ 33 See THYEN, Johannesevangelium, 766 (n. 29). See also R. BROWN, The Gospel according to John (XIII–XXI) (AB 29A; New York, 1970), 1035: “In other words, when the disciples were fearful at the Last Supper, Jesus assured them that his parting gift of peace would not be ephemeral; and he related this peace to the promise that he was coming back to them.” See further J. BEUTLER, “Friede nicht von dieser Welt? Zum Friedensbegriff des Johannesevangeliums,” in BEUTLER, Studien zu den johanneischen Schriften (SBAB 25; Stuttgart, 1998), 163–173. 34 The term “disciples” is too ambiguous to be sure whether the author means only apostles (without Judas and Thomas, and thus ten persons) or a wider group of followers. However, the strong argument for a limited group of ten apostles is that Thomas is said to be one of the twelve (see John 6:67). In patristic interpretation, the disciples who received the Spirit are exclusively apostles, although the Church Fathers were mostly concerned to stress that all the apostles equally received the Spirit. See Cyprian of Carthage, De Unitate, 4 (ANF 5:422); Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum 1.26 (NPNF2 6:366): “But you say the church was founded on Peter, although elsewhere, the same is attributed to all the apostles and they all receive the keys.” 35 See BULTMANN, Evangelium des Johannes, 536 (n. 7); BROWN, John (XIII–XXI), 1035–1036 (n. 33); BEUTLER, “Resurrection,” 240 (n. 29). 36 John Chrysostom, Hom. Jo. 86.2 (NPNF1 14:323 [translation very slightly modified]; PG 59:470).

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John

139

bly recalls the Spirit of Truth, which is the Holy Spirit (15:26) that will guide the disciples into all truth (16:13).37 F) The notion of sin is very important for the narrative (1:29; 8:21, 24, 34, 46; 9:2–3, 41; 15:24). In John 20:23, the use of the plural (τὰς ἁµαρτίας) is odd, since John regularly uses the word in the singular (with the exception of 8:24). Very significant in this context is John 16:8–9, according to which the Paraclete will condemn the world because of its rejection of Jesus.38 At one point, the whole narrative begins to point towards the coming of the Spirit: “If anybody is thirsty, he should come to me and drink; the one who believes in me, as the scripture says, out of that person’s heart will flow rivers of living water.” (John 7:38–39) Then, John explains that Jesus was speaking of the Spirit, which the believers (οἱ πιστεύσαντες) will receive: “for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified (οὔπω γὰρ ἦν πνεῦµα, ὅτι Ἰησοῦς οὐδέπω ἐδοξάσθη)” (John 7:39 RSV). John 20:22 is the clear referent of John 7:38–39 and the fulfilment of these words; now, because Jesus is glorified, the Spirit is present in his followers.39 This is the only appearance of the resurrected Jesus to the disciples as the community to which the Spirit was previously promised several times. The Spirit is explicitly promised to the community, not to any individual. The giving of Spirit is a communal event. This is evident in the Farewell Discourse, in which personal pronouns are used exclusively in the second person plural: John 14:16–17: κἀγὼ ἐρωτήσω τὸν πατέρα καὶ ἄλλον παράκλητον δώσει ὑµῖν ἵνα ᾖ µεθʼ ὑµῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὃ ὁ κόσµος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν, ὅτι οὐ θεωρεῖ αὐτὸ οὐδὲ γινώσκει· ὑµεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό, ὅτι παρʼ ὑµῖν µένει καὶ ἐν ὑµῖν ἔσται. John 14:25–26: ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέµψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατί µου, ἐκεῖνος ὑµᾶς διδάξει πάντα καὶ ὑποµνήσει ὑµᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑµῖν.

37 See BROWN, John (XIII–XXI), 1036–1037 (n. 33); THYEN, Johannesevangelium, 767 (n. 29); WILCKENS, “Paraklet,” 193 (n. 7). 38 See R. METZNER, Das Verständnis der Sünde im Johannesevangelium (WUNT 122; Tübingen, 2000); BEUTLER, “Resurrection,” 243 (n. 29): “From a Johannine perspective, all individual sins are rooted in and culminate in the one sin of rejecting Jesus and his message of salvation.” 39 See Gregory Palamas, Hom. 24 (PG 151:136D–137A): “According to John the theologian and evangelist, ‘in the last day, that great day of the feast,’ that is to say Pentecost, ‘Jesus stood and cried, saying, if any anybody is thirsty, they should come to me and drink … This spoke he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive’ (John 7:37– 39). Again, after his resurrection he breathed on his disciples and said ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ (John 20:22).”

140

Predrag Dragutinović

John 15:26–27: Ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέµψω ὑµῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος µαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐµοῦ· καὶ ὑµεῖς δὲ µαρτυρεῖτε, ὅτι ἀπʼἀρχῆς µετʼ ἐµοῦ ἐστε. John 16:7–11: ἐὰν γὰρ µὴ ἀπέλθω, ὁ παράκλητος οὐ µὴ ἔλθῃ πρὸς ὑµᾶς· ἐὰν δὲ πορευθῶ, πέµψω αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑµᾶς. John 16:13–15: ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃ ἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας, ὁδηγήσει ὑµᾶς ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ, οὐ γὰρ λαλήσει ἀφʼἑαυτοῦ, ἀλλʼ ὅσα ἀκούσει λαλήσει, καὶ τὰ ἐρχόµενα ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν. ἐκεῖνος ἐµὲ δοξάσει, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λήµψεται καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν. Πάντα ὅσα ἔχει ὁ πατὴρ ἐµά ἐστιν·σδιὰ τοῦτο εἶπον ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἐµοῦ λαµβάνει καὶ ἀναγγελεῖ ὑµῖν.

Thus, John 20:19–23 is semantically well linked with other texts of the Gospel. It is in a certain way the fulfilment of the promises of the coming of the Spirit in the Farewell Discourse: “Receive the Holy Spirit” is the peak of Johannine pneumatology and ecclesiology.40 All promises given to the disciples in the narrative are fulfilled in the giving of the Spirit. Based on the promises of the Farewell Discourse, Jesus in John 20:19–23 acts through the Spirit in the community. The Spirit will remind the disciples of Jesus’s words and deeds, and he will call for a new interpretation, for a “creative remembrance”41 of the events that had already occurred, now in light of the experience of the resurrection. A part of this “creative remembrance” is the Gospel of John itself,42 which in its final version is commonly held to be the edition of a community, not of an individual author.43 Furthermore, the Spirit enables the community to attain full recognition of Jesus’s person and his salvific work: ὑµεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό (John 14:17). The giving of the Spirit to the twelve (eleven) could express the conviction that full knowledge of God is a matter of community, not of an individual. 40 BROWN, John (XIII–XXI), 1038: “XX 22 … is the total fulfillment of earlier Gospel passages that promised the giving of the Spirit or the coming of the Paraclete.” 41 See the title of the collection of essays on John by J. ZUMSTEIN, Kreative Erinnerung. Relecture und Auslegung in Johannesevangelium (AThANT 84; Zürich, 1999; 2nd ed. 2004); WILCKENS, “Paraklet,” 198–199 (n. 7). See also T. ONUKI, Gemeinde und Welt im Johannesevangelium. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der theologischen und pragmatischen Funktion des johanneischen “Dualismusˮ (WMANT 56; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984), 76–77. 42 See J. FREY, Die johanneische Eschatologie II. Das johanneische Zeitverständnis (WUNT 110; Tübingen, 1998), 296. 43 I deliberately emphasize “final version”, because with the majority of scholars I hold chapter 21 as a secondary addition (see, e.g., BULTMANN, Evangelium des Johannes, 542– 547 [n. 7]). Although the stages of the composition of chapters 1–20 remain an enigma with regard to the number of “hands” (one or more?) involved in the writing of the text, it is clear that the Johannine community as the “author” and “editor” of chapter 21 and the entire Gospel considered the beloved disciple as the author of chapters 1–20. See U. LUZ, “Relecture? Reprise? Ein Gespräch mit Jean Zumstein,” in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes (AThANT 97; eds. A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz; Zürich, 2009), 233–250, esp. 248. See also J. PAINTER, “Johannine Literature,” in PORTER, Handbook, 555–590, 570 (n. 19). Thus, in its final version, the Gospel of John is the fruit of a communal enterprise.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John

141

John 20:22 is the moment when the disciples are becoming the believing community, the Church.44 They have to continue without Jesus ἐν σαρκί but with the Spirit as their advocate and comforter (παράκλητος). They have to go to the world in order to forgive or retain its sins. However, their spiritual community is to be experienced and recognized by others as a loving community (13:34–35; 17:24–26). The message about the coming of the Spirit as a communal and not as an individual event is conveyed in the deep structure of chapter 20, which includes verses 19–23. 3.2.2 Macro-structure II: Chapter 20 The coherence of chapter 20 is based on its main theme – namely, the relation between seeing (ἰδόντες, 20:20) and believing (οἱ µὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες, 20:29). Gregory Palamas in his homily on Pentecost observes the following: A short while ago, with the strong eyes of faith, we beheld Christ ascending, no less clearly than those accounted worthy to be eye-witnesses. Nor are we less favored than they. “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29), referring to those who have found assurance through hearing, and see by faith.45

Nevertheless, there is a sub-theme in chapter 20 that is recognizable by comparing the three appearance narratives: the relationship between individual and communal experience with the resurrected Jesus. One may say that John 20:11–29 represents an interplay between individual and communal experience with the resurrected Jesus, simultaneously providing an evaluation of both. John 20:19–23 is placed in the middle of the three appearance narratives, following the story of the encounter of the resurrected Jesus with Mary (20:11–18) and preceding the story of Jesus’s encounter with Thomas (20:24– 29). Taking into account that there are only three appearance narratives in the whole gospel, this is certainly a prominent place. The striking difference of John 20:19–23 from the other two narratives is the absence of any dialogue, any verbal reaction on the part of the disciples with regard to the appearance of the resurrected Jesus. The disciples simply meet Jesus with joy. In this story, only Jesus speaks, and he speaks the last word. In a certain sense, John 20:19–23 is a supplement, criticism, and corrective to both other stories,

44 Against ZUMSTEIN, “Johannes 19:25–27,” in Idem, Kreative Erinnerung, 253–275, 273 (n. 41), who sees the birth of the Church in John 19:25–27. 45 Gregory Palamas, Hom. 24 (PG 151:135B). See also C. TUCKETT, “Seeing and Believing in John 20,” in Paul, John and Apocalyptic Eschatology (NTSup 149; eds. J. Krans, B. J. L. Peerbolte, P.-B. Smit, and A. W. Zwiep; Leiden, 2013), 169–185; J. ZUMSTEIN, “Narratologische Lektüre der johanneischen Ostergeschichte,” in Idem, Kreative Erinnerung, 277–290, 279 (n. 41).

142

Predrag Dragutinović

providing the proper framework for understanding Christian identity according to John. Mary and Thomas encounter Jesus as two individuals. Both of them react in the same way: they want to touch, to feel Jesus. But, while Jesus forbids Mary to touch him (“touch me not”), he encourages Thomas to put his finger in the wounds (“reach hither thy finger” [KJV]).46 These two individual experiences with the resurrected Jesus are unfolded immediately before and after the giving of the Spirit. Although Mary and Thomas express almost accurate Christological confessions (20:13, 15, 18; 20:28), both reactions are somehow criticized by Jesus.47 In the first narrative, the critique concerns the attempt of Mary to retrieve Jesus (20:17), while in the second one, the inability of Thomas to believe without having seen is criticized (20:29). Mary’s encounter with Jesus is going to have an epilogue in the community: Jesus sends her to the disciples (20:17),48 while in the second narrative, Thomas is introduced to Jesus within the community of eyewitnesses. In both cases, the inadequacy of individual religious experience is evident. Individual experience must be either confirmed by the community or mediated by it. The critical note is especially striking, when one reads the two stories together with John 20:19–23. The “language in use”, the interplay with the singular and the plural in the resurrection appearances in John 20, should strengthen this insight. Mary, the first witness of the empty tomb (20:1–2) and the first person who meets the resurrected Jesus (20:16), builds a personal and an emotional relationship to Jesus. She complains as follows: “they have taken away my Lord (τὸν κύριόν µου)” (20:13 RSV). After the short dialogue, Jesus said to Mary not to hold him, because, in his own words, “I am ascending to my Father and to your Father, to my God and your God (πρὸς τὸν πατέρα µου καὶ πατέρα ὑµῶν καὶ θεόν µου καὶ θεὸν ὑµῶν)” (20:17 RSV). This could be understood as an invitation to Mary to share her individual experience of the divine with the community (πατέρα ὑµῶν, θεὸν ὑµῶν). Afterwards, Mary went to the disciples, confirming the personal dimension of her experience (ἐώρακα τὸν κύριον, 20:18). In the following story, the disciples – including the beloved disciple – are gathered, and Jesus comes among them. Two times Jesus directs the greeting to the community of his disciples 46

C. F. D. MOULE, “The Individualism of the Forth Gospel,” NT 5 (1962), 171–186,

175. 47 See TUCKETT, “Seeing,” 173, 181 (n. 45), who speaks about the “slightly negative note” and “an inadequate response to Jesus.” 48 See U. SCHNELLE, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (ThKNT 4; Leipzig, 1998; 2nd ed. 2000), 304: “Von einer Jüngerreaktion auf die Botschaft Maria Magdalenas berichtet Johannes nicht. Statt dessen fügt er eine weitere Erscheinungserzählung an, damit aus dem ̔Ich habe den Herrn gesehen’ der Maria das ‘Wir haben den Herrn gesehen’ der Jünger werden kann.”

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John

143

(εἰρήνη ὑµῖν) (20:19.21) and sends them to the world (κἀγὼ πέµπω ὑµᾶς) (20:21). The disciples tell this event to Thomas, interpreting it as a communal experience: “ἐωράκαµεν τὸν κύριον”. After Thomas’s rejection of the testimony of the other disciples, Jesus comes with the same greeting: εἰρήνη ὑµῖν (20:26). After he has been convinced, Thomas expresses his famous confession: ὁ κύριός µου καὶ ὁ θεός µου (20:28). Although the confession of Thomas far overpowers that of Mary (ραββουνί), he is also exposed to criticism. This happens not only because he has believed after he has seen, but also because he is not able to recognize a communal dimension of his experience, just like Mary before (20:17). Thomas fails to make an absolutely right confession. As the reader already knows, the right confession should be in accordance with 20:17 (“my Father and your Father”). Here, in 20:29, Jesus changes again to the plural (ἑώρακάς µε – οἱ µὴ ἰδόντες καὶ πιστεύσαντες). These linguistic moments have to be deemed as an implicit message to the community outside of the text: the spiritual religious experience according to John is primarily a communal, not an individual experience; the loving community is the place of the full knowledge of God. The interplay of singular and plural in chapter 20 can be illustrated in the following way:

4. Resurrection Appearances (John 20:11–29) 20:11–18 (individual)

20:19–23 (communal)

20:24–29 (individual )

20:13: τὸν κύριόν µου

20:19.21: εἰρήνη ὑµῖν

20:18: ἐώρακα τὸν κύριον Correction: 20:17: πατέρα ὑµῶν, θεὸν ὑµῶν

20:21: πέµπω ὑµᾶς

20:28: ὁ κύριός µου καὶ ὁ θεός µου 20:29: ἑώρακάς µε

20:22: λάβετε πνεῦµα ἅγιον

Correction: 20:29: οἱ µὴ ἰδόντες καὶ

πιστεύσαντες

5. Pragmatics: Individual vs. Communal/Spiritual Experience As already mentioned, discourses are created by language which does not exist for its own sake but for referring beyond itself to the world. A discourse, fixed in a text, is always a communicative act. Texts aim at producing results, at moving their recipients to certain actions. Pragmatics, as a part of discourse analysis, is concerned with the possible effects that a text may produce or convictions it may promote on the side of its readers. In Johannine studies, the emphasis is often put upon the individual dimension of ecclesiology which could be reconstructed from certain texts of the

144

Predrag Dragutinović

gospel.49 Certainly, the most prominent example is the statement of E. Schweizer: Diese Betonung des Individuums gilt nicht nur für den Beginn des Glaubens … Wer den Vater geschaut hat, besitzt alles. Er bedarf darum eigentlich des anderen nicht mehr. Es sind lauter gleiche, in sich abgerundete, schon vollkommene Einheiten, die hier nebeneinander leben. Korn wächst neben Korn, Ranke neben Ranke, und Schaf weidet neben Schaf. Sie sind zusammengehalten, weil sie alle aus der gleichen Wurzel, dem gleichen Weinstock leben und von gleichen Hirten geführt werden. Aber sie dienen einander nicht wie der Arm den Fingern, der Mund dem Magen. Es fehlt darum bei Johannes nicht nur die Bezeichnung der Kirche als neues Israel oder als Gottes Volk, Gottes Heilige; es fehlt der Name ‘Kirche’ überhaupt.50

According to J. Roloff, the Spirit does not play any role for the communal life of the community: Die Gegenwart des Geistes in der Kirche wirkt sich in der Weise aus, dass der einzelne Christ ihm begegnet, von ihm belehrt und in die Wahrheit geführt wird. Nirgends ist in der johanneischen Literatur von einer Wirkung des Geistes im transpersonalen Bereich die Rede. Für das Miteinander der Glaubenden in der Gemeinde spielt der Geist keine erkennbare Rolle.51

However, discourse analysis of the Gospel of John cannot confirm these observations. The Spirit in the Gospel of John appears as the Spirit of the community: it was promised exclusively to the community, and it was given to the community. The full understanding of Jesus Christ is not possible without the Spirit, and the spiritual event is at the same time a communal one, as was clearly pointed out in the resurrection narratives in chapter 20. What is the

49 MOULE, “Individualism,” 183 (n. 46): “Again, the Fourth Gospel is full of encounters between Jesus alone with an individual or with very small groups: two disciples (I 38), Peter (I 42), Philip (I 43), Nathanel (I 47), Nicodemus (III), the Samaritan woman (IV), the infirm man (V), the brothers of Jesus (VII 6), the blind man (IX), the Bethany family (XI, XII), the Greeks (XII).” See also p. 184: “… it is merely to affirm that in this Gospel it is the individual relationship that is the more prominent.” 50 E. SCHWEIZER, “Der Kirchenbegriff im Evangelium und den Briefen des Johannes,” in Idem, Neotestamentica (Zürich, 1963), 254–271, 262–263. E. Schweizer understands love merely functionally, as the witnessing to the world, and not ontologically: “Einheit und Bruderliebe sind für ihn (Johannes) nur (emphasis mine) darum so wichtig, weil darin der Welt das Zeugnis gegeben wird, das Gott will.” (p. 263) See the criticism of ONUKI, Gemeinde, 80 (n. 41): “Es ist nicht so, dass der einzelne Funktionsinhaber den Geist als Ganzes ‘besitzt’, sondern vielmehr so, dass er gleichsam ein Organ des Geistes bleibt, der seinerseits als unteilbares, überindividuelles Subjekt ans kollektive ‘ὑµεῖς’ (14,16f, 26; 20,22f), also an die Gemeinde gebunden ist. Als überindividuelles und an die Gemeinde gebundenes Subjekt ruft der Geist die einzelnen zum brüderlichen Dienst aneinander, wie v.a. an der Fußwaschungsgeschichte zu sehen war.” 51 ROLOFF, Kirche, 297 (n. 6). Accordingly, the Church is merely a consequence of salvation, not the space where salvation takes place (Ibid. 302).

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John

145

main element of the spiritual Christian community, according to John? This is certainly love, the “new commandment”, given from Jesus: ἐντολὴν καινὴν δίδωµι ὑµῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους, καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑµᾶς ἵνα καὶ ὑµεῖς ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους. ἐν τούτῳ γνώσονται πάντες ὅτι ἐµοὶ µαθηταί ἐστε, ἐὰν ἀγάπην ἔχητε ἐν ἀλλήλοις. (John 13:34–35)

In 15:12, 17, love is again a prevailing theme: Αὕτη ἐστὶν ἡ ἐντολὴ ἡ ἐµὴ ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους καθὼς ἠγάπησα ὑµᾶς, and ταῦτα ἐντέλλοµαι ὑµῖν ἵνα ἀγαπᾶτε ἀλλήλους. There are clear structural and thematic connections between 13:1–17 (washing the disciples’ feet) and 15:1–17 (Jesus as the true vine). Two dominant themes are the salvific significance of Jesus’s death and love as expressing the definitive nature of the Church and the content of its ethical life.52

6. Concluding Remarks A) Discourse analysis, as a language-based interpretative method, opens new possibilities for understanding the biblical texts. In our case, it has become clear that the frequent use of pronouns in the second person plural in various contexts of the Gospel of John (especially so in the context of the Paraclete passages, as well as in John 20:19–23), reveals a profound connection between the Spirit and the believing community – that is, the Church. The Paraclete dwells in the community enabling it always to interpret a new Jesus’s words and deeds, and constituting it as the loving community (according to Jesus’s “new commandment”). B) The terms “Spirit” (πνεῦµα) and “Church” (ἐκκλησία) belonged from early times to the basic theological vocabulary of the Christian community. In the pneumatology of most of the New Testament, the Spirit is closely linked with the new religious experience: “Spirit is the word that was coined to indicate and express the awful mysteriousness of experience of otherly power and vitality from the beginning.”53 The Spirit in the New Testament indicates an 52 On the possibility of relecture within the Farewell Discourse, see A. DETTWILER, Die Gegenwart des Erhöhten. Eine exegetische Studie zu den johanneischen Abschiedsreden (13,31–16,33) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Relecture-Charakters (FRLANT 169; Göttingen 1995), 64–110. Regardless of whether one agrees with his methodological approach or not, the author makes, in my opinion, an accurate ecclesiological statement: “In der Freundesliebe manifestiert sich die theologische Identität der joh Gemeinde als der Gemeinde Jesu” (p. 301). See also the contribution in this volume, A. DETTWILER, “The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John from a Western Perspective,” in this volume 149–171. 53 J. D. G. DUNN, “Religious Experience in the New Testament,” in Between Experience and Interpretation: Engaging the Writings of the New Testament (eds. M. F. Foskett and O. W. Allen, Jr.; Nashville, 2008), 3–15, 15.

146

Predrag Dragutinović

experience of power; it is the life-giver, and it inspires various expressions of gifts (charismata). According to Paul, all believers were “baptized by one Spirit into one body … and we were all given the one Spirit to drink” (1 Cor 12:13 NIV). In 1 Cor 12:3, the mark of the Spirit is the confession it inspires: “Jesus is Lord.” The Christian community ought to foster the spiritual experience: “Do not quench the Spirit.” (1 Thess 5:19 RSV) In Acts, the Spirit acts even on the Gentiles (Acts 10:44–48). The Spirit, therefore, on the one hand inspires the charismata within the Church and on the other hand witnesses to the presence of God among the Gentiles. In spite of the various accents in the New Testament writings, the Spirit should be considered the power that constitutes the Church as a community (2 Cor 13:13; Acts 2:42; Phil 2:1). It was perceived, however, primarily as a communal religious experience, and not an individual one. Even though adequate prophecy or glossolalia should be considered as basically individual, spiritual religious experiences, the ability of a prophet to communicate his revealed message to the others in an understandable way contributes to the building up of the Church (1 Cor 14:3–5). C) In Johannine studies, it is often argued that there is a fundamental difference between the understanding of spiritual gifts and activities in John when compared to the rest of the New Testament authors, especially Paul. While according to Paul, and to Luke as well, the Spirit causes a series of extraordinary and supernatural activities, in John the bestowal of the Spirit does not lead to any extraordinary activity: “For John, the activity of the Spirit is decidedly non-‘charismatic’: the Spirit does not manifest itself through miraculous works at all.”54 Nevertheless, there are some features of the manifestations of the Spirit that are common to John and to other New Testament texts. In John 20:19–23, the fruits of the Spirit are revealed, such as “fearlessness”, “joy”, “peace”, and “love”. These fruits of the Spirit are also known to Paul: “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace …” (Gal 5:22 RSV).55 The same motifs of “peace”, “joy”, and “Holy Spirit” occur in Luke 24:36–49, a text with a possible literary connection to John 20:19–23.56 D) In the Orthodox liturgical and theological tradition, the Spirit is strongly connected with the community of the faithful – that is, the Church. There are no individual prayers to the Holy Spirit. The most renowned prayer is “Heavenly King”, a prayer that is read immediately before the beginning of the Divine Liturgy:

54 TUCKETT, “Seeing,” 184 (n. 45). See also FREY, “Windbrausen,” 147 (n. 2); DIETZFELBINGER, “Paraklet,” 401 (n. 10); WILCKENS, “Paraklet,” 196–197 (n. 7); SCHNACKEN-

BURG, “Johanneische 55

Gemeinde,” 41–43 (n. 10). See also 1 John 4:12–21; See SCHNACKENBURG, “Johanneische Gemeinde,” 42 (n.

10). 56

See H. KLEIN, “Zur Frage einer Lukas und Johannes zu Grunde liegenden Passionsund Osterüberlieferung,” in Idem, Lukasstudien (FRLANT 209; Göttingen, 2005), 66–73.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John

147

O Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of Truth (Βασιλεῦ Οῦράνιε, Παράκλητε, τὸ Πνεῦµα τῆς Ἀληθείας), you are everywhere present and fill all things. Treasury of Blessings and Giver of Life, come and dwell within us, cleanse us of all stain, and save our souls, O gracious Lord.

John Zizioulas writes the following on this matter: The work of the Spirit is described by the Bible and tradition in various ways and mostly in terms of ‘power’, ‘sanctification’, ‘Spirit of Truth’, ‘Spirit of Freedom’, and, above all, as ‘life-giver’ and ‘communion.’ Of all these, those of ‘life-giver’ and ‘communion’ seem to be the most significant ones for ecclesiology, especially as they in fact embrace the others as well … ‘Life-giver’ and ‘communion’ are in fact identical in meaning, since the life of God that the Spirit gives is a life of communion of persons, and it is as such that He creates power and dynamic existence as well as sanctification, miracles, and prophecies, and leads to Truth; He provides the preposition in, in which all of this takes place.57

Let me conclude with an observation from the patristic heritage. In his canonical reading of John 20:19–23, Augustine considers the Johannine Pentecost as the first giving of the Holy Spirit on earth; the second giving came later, from heaven (Acts 2:4). Explaining the reason for both events, Augustine refers to Rom 5:5 (“love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us”, RSV) and continues as follows: And Jesus Christ signified this by giving them the Holy Spirit once on earth because of the love of our neighbor and a second time from heaven because of the love of God.58

This statement of Augustine, besides opening the much discussed topic of the relation of the Johannine and the Lucan giving of the Spirit,59 makes a clear and accurate point with regard to the Gospel of John: where the Spirit is, there is also love of others.60

57 J. D. ZIZIOULAS, “The Pneumatological Dimension of the Church: The Synthesis of Christology and Pneumatology is Necessary for a Proper Understanding of the Church,” in Idem, The One and the Many: Studies on God, Man, the Church, and the World Today (ed. G. Edwards; Alhambra, 2010), 75–90, 78. 58 Augustine, Trin. 26 (NPNF1 3:224). 59 See BROWN, John (XIII–XXI), 1037–1039 (n. 33). 60 Gregory Palamas, Hom. 24 (PG 151:140D), concluded his Pentecost speech not coincidentally with an ethical appeal: “Let us flee from wrath and hasten through repentance to obtain the kindness and compassion of the divine Spirit. If anyone feels hatred towards another, let him be reconciled with him and restore love, lest his hatred and conflict with his brother should bear witness against him that he does not love God.”

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John from a Western Perspective* Andreas Dettwiler Even though the Gospel of John offers one of the most fascinating and substantial reflections on the Holy Spirit within New Testament literature, we should not forget the basic fact that we are not dealing with a dogmatic treatise on pneumatology, ecclesiology, or other classical topics of Christian dogma, but with a narrative. Human experience, especially religious experience, and theological interpretation are mediated by a narrative that has its own logic, consistency, and pragmatic effects. A narrative is much more than an illustration – which is certainly helpful for pedagogical reasons, but ultimately arbitrary – of a pre-established truth, be it religious, theological, or otherwise. Narrative shapes theology as it is shaped by theology. Narratological approaches within the last 30 years have helped us become more sensitive to this important aspect. Generally speaking, Johannine theology is fundamentally shaped by the interaction, or polarity, of narration and discourse.1 Concerning our subject – that is, Johannine pneumatology – we are invited to pay particular attention to the fact that the text offers, schematically speaking, a twofold reflection on the nature and the work of the Spirit: on the one hand in the form of a narrative (e.g., John 20:19–23), on the other hand in the form of highly thoughtful (farewell) discourses (the “Spirit-Paraclete” in John 14– 16), placed narratively before the events to come and so offering an anticipatory interpretive framework or commentary on those future events (Passion, Easter, the gift of the Spirit, and the future life of the community of disciples). It would be interesting to explore the hermeneutical interaction between the interpretation offered by the logos of John 14–16 and the interpretation offered by the mythos – understood in the positive sense of a foundational * I am grateful to Prof. Christophe Chalamet (University of Geneva) and Prof. James B. Wallace (Christian Brothers University, Memphis) for their valuable stylistic improvements to my manuscript. 1 Cf. M. THEOBALD, “Der johanneische Osterglaube und die Grenzen seiner narrativen Vermittlung (Joh 20),” in Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (WUNT 267; Tübingen, 2010), 443–471, 443: “Johanneische Theologie gewinnt Gestalt in der Polarität von Erzählung und Deutung.”

150

Andreas Dettwiler

narrative – of John 20 (and other Johannine narratives where the Spirit appears), though my paper will only touch on this question without discussing it in detail.2 In this contribution, I will primarily take up and present my understanding of the farewell discourses and especially of the Spirit-Paraclete, which I developed for the first time in my book on the Johannine farewell discourses published in German in 1995.3 I will, however, enlarge the topic by introducing all the passages on Spirit in John, even those outside the farewell discourses. The present article seems to me a good occasion to present to an English speaking public my reflections on Johannine pneumatology. Contributions published since 1995 have been integrated, although I have not read them all.

1. The Johannine Spirit-Paraclete: Occurrences, Terminology, Background Πνεῦµα (“s/Spirit”) appears 24 times in the Gospel of John, mostly in a theological sense.4 Only in 11:33; 13:21, and 19:30 is the term used in an anthropological sense, designating exclusively the “spirit” of the earthly Jesus, though 19:30 (Jesus’s dying on the cross, “he handed over the spirit”, παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦµα) is theologically significant. Read together with 7:37–39, the death of Jesus should be understood as the moment at which Jesus is giving the Spirit.5 In one passage, the term designates “wind”, signifying in a comparative way the elusiveness of the Spirit (3:8). The “Spirit” is used without further precision 13 times, even though its theological profile, 2

I owe the idea of the interrelationship of logos and mythos within (!) the Johannine macro-narrative to the inspiring interpretation of John 20:17 by THEOBALD, “Osterglaube,” 450–464 (n. 1), esp. 462: “Wie so manches im Vierten Evangelium, vor allem seine Erzählungen von Jesu Wundertaten, in christologischer Hintergründigkeit wahrgenommen werden will, so ist auch Joh 20 von V.17 her gleichsam gegen den Strich zu lesen: Gegen seine verführerisch-anschauliche Narrativität will der Logos hinter dem Mythos ergriffen sein oder anders gesagt: Die Erzählungen vom Auferweckten wollen nicht als solche ʻfestgehaltenʼ werden, sondern möchten als Zeichen [cf. John 20:30] gelesen werden, die auf die österliche Wirklichkeit des Erhöhten im Geist hinweisen.” 3 See A. DETTWILER, Die Gegenwart des Erhöhten. Eine exegetische Studie zu den johanneischen Abschiedsreden (Joh 13,31–16,33) unter besonderer Berücksichtigung ihres Relecture-Charakters (FRLANT 169; Göttingen, 1995), passim. 4 John 1:32, 33 (2x); 3:5, 6 (2x), 8 (2x), 34; 4:23, 24 (2x); 6:63 (2x); 7:39 (2x); 11:33; 13:21; 14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:13; 19:30; 20:22. 5 Concerning the double entendre of John 19:30 and, especially, the surprising expression παραδιδόναι τὸ πνεῦµα (without αὐτοῦ) to designate the death of a human being, see J. ZUMSTEIN, L’évangile selon Saint Jean (13–21) (CNT IVb; Genève, 2007), 254, note 13.

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

151

and especially its soteriological functions, are most often clearly indicated by the immediate context.6 Otherwise, the term is qualified by two different terms: “Holy Spirit” ([τὸ] πνεῦµα [τὸ] ἅγιον, 1:33; 14:26; 20:22) or “Spirit of Truth” (τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας, 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; cf. already the syntagma “in Spirit and Truth”, ἐν πνεύµατι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ in 4:23, 24).7 But the most original qualification is found in the farewell discourses, where the “Holy Spirit”, respectively the “Spirit of Truth”, is identified with the enigmatic expression “Paraclete” (παράκλητος), a term specific to the Johannine tradition within the New Testament literature (John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7; and 1 John 2:1). Therefore, it seems correct to qualify the entity that we identify traditionally with the term “(Holy) Spirit” with the technical term “SpiritParaclete”. Significantly, the term “Paraclete” (and also the expression “Spirit of Truth”) occurs only in the context of the farewell discourses and thereby shows the originality of Johannine pneumatological reflection in the farewell discourses, both from an intratextual and intertextual perspective: the pneumatology of the farewell discourses is not only original compared to traces of pneumatological reflections within other parts of the Fourth Gospel (John 1–7 and 19–20), but also to other textual traditions of emerging Christianity. The modern term “Spirit-Paraclete” indicates therefore simultaneously the originality of Johannine pneumatology and the commonalities between Johannine and other Christian traditions of pneumatology. I will come back to this point later on in my article. Let us now briefly discuss some aspects of the noun (ὁ παράκλητος).8 The Greek term is a substantival verbal adjective with, probably, a passive 6

John 1:32, 33a; 3:5, 6 (2x), 8, 34; 4:23, 24 (2x); 6:63 (2x) and 7:39 (2x). As is well known, “Truth” (ἀλήθεια) is a key term of the Johannine theology of revelation, which culminates in the metaphoric self-identification of the Johannine Jesus with “Truth” in John 14:6. 8 The literature about παράκλητος is vast. See, for example, the following contributions (in chronological order), though this list is far from exhaustive: S. MOWINCKEL, “Die Vorstellungen des Spätjudentums vom heiligen Geist als Fürsprecher und der johanneische Paraklet,” ZNW 32 (1933), 97–130; J. BEHM, “παράκλητος,” TDNT 5: 800–814 (= ThWNT 5: 798–812); G. BORNKAMM, “Der Paraklet im Johannesevangelium,” in Geschichte und Glaube I: Gesammelte Aufsätze III (BEvTh 48; München, 1968), 68–89; G. JOHNSTON, The Spirit-Paraclet in the Gospel of John (MSSNTS 12; Cambridge, 1970); U. B. MÜLLER, “Die Parakletvorstellung im Johannesevangelium,” ZThK 71 (1974), 31–77; F. PORSCH, Pneuma und Wort. Ein exegetischer Beitrag zur Pneumatologie des Johannesevangeliums (FTS 16; Frankfurt a.M., 1974), 215–324; R. SCHNACKENBURG, “Exkurs 16: Der Paraklet und die Paraklet-Sprüche,” in Das Johannesevangelium. Teil 3: Kommentar zu Kap. 13–21 (HThK 4/3; Freiburg etc., 3rd ed. 1979), 156–173; K. GRAYSTON, “The Meaning of Parakletos,” JSNT 13 (1981), 67–82; C. DIETZFELBINGER, “Paraklet und theologischer Anspruch im Johannesevangelium,” ZThK 82 (1985), 389–408; E. FRANCK, Revelation Taught: The Paraclet in the Gospel of John (CB.NT 14; Lund, 1985); G. M. BURGE, The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Tradition (Grand 7

152

Andreas Dettwiler

sense (< παρακαλεῖσθαι, pt. pf. pass. παρακεκληµένος), meaning “somebody who is called (to one’s aid)”, hence the translation advocatus in part of the Latin textual tradition. The fact that the term is very rarely documented before the 1st century C.E. hinders analysis of its precise meaning. There is a debate as to whether the term should be understood primarily or even exclusively in a judicial context or not. Kenneth Grayston in 1981 tried to show that its limitation to a legal context is not pertinent.9 Gary M. Burge in 1987 and Tricia Gates Brown in 2003 shared his position.10 Lochlan Shelfer in 2009 contested this view, arguing that the term παράκλητος “is a precise calque for the Latin legal term advocatus, meaning a person of high social standing who speaks on behalf of a defendant in a court of law before a judge”.11 But even if Shelfer’s analysis of the few non-Johannine passages (including the 11 occurrences in Philo) proves pertinent, his claim that all of the Paraclete sayings in John fit perfectly into the scheme of a judicial context is not convincing.12 In fact, of the five Paraclete sayings in the Johannine farewell discourses, only one (16:7–11), or two at most (16:7–11 and 15:26), have strong legal connotations. The usage of the term in John 14–16 is seRapids, 1987), 3–41; J. BECKER, “Exkurs 12: Paraklet und Geistvorstellung im Joh,” in Das Evangelium nach Johannes. Kapitel 11–21 (ÖTBK 4/2; Gütersloh/Würzburg, 3rd ed. 1991), 563–568; DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 181–189, 203–207 (n. 3); J.-C. KAMMLER, “Jesus Christus und der Geist-Paraklet. Eine Studie zur johanneischen Verhältnisbestimmung von Pneumatologie und Christologie,” in O. HOFIUS and H.-C. KAMMLER, Johannesstudien. Untersuchungen zur Theologie des vierten Evangeliums (WUNT 88; Tübingen, 1996), 87–190; C. DIETZFELBINGER, Der Abschied des Kommenden. Eine Auslegung der johanneischen Abschiedsreden (WUNT 95; Tübingen, 1997), 202–226 (“Exkurs 2: Der Paraklet”); T. G. BROWN, Spirit in the Writings of John: Johannine Pneumatology in Social-Scientific Perspective (JSNTSup 253; London/New York, 2003), esp. 170–234; A. DETTWILER, “Paraclete,” RPP 9, 522–523 (= RGG [4th ed.] 6, 927–928); D. PASTORELLI, Le Paraclet dans le corpus johannique (BZNW 142; Berlin/New York, 2006); H. THYEN, “Der Heilige Geist als παράκλητος,” in Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (WUNT 214; Tübingen, 2007), 663–688; L. SHELFER, “The Legal Precision of the Term ‘παράκλητος’,” JSNT 32 (2009), 131–150. 9 GRAYSTON, “Meaning,” in particular his conclusions, 79–81 (n. 8). 10 BURGE, Anointed Community, 6 (n. 8): “Its meaning [i.e., παράκλητος] was often narrowed to one who was called into court as an assistant, helper, or advocate.” T. G. BROWN, Spirit, 170–186 (n. 8): “Considering that there is actually no evidence of παράκλητος being used as a formal forensic term prior to the Gospel of John, it is amazing how long New Testament scholarship has taken for granted that παράκλητος has a juridical sense” (181–182). 11 SHELFER, “Legal Precision,” 131 (n. 8). Cf. also at the end of his analysis of the nonJewish and non-Christian literature (a few new papyrological and epigraphical materials included): “Παράκλητοι are exclusively defenders. … They speak or act on behalf of someone who is in danger, and the word seems to be fairly unfamiliar, technical, and legal in nature. Moreover …, it seems to be a calque for the Latin legal term advocatus” (141). 12 Cf. SHELFER, “Legal Precision,” 145–147 (n. 8).

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

153

mantically polyvalent and cannot be reduced to one single signification. Methodologically, the precise signification of the term should first of all be established through a careful analysis of its function(s) within the present literary context – that is, the Johannine farewell discourses. This is all the more important since the extensive discussions of the dominant cultural and religious backgrounds of the term “Paraclete” have not resulted in convincing conclusions. We can distinguish between a christological (1 John 2:1) and a pneumatological use (John 14–16) of the term “Paraclete” in the Johannine writings. First, 1 John 2:1–2 describes the risen Christ as a heavenly figure who intercedes in favor of the members of the Johannine community(ies) that have sinned: “But if anyone does sin, we have a Paraclete towards the Father, Jesus Christ, the one who is just (παράκλητον ἔχοµεν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν δίκαιον); and he himself is an atonement (ἱλασµός) for our sins.” This fits perfectly within the tradition of (human or heavenly) intercessory figures in the Hebrew Bible and in texts of Second Temple Judaism.13 Within early Christianity, it is not unique to Johannine traditions (cf. Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25; cf. also Rom 8:26–27, where the same function of intercession is attributed to the Spirit!), even though the phenomenon of the intercessory figure, except in 1 John 2:1, is not usually linked to the term παράκλητος. The link to the pneumatological passages in the farewell discourses occurs in the first Paraclete-passage, which defines the coming of the Paraclete as “another Paraclete” (“And I [i.e., Jesus] will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete [ἄλλον παράκλητον]”, 14:16a). Therefore, Jesus identifies himself indirectly as “a Paraclete”, which is a strong hint for the reader to pay attention to the close parallels between Jesus and “the” Johannine Paraclete and to understand the latter as the genuine “successor” of the former. We will return to this later. The rest is more difficult to explain. Since the Johannine School uses the term “Paraclete” only in the farewell discourses, it makes sense to look into the literary genre of testaments, a widespread genre in the Hebrew Bible and in Second Temple Judaism,14 to see if we find at least functional equivalents 13 Cf., for ex., MOWINCKEL, “Vorstellungen,” passim (n. 8); BEHM, “παράκλητος,” TDNT 5: 809–811 (= ThWNT 5: 807–808) (n. 8); H.-J. KLAUCK, Der erste Johannesbrief (EKK 23/1; Zürich/Braunschweig/Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1991), 103, who puts forward the understanding of παράκλητος in Philo’s œuvre, in the sense of an antique patronus (cf. 104); see now in more detail the analysis of Philo’s uses of παράκλητος in T. G. BROWN, Spirit, 170–180 (n. 8); PASTORELLI, Paraclet, 66–86; and SHELFER, “Legal Precision,” 142–144 (n. 8); but already MOWINCKEL, “Vorstellungen,” 108–109 (n. 8), took into account those passages. 14 Most importantly: M. WINTER, Das Vermächtnis Jesu und die Abschiedsworte der Väter. Gattungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen der Vermächtnisrede im Blick auf Joh. 13– 17 (FRLANT 161; Göttingen, 1994); cf. also DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 14–21, 27–33 (n.

154

Andreas Dettwiler

– not necessarily the term παράκλητος itself – to the manifold roles attributed to the Johannine Paraclete. That is indeed the case, as Ulrich B. Müller, for instance, demonstrated in 1974.15 Testament literature addresses the central problem of the continuation of a specific tradition beyond the death of its foundational figure. This is also the case in the Johannine farewell discourses, which treat the fundamental question of the continuation of the Christ revelation in the situation of the absence (death) of the earthly Jesus – from my point of view, a logical consequence of the Johannine Christology of incarnation. The question of (figures of) mediation(s) and the continuation of the Christ event in the (post-)Easter time of the community of believers becomes crucial. One of the solutions the Johannine school offers is the development of the “Paraclete” as a genuine “successor” and “power of continuation” of the Christ revelation. But the question remains: Why did the Johannine School use precisely the term παράκλητος and not another one? There is no easy answer. It could be that the Johannine School used this very rare and – according to Sigmund Mowinckel – “fragile term”16 precisely because of its scarcity, semantic flexibility, and openness.17 It appears to have been an adequate term to mirror the innovative power of Johannine thinking on pneumatology. 3); helpful too is BECKER, “Exkurs 10: Die Gattung des literarischen Testaments,” in Johannes. Kapitel 11–21, 523–529 (n. 8); for a short introduction, see D. E. AUNE, The New Testament in Its Literary Environment (LEC 8; Philadelphia, 1987), 232–234. However, G. L. PARSENIOS, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature (NovTSup 117; Leiden/Boston, 2005), maintains that the literary genre of the testament cannot “explain all of the generic influences that sit behind the Farewell Discourses” (12) and tries to approach John 13–17 through GrecoRoman literature, notably ancient drama, consolation literature, and literary symposia. 15 MÜLLER, “Parakletvorstellung,” 52–65 (n. 8); BECKER, Johannes. Kapitel 11–21, 527 (n. 8); discussion of the position of Müller can be found in DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 185– 191 (n. 3). 16 Cf. MOWINCKEL, “Vorstellungen,” 130 (n. 8): “So mag vielleicht ‘Helferʼ die im Joh.-Ev. richtige Übersetzung sein, wenn es auch hier gilt, dass jede konkrete Übersetzung eine Einengung des labilen Begriffes ist. … Das Wort ist demnach bei Johannes eigentlich unübersetzbar. Will man aber den religionsgeschichtlichen Zusammenhang und zugleich das Traditionell-Terminologische des Wortes andeuten, so ist fraglos ‘Fürsprecherʼ … die richtige Übersetzung.” 17 BECKER, Johannes. Kapitel 11–21, 564 (n. 8), speaks of a “verwendungsoffener Funktionsbegriff”. Cf. also THYEN, “Heilige Geist,” 670 (n. 8): “Es [handelt] sich bei dem Lexem παράκλητος weder um einen Titel noch um einen ‘Begriff’, sondern um ein polysemantisches Wort.” ΝΒ: there is not an unlimited choice of Greek words to express the idea of “successor” (ἐπιλαχών, διάδοχος, etc., ὁ ἀντί + functional designation), or “helper”, “intercessor”, “advocate” (σύνδικος, συνήγορος, παραιτητής, βοηθός, συνεργός, σύµµαχος, ἐπίκουρος, συλλήπτωρ, etc.), and a lot of these terms have strong connotations, be it in a juridical or political sense. See my succinct discussion of possible semantic alternatives in Greek in DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 187 (n. 3).

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

155

2. The Paraclete and the Continuation of the Christ Revelation in the (Post-) Easter Period – an Exegetical Survey of John 14 to 16 If one wants to know how the author of the Fourth Gospel, or the Johannine School, thinks about the community of believers in the (post-)Easter period, its self-understanding, its ethos, its relationship to the “world”, and most importantly, its relationship to Jesus and God in past, present, and future, henceforth mediated by the “Spirit-Paraclete”, one has to turn to the farewell discourses (in a broad sense: 13:1–17:26). In fact, these discourses, highly original in form and content within the literature of early Christianity, contain what Jean Zumstein has called the “hermeneutical key” for an appropriate understanding of the theology of John.18 They try to show how a relationship between the community of disciples and Jesus is still possible in the time of the absence of the earthly Jesus and how this relationship has to be understood. This is the main theme of the first farewell discourse (13:31–14:31), with its christological focus on the double movement of his “way” (ὁδός in 14:4–6 is an important semantic marker for the whole discourse), that is, his “going away” (13:33–38; 14:2; 14:28) and his “coming again” (14:3; 14:18– 24). We will see in a moment that the activity of the “Spirit-Paraclete” is closely related to this central christological issue. The second farewell discourse (John 15–16, with three subsections: 15:1–17; 15:18–16:4a; 16:4b–33) has a more ecclesiological orientation.19 It treats first the ethos of love of the community of disciples, founded on and enabled by the abiding relationship to the risen Christ (15:1–17), then develops its critical relationship to the “world” (15:18–16:4a), and finally (16:4b–33) understands the (post-)Easter existence of the community of believers as a time guided by the SpiritParaclete (16:7–15) and a time qualified by the transition – in need of constant actualization – from sadness to joy (16:16–24), from misunderstanding to a full understanding of the life of faith (16:25–33). Two other preliminary remarks are in order. First, I continue to be persuaded that the second farewell discourse (John 15–16) constitutes a later stage of the theological work of the Johannine school. In close dialogue with the work of Jean Zumstein, I developed a literary model, called relecture, that seems to be appropriate for understanding the dynamics of reinterpretation and the non-linear movement of argumentation within the Johannine corpus, and especially the close literary interaction between John 15–16 and John 13– 18 ZUMSTEIN, Saint Jean (13–21), 5 (n. 5). In the same sense, J. RAHNER, “Vergegenwärtigende Erinnerung. Die Abschiedsreden, der Geist-Paraklet und die Retrospektive des Johannesevangeliums,” ZNW 91 (2000), 72–90, 72–73. 19 On John 15–16, see the important contribution of K. HALDIMANN, Rekonstruktion und Entfaltung. Exegetische Untersuchungen zu Joh 15 und 16 (BZNW 104; Berlin/New York, 2000), passim.

156

Andreas Dettwiler

14.20 Second, the five Paraclete passages (John 14:16–17; 14:26; 15:26; 16:7– 11; 16:13–15) are not “alien” or misplaced within the farewell discourses, but are harmoniously integrated.21 They assume specific and indispensable functions within the overall argumentation of the farewell discourses. One can especially observe a progressive extension from a functional and temporal perspective in the Paraclete-passages, from John 14 to John 16.22 But we will examine this in greater detail.

20

For a synthetic presentation see DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 44–52 (n. 3); A. DETTWI“Le phénomène de la relecture dans la tradition johannique: une proposition de typologie,” in Intertextualités: La Bible en écho (Le Monde de la Bible 40; ed. D. Marguerat and A. Curtis; Genève, 2000), 185–200; among the works of Jean Zumstein, see esp. J. ZUMSTEIN, “Der Prozess der Relecture in der johanneischen Literatur,” in Kreative Erinnerung. Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium (AThANT 84; Zürich, 2nd ed. 2004), 15–30 (first publication: NTS 42 [1996], 391–411; French transl.: “Le processus de relecture dans la littérature johannique,” ETR 73 [1998], 161–176); J. ZUMSTEIN, “Ein gewachsenes Evangelium. Relecture-Prozess bei Johannes,” in Johannesevangelium – Mitte oder Rand des Kanons? Neue Standortbestimmungen (QD 203; ed. T. Söding; Freiburg i. Br., 2003), 9–37, and his exegetical contributions, documented in Miettes exégétiques (Le Monde de la Bible 25; Genève, 1991); Kreative Erinnerung. Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium (AThANT 84; Zürich, 2nd ed. 2004), and in Saint Jean (13–17) (n. 5). The model of relecture has been widely discussed and taken up in the field of German and French research, but has been more rarely engaged in English research (because of the linguistic barrier?). Cf., for ex., R. E. BROWN, An Introduction to the Gospel of John, Edited, Updated, Introduced and Concluded by F. J. Moloney, S.D.B. (AncBRL; New York et al., 2003), 291–292. It has close parallels to research fields in the Hebrew Bible, esp. to a trajectory within redaction criticism, called Fortschreibung (“rewriting”); cf., for ex., C. NIHAN , “L’analyse rédactionnelle,” in Manuel d’exégèse de l’Ancien Testament (Le Monde de la Bible 61; ed. M. Bauks and C. Nihan; Genève, 2008), 137–189, esp. 168; according to Nihan, Walther Zimmerli, in his commentary on Ezekiel, was the first to speak about Fortschreibung; Nihan writes: “Elles [i.e., later additions] témoignent … d’un souci permanent de ré-interprétation et d’actualisation des prophéties antérieures au sein d’un même milieu ou d’une même école” (Id.). 21 On this point, I agree with U. LUZ, “Relecture? Reprise! Ein Gespräch mit Jean Zumstein,” in Studien zu Matthäus und Johannes. Etudes sur Matthieu et Jean: Festschrift für Jean Zumstein zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. Mélanges offerts à Jean Zumstein pour son 65e anniversaire (AThANT 97; ed. A. Dettwiler and U. Poplutz; Zürich, 2009), 233–250, 238– 239: “Sie [i.e., the Paraclete passages] sind eng mit ihrem johanneischen Kontext verflochten, bauen aufeinander auf, nehmen die jeweils vorangehende Verheißung des Parakleten wieder auf, vertiefen und erweitern sie.” 22 Cf. DETTWILER, “Paraclete,” 523 (n. 8): “John 15–16, probably a later text, gradually expands the domain of the Paraclete’s activity, functionally and temporally. … Thus the Paraclete encompasses and interprets the past, present, and future of the revealed Christ, securing the religious identity of the community addressed.” LER,

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

157

2.1 The Nature of the Paraclete – Transcendent Immanence (John 14:16–17) The first Paraclete saying has a clear opening, an almost epistemological function. It does not mention a precise function of the Paraclete yet, but it clarifies its nature in terms of relationships: by clarifying its relationship to Jesus, to the disciples, and to the “world”. These three points should briefly be developed. First, the sending of the Paraclete is exclusively due to the initiative of Jesus. No specific condition is indicated on which this initiative depends, unless we take into account the immediately preceding phrase, which speaks about the attitude of “love” of the disciples.23 The sending of the Paraclete is a gift of Jesus’s heavenly Father – see v.16a,b – which is not surprising within a christological context whose final orientation is theocentric (cf. at the end of the discourse 14:28: “because the Father is greater than I”, ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ µείζων µού ἐστιν).24 The initial qualification of “the” Paraclete as “another Paraclete” in v.16b (ἄλλον παράκλητον) puts him into a strong relationship with the nature and activity of the earthly Jesus. In fact, the promised “SpiritParaclete” will not have any autonomy but will be exclusively and intimately related to the Christ-event. He will be his “successor” – not as if he would replace Christ, but in the sense of “re-presenting” him in the (post-)Easter period. The fact that the Paraclete is identified in v.17a as “Spirit of Truth” (τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας) points in the same direction: the Spirit whose quality is “Truth” (gen. qualitatis) does nothing other than maintain the presence of the reality of God which has been manifested in his Revealer, Jesus (ἀλήθεια: John 14:6). Second, the most basic goal of the sending of the Spirit-Paraclete to the community of disciples is his abiding presence among them (ἵνα µεθ᾽ ὑµῶν … ᾖ). The fact that this presence is “forever” (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) indicates the qualitative gap between the time of the earthly Jesus and the time qualified by

23 John 14:15: “If you love me, you will keep my commandments (ἐὰν ἀγαπᾶτέ µε, τὰς ἐντολὰς τὰς ἐµὰς τηρήσετε); (v.16) and I will …” H.-U. WEIDEMANN, Der Tod Jesu im Johannesevangelium. Die erste Abschiedsrede als Schlüsseltext für den Passions- und Osterbericht (BZNW 122; Berlin/New York, 2004), 173 (n. 12), mentions – probably correctly against DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 189–190 (n. 3), note 303 – that, grammatically, v.15b–17c should not be understood as apodosis of the protasis in v.15a and that, theologically, the promise of the gift of the Paraclete does not depend on the human attitude of “love” of the disciples towards Jesu (“Inhaltlich ist die Verheissung des Parakleten nicht von der Liebe der Jünger zu Jesus abhängig.”). 24 Cf. M. THEOBALD, “Gott, Logos und Pneuma. ʻTrinitarische Redeʼ von Gott im Johannesevangelium,” in Studien zum Corpus Iohanneum (WUNT 267; Tübingen, 2010), 349–388, 380: “So prägt die Theozentrik nicht nur den Botenweg Jesu auf Erden, sondern auch die Gegenwart des ‘Geistesʼ, der als ‘Nachfolgerʼ Jesu und Fortsetzer seines Werkes wie dieser selbst von Gott gesandt ist.”

158

Andreas Dettwiler

the Spirit-Paraclete, a presence unlimited in time or space.25 This abiding presence is furthermore specified by two other prepositional expressions: “he remains near you” (παρ᾽ ὑµῶν µένει) and “he will be in you” (καὶ ἐν ὑµῖν ἔσται). Abiding presence, proximity, and interiority or inhabitation are then the modalities of presence of the Spirit-Paraclete among the community of disciples. Third, the announcement of the coming of the Spirit-Paraclete is understood within the dualistic framework of Johannine theology, since the “world” (ὁ κόσµος) – here negatively understood as the sphere of unresponsiveness towards the Christ revelation – “cannot receive” the Spirit-Paraclete, “since it neither sees nor recognizes him” (v.17b, c). The negative demarcation probably functions to insist both on the transcendent character of the Spirit-Paraclete – he is not accessible, whether rationally or in any other human way26 – and, from a more sociological perspective, on the very high religious consciousness of the Johannine community. There is a final question, important not only for the interpretation of John 14:18–24 but also for understanding Johannine eschatology and especially the Johannine interpretation of “Easter”. How should we understand the relationship between the sending of the Paraclete, promised for a (near) future, and, immediately after that, the announcement of the “coming” of Jesus himself in the future, which, according to 14:18–20, will be a relationship of highest intimacy (“seeing”, “living”, “reciprocal immanence”)? First of all, how should one understand 14:18–20,27 especially the programmatic sentence of the Johannine Jesus, “I shall not leave you orphans; I am coming back to you” (οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑµᾶς ὀρφανούς, ἔρχοµαι πρὸς ὑµᾶς)? “Even though the text is characterised by a certain ambiguity,”28 virtually everything speaks 25

The precise formulation by ZUMSTEIN, Saint Jean (13–21), 72–73 (n. 5), is as follows: “Le saut qualitatif déclenché par le départ du Christ [cf. John 14:12] reçoit une concrétisation: la révélation christologique liée au destin historique du Christ incarné est décloisonnée. Par la venue de l’autre Paraclet, elle est désormais présente partout et pour toujours.” 26 Rightly pointed out against a Stoic understanding of πνεῦµα by V. RABENS, “Johannine Perspective on Ethical Enabling in the Context of Stoic and Philonic Ethics,” in Rethinking the Ethics of John: “Implicit Ethics” in the Johannine Writings (Kontexte und Normen neutestamentlicher Ethik / Contexts and Norms of New Testament Ethics III) (WUNT 291; ed. J. van der Watt and R. Zimmermann; Tübingen, 2012), 114–139, 117. 27 “I shall not leave you orphans; I am coming back to you. Still a little while and the world doesn’t see me any more; but you (will) see me because I live and you will live too. On that day you will recognize that I (am) in my Father, and you in me, and I in you” (oὐκ ἀφήσω ὑµᾶς ὀρφανούς, ἔρχοµαι πρὸς ὑµᾶς. ἔτι µικρὸν καὶ ὁ κόσµος µε οὐκέτι θεωρεῖ, ὑµεῖς δὲ θεωρεῖτέ µε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ζῶ καὶ ὑµεῖς ζήσετε. ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡµέρᾳ γνώσεσθε ὑµεῖς ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρί µου καὶ ὑµεῖς ἐν ἐµοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν ὑµῖν). 28 ZUMSTEIN, Saint Jean (13–21), 78 (n. 5). J. FREY, Die johanneische Eschatologie. Band 3: Die eschatologische Verkündigung in den johanneischen Texten (WUNT 117;

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

159

against a traditional apocalyptic understanding of the coming of Jesus at the end of days (“Parousia”), and virtually everything speaks in favour of an “Easter” understanding. The coming of Jesus promised in John 14:18 and developed in John 14:19–24 “coincides with the Easter experience. Easter and the Parousia are here one and the same event”.29 But what about the relationship of the sending of the Paraclete and the “Easter”-coming of Jesus? The strong parallels between 14:16–17 and 14:18–20 should be understood as intentional.30 If so, then it is difficult to avoid the idea that these two promises point to the same event. That is the reason why Rudolf Bultmann already in 1941 – and many exegetes after him – stated: “[eben] im Kommen des Geistes kommt er [i.e., Jesus] selbst”.31 That does not necessarily have to be understood in the sense of a direct and simple identification of these two figures. The Fourth Gospel as a whole – and the farewell discourses are no exception – does not suggest such an identification but distinguishes carefully between Jesus and the Paraclete.32 If that is right, then we can identify in John 14:18–24 a highly original Johannine interpretation of “Easter”, understood as an existential encounter with the living Jesus and the inhabitation of Jesus and God (14:23) within the community of disciples in the “present” time of the community. This encounter should not be misunderstood as a “historical event” that can be empirically observed from a neutral standpoint – that is precisely the problem raised by

Tübingen, 2000), 164–168, offers a harmonising interpretation of John 14:18, trying not to give up the classical future perspective (“Parousia”). 29 ZUMSTEIN, Saint Jean (13–21), 78 (n. 5). Zumstein offers a very detailed and convincing argumentation in favor of the “Easter” hypothesis (78–79). In recent research, so also DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 191–192 (n. 3); WEIDEMANN, Tod Jesu, 176–177 (n. 23); H. THYEN, Das Johannesevangelium (HNT 6; Tübingen, 2005), 632. 30 For further details, see DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 191–192 (n. 3). 31 R. BULTMANN, Das Evangelium des Johannes (KEK II; Göttingen, 1941; 21st ed. 1986), 477: “He [i.e., Jesus] comes in the coming of the Paraclete.” In the sentence immediately after, Bultmann makes clear how he understands this functional identification: the risen Christ is active through the Spirit-inspired preaching of the community (“eben in der geistgetragenen Wortverkündigung der Gemeinde wirkt er selbst als der Offenbarer”, Ibid.). See also, for ex., E. SCHWEIZER, “πνεῦµα κτλ. E. The New Testament,” TDNT 6: 396–451, 443: “Jesus Himself comes in the Paraclete (14:18) and yet He is not identical with Jesus” (= ThWNT 6: 441); R. E. BROWN, The Gospel according to John (xiii–xxi) (AncB 29A; New York, 1970), 645: “Such parallelism [according to Brown: 14:15–17 // 14:18–21] is John’s way of telling the reader that the presence of Jesus after his return to the Father is accomplished in and through the Paraclete. Not two presences but the same presence is involved.” 32 Cf. WEIDEMANN, Tod Jesu, 177–178, 194–195 (n. 23); FREY, Eschatologie III, 166 (n. 28); J. FREY, “Vom Windbrausen zum Geist Christi und zur trinitarischen Person. Stationen einer Geschichte des Heiligen Geistes im Neuen Testament,ˮ JBTh 24 (2009) (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2011), 121–154, 150–151.

160

Andreas Dettwiler

the intriguing question of “Judas (not the Iscariot)” in 14:22 (cf. also Acts 10:40–41)! – but is understandable and disclosed only in a “love” relationship, that is, in a relationship of mutual existential implication (cf. the semantics of “love” – ἀγαπᾶν – throughout 14:15–24).33 In this sense, the “Easter”experience is no longer limited to a specific group of persons in the first generation of early Christianity but is understood as an event that is possible for every believer. But how precisely will the Johannine Christ be present among the disciples in and through the activity of the Spirit? The answer is given in the second Paraclete-saying. 2.2 The Paraclete as Teacher – Creative Relationship to the Past (John 14:26) At the end of the first farewell discourse, the earthly Johannine Jesus underlines the fact that his time is coming to an end. The time of the incarnate Logos is limited. This is not only obvious in the conclusion (14:27–31), but also in John 14:25–26, where two periods are distinguished: the time of Jesus (v.25), which is “the time of the decisive revelation”,34 and the time of the (post-)Easter activity of the Paraclete (v.26), here for the first and only time identified as “the Holy Spirit” sent by the “Father in my name” (v.26c, d – repeated from 14:16a, b). The activity of the Paraclete is exclusively related to the word(s) of the earthly Jesus: he teaches “all” insofar as he reminds the community of disciples of all the words Jesus has said.35 Reminding oneself (or someone) of something or someone is a specific act of re-presenting the past. The past becomes present in the creative process of remembering. It is

33 Cf. C. DIETZFELBINGER, Johanneischer Osterglaube (ThSt[B] 138; Zürich, 1992), 51–79; DIETZFELBINGER, Abschied des Kommenden (n. 8), 75–83, for ex., 83: “So wenig er [i.e., the Evangelist] die Geschichtlichkeit des Osterereignisses bestreitet, so wenig lässt er Ostern lediglich jenes vergangene Geschehen sein. Vielmehr erneuert sich für ihn Ostern im jeweiligen österlichen Erkennen, das dem Glaubenden und Liebenden zuteil wird. Und sowenig Ostern sich in die beobachtbare Objektivität eines kontrollierbaren Ereignisses einzwängen lässt, so wenig auch in die historische Einmaligkeit eines vergangenen Aktes”; DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 117, 191–202 (n. 3); ZUMSTEIN, Saint Jean (13–21), 81, 83 (n. 5): “L’expérience Pascale n’est pas un phénomène intra-mondain, un phénomène objectivable, répondant aux critères de la ‘vérification historique’. L’expérience Pascale n’est accessible que dans l’amour, c’est-à-dire à celui qui vit dans une relation de foi intime avec le Christ” (81); THEOBALD, “Osterglaube,” esp. 444–449 (n. 1). 34 ZUMSTEIN, Saint Jean (13–21), 82 (n. 5). 35 The καί is probably epexegetical: the teaching (διδάσκειν) of the Paraclete is being realised in the continuing process of reminding (ὑποµιµνῄσκειν) of all that the earthly Jesus has said. Also, for ex., C. BENNEMA, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel (WUNT II.148; Tübingen, 2002), 229: “… aspects of the same function; they are complementary and reinforce each other.”

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

161

clear that this anamnesis offered by the Paraclete has a strong noetic component: it initiates the retrospective understanding that allows the reader to grasp the true significance of the person and destiny of Jesus, the Revealer of God. The basic fact that the Johannine text refers to a hermeneutical actor – the Spirit-Paraclete – shows that the true understanding of the foundational past of the narrative about Jesus is not self-evident; indeed, it is impossible from a human standpoint. In several instances, the Johannine narrative explains paradigmatically how this retrospective hermeneutics, made possible only in the (post-) Easter period, functions (see, for example, John 2:22; 12:16). More generally, the whole Gospel of John should be understood as the expression of the creative, Spirit-inspired re-reading of the person of Jesus of Nazareth. In sum, we can observe the following creative tension between tradition and innovation: the Johannine Paraclete, as teacher, does not say anything new that would surpass the teaching of the earthly Jesus; his word is strictly focused on the word of Jesus.36 Nevertheless, the Paraclete, as exegete of the “exegete” of the transcendent God (cf. 1:18), “repeats” the word of Jesus in a highly creative and original way, because he unfolds the authentic meaning of the Christ event. From a historical (or sociological) point of view, the occurrence of the Spirit-Paraclete also functions to legitimate the high religious self-consciousness of the Johannine community: the conditions of the genealogy of the Gospel of John as a literary document are implicitly integrated in the document itself and partly illustrated by it. 2.3 The Paraclete as Advocate – Critical Debate with the “World” (John 15:26; 16:7–11) The third and fourth Paraclete-sayings can be discussed together since they both deal – 15:26 implicitly, 16:7–11 explicitly – with the forensic activity of the Paraclete as “advocate” in confrontation with the hostile “world”. I would like to briefly mention the following points about these passages, which are particularly difficult to understand and therefore continue to generate controversy in contemporary research. According to John 15:26, the Paraclete assumes the function of bearing witness (µαρτυρεῖν) on behalf of Jesus.37 This verse is found within the pas36 Cf. also BENNEMA, Saving Wisdom, 228 (n. 35): “The Paraclete will not bring any new revelation independent of Jesus’s revelation. … The Paraclete interprets Jesus’ revelation; he explains and draws out the significance of the historical revelation.” 37 On John 15:18–16:4a and esp. John 15:26(–27), see, besides the commentaries, esp. T. ONUKI, Gemeinde und Welt im Johannesevangelium. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der theologischen und pragmatischen Funktion des johanneischen “Dualismus” (WMANT 56; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1984), 131–143; KAMMLER, “Jesus Christus,” 116–124 (n. 8); HALDIMANN, Rekonstruktion, 261–273 (n. 19); BENNEMA, Saving Wisdom, 234–236 (n. 35); PASTORELLI, Paraclet, 187–210 (n. 8).

162

Andreas Dettwiler

sage that deals with the hate of the “world” against the community of disciples since they belong to Christ. As the earthly Jesus, the incarnate Logos provoked misunderstanding, rejection, and even hate, culminating in his death on the cross (John 1–12; 18–19). The fate of his disciples will be (and already is) the same, since “a servant is not greater than his master nor a messenger greater than the one who sent him” (13:16). But even in its rejection of Christ and his community, the “world” remains the addressee of the Word of Revelation. Even in the situation of the absence of the earthly Jesus, his Word and Work endure. How? Through the martyria of the Spirit-Paraclete. Since immediately after, in 15:27, mention is made of the martyria of the disciples (“you too bear witness, etc.,” καὶ ὑµεῖς δὲ µαρτυρεῖτε κτλ.), we can assume that the “disciples’ and the Paraclete’s witness … are not two distinct activities but essentially one: the Paraclete’s witness is directed to the world but mediated through the witness of the disciples”.38 Takashi Onuki puts it as follows: “Through the word of preaching and the work of the Johannine community, Jesus himself encounters once again the World even though the World has already hated and killed him once.”39 Another point deserves consideration; it seems a detail, but its impact on later trinitarian discussions of the filioque was immense. Contrary to the first two Paraclete-sayings in John 14, the Paraclete in 15:26 (and in 16:7) is not sent by God but by the exalted Jesus. The affirmation of 15:26 seems to be laden with meaning, with the aim of defining divine relationships accurately: When the Paraclete will come whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth that issues from the Father, he will bear witness on my behalf (ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέµψω ὑµῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος µαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐµοῦ).

But we should probably not overestimate these distinctions, since the sentence emphasizes the “unity of action of the Father and the Son in the process of the sending of the Paraclete”.40 38

BENNEMA, Saving Wisdom, 235–236 (n. 35). ONUKI, Gemeinde und Welt, 135 (n. 37): “Im Verkündigungswort und Werk der johanneischen Gemeinde begegnet Jesus selbst nochmals der Welt, obwohl diese ihn bereits einmal gehasst und getötet hat.” ZUMSTEIN, Saint Jean (13–21), 126 (n. 5), takes up the idea of Takashi Onuki that the Kosmos is not “ontologically” condemned, since it remains the place of a possible positive re-evaluation of the Christ revelation: “L’auteur implicite [i.e., of the Gospel of John] ne succombe pas à une vision déterministe qui opposerait de façon irrémédiable le monde et la communauté: même plongé dans l’incrédulité, le monde reste l’espace du témoignage libérateur des disciples.” 40 ZUMSTEIN, Saint Jean (13–21), 121 (n. 5). See also the contributions in this volume that treat the question of the filioque, for ex., D. BATHRELLOS, “The Holy Spirit and the New Testament in St. Symeon of Thessalonica (†1429),” 225–234 and K. BRACHT, “Augustine and His Predecessors Interpreting the New Testament on the Origin of the Holy Spirit. The question of filioque,” 231–250. 39

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

163

John 16:7–11.41 The last farewell discourse (16:4b–33) takes up once again the liminal narrative situation of the Johannine Jesus, who is about to “go away” – a typical expression of Johannine Sondersprache, indicating his death, interpreted religiously as return of the messenger to his heavenly origin (v.5a) – a situation that provokes sadness (λυπή) among the disciples (v.5–6). But Jesus “has” to go away; his departure/death is not a loss, but paradoxically an advantage for the disciples (v.7b: a συµφέρον, cf. also 11:50 and 18:14 in relation to the death of Jesus), since only in the experience of the discontinuity between the time of the earthly Jesus and the time of the Johannine community lies the possibility of a new and qualitatively different relationship with the exalted Christ in the (post-)Easter period.42 This understanding of the death of Jesus as a productive event and, more generally, the (re)discovery of the time of the Church not as a deficient time but as a time of the experience of the continuing presence of the exalted Christ, is precisely due to the activity of the Spirit-Paraclete who will be sent by Jesus himself to the community of disciples (v.7). More precisely, the Paraclete will set up a cosmic trial against the “world” (16:8–11). What is at stake here? Two contradictory perceptions of the same reality – that is, the destiny of Jesus. In fact, the passage presupposes two trials or, more precisely, one trial that happens on two distinct levels. These levels are incompatible but mutually intertwined. The forensic configuration presupposed by 16:8–11 will be narratively developed in the Johannine passion narrative (John 18–19). There is of course no neutral observer in this trial, since the pragmatics of the text consist of offering a complete redefinition of the perception and the “values” of the “world” around the three concepts of “sin (ἁµαρτία)”, “justice (δικαιοσύνη)”, and “crisis/judgment (κρίσις)”: no, Jesus is not the sinner (cf. 7:12; 8:46; 9:24, 31; 10:33; etc.), the world is, since the latter remains in a position of rejection of the Christ revelation (cf. 15:22–24; etc.)! No, Jesus is not unjust, the world is – the death of Jesus is not his end, but, in a highly paradoxical way, the accomplishment (cf. 19:30) of the divine messenger (and so the justification – δικαιοσύνη – of Jesus and his claim to be the Revealer)! No, Jesus is not judged and condemned (cf. c. 18–19), the enslaving power of Evil is (in mythological lan-

41 On John 16:7–11, see, besides the commentaries, esp. PORSCH, Pneuma und Wort, 277–289 (n. 8); ONUKI, Gemeinde und Welt, 144–148 (n. 37); KAMMLER, “Jesus Christus,” 125–135 (n. 8); DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 218–230 (n. 3); HALDIMANN, Rekonstruktion, 287–316 (n. 19); BENNEMA, Saving Wisdom, 236–242 (n. 35); PASTORELLI, Paraclet, 119–160 (n. 8). 42 The necessity of the experience of discontinuity with the earthly Jesus has already been developed by the first farewell discourse (13:31–14:31), especially in the initial narrative sequence of Jesus and Peter, 13:33, 36–38; see DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 133–140 (n. 3).

164

Andreas Dettwiler

guage: “the Prince of this world”, ὁ ἄρχων τοῦ κόσµου τούτου, cf. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11)! When and how does this trial happen, and is there any hope for the “world”? The trial happens in the present time of the (post-)Easter community of disciples. Does the “world” realize anything of this trial? No. At least not directly, but only indirectly, insofar as the world continues to be confronted with its own perception of reality through the existence of the community of disciples, their ethos of love (cf. 13:12–17; 13:34–35 and 15:1–17), and their activity of preaching. What is the Johannine perception of the “world” in John 16? Should we adopt the hypothesis of a static and strict ecclesiological dualism within John 15–16?43 This interpretation should be treated sceptically. First, the dualism “disciples – world” within John 16 is not static; the disciples, too, can become again “world”, whenever they break up the solidarity with Jesus (cf. 16:29–33!). Their religious identity remains fragile. Second, according to 16:11, it is not the “world” which is condemned, but the “Prince of the world” – a subtle, but theologically important nuance. The destruction – or at least de-construction – of the power of Evil opens up at least the possibility of a renewed and positive relationship of the “world” towards Jesus and the community of his believers. This allows us, finally, to understand better the text-pragmatics of John 16:8–11: it consists in strengthening the fragile religious identity of the addressees, by inviting them to reconsider their relationship to the hostile world and to de-construct the world’s perception of reality. More generally speaking, the perception of the Gospel of John with its interpretation of the world and the Christ-event remains valid, even contra experientiam mundi. 2.4 The Paraclete as Guide and Revealer – Towards an Open Future (John 16:12–15)44 The last Paraclete-saying opens up the perspective towards the future of the (post-) Easter community of disciples. The progressive extension of the func43

That is the position of J. BECKER, Johannes. Kapitel 1–10 (ÖTBK 4/1; Gütersloh/Würzburg, 3rd ed. 1991), 179 (“verkirchlichte[r] Dualismus”); see also his interpretation of John 16:8–11 (he understands John 15:18–16:15 as one discourse) in Johannes: Kapitel 11–21, 593 (n. 8): “Hier findet nur noch Aufdecken der Sündhaftigkeit zum Zwecke endgültigen Verurteiltseins statt, d.h. die Welt ist gegenüber der Gemeinde dualisiert und wesenhaft unveränderbar böse”; see also his more synthetic presentation of the dualistic perception of reality according to what he calls the kirchliche Redaktion in J. BECKER, Johanneisches Christentum. Seine Geschichte und Theologie im Überblick (Tübingen, 2004), 196–199. 44 On John 16:12–15, besides the commentaries, see esp. ONUKI, Gemeinde und Welt, 149–152 (n. 37); KAMMLER, “Jesus Christus,” 136–153 (n. 8); DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 231–237 (n. 3); HALDIMANN, Rekonstruktion, 316–325 (n. 19); PASTORELLI, Paraclet, 161–186 (n. 8); etc.

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

165

tional and especially temporal perspective of the activity of the SpiritParaclete comes here to its apex. The Paraclete assumes the function of a guide who reveals the future of the community. John 16:13 states that He will “guide” (ὁδηγεῖν – the text takes up the christological metaphor of the “way” [ὁδός] of 14:4–6) the disciples within the sphere of “all the truth” (τῇ ἀληθείᾳ πάσῃ).45 He will do this by announcing (ἀναγγέλλειν) “the things to come” (τὰ ἐρχόµενα). How then is the future presented in John 16? First, the future concerns above all the Christ-revelation itself! V.12 – “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now” – emphasizes the unfinished character of the revelatory word of the earthly Jesus. Only in the future, through the activity of the Spirit-Paraclete, will the revelation be accomplished. Only in the time of the (post-) Easter present and future, will the truth of the Christ-revelation be disclosed in its totality. In short, revelation itself seems to undergo, in a certain sense, a dynamic of progressive selfdisclosure.46 Second, the future concerns the community of disciples in a twofold way. On the one hand, its seems to me important that the Paraclete does not offer an apocalyptic disclosure of the future. At least, the text does not say anything about the material aspects of the “things to come” (τὰ ἐρχόµενα). Methodologically, we should respect the silence of the text in 16:13, instead of trying to fill up this “semantic gap” with hypothetical eschatological material in the possession of the Johannine community (or the contemporary interpreter). On the other hand, the future of the community becomes again viable, precisely through the activity of the Paraclete who constantly opens up and clarifies the situation of the community of disciples. He is the guide who accompanies the community on its way. To conclude, John 16:12–15 is an interesting example of the fact that Johannine theology, by emphasizing the decisive character of the Christrevelation in the past and the act of faith in the present (“realized” eschatolo45 The translation tries to take seriously the Greek preposition ἐν (instead of εἰς: “he will guide you into all the truth”, so, for ex., the Revised English Bible). For the textcritical discussion of John 16:13 and the probable difference of the two prepositions in Johannine usage, see DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 232 (n. 3). 46 I am aware that the idea is slightly speculative; see my comments in DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 231, 235 (n. 3), and K. BARTH, Kirchliche Dogmatik IV/3. Die Lehre von der Versöhnung (Zollikon/Zürich, 1959), 110: no doubt that Jesus Christ as the definitive Word of God does not need to be completed by other Words of God; nevertheless, as the one Word of God, Jesus Christ is “in einer fortlaufenden Selbstergänzung begriffen – nicht im Blick darauf, dass das in ihm gesprochene Wort nicht vollständig und genügend wäre, wohl aber im Blick auf die tiefe Ergänzungsbedürftigkeit alles unseres Hörens” (italics A.D.); Church Dogmatics IV/3.1, trans. G. Bromiley (London/New York, 1961), 99: “in a continual completion of Himself, not in the sense that the Word spoken by Him is incomplete or inadequate, but in the sense that our hearing of it is profoundly incomplete.”

166

Andreas Dettwiler

gy), is able to understand the future in an original way, without reintroducing an apocalyptic interpretative framework.47

3. The Holy Spirit Outside the Farewell Discourses A rapid survey of the Spirit passages outside the farewell discourses (John 1:32–33; 3:5–6, 8; 3:34; 4:23–24; 6:63; 7:39; [19:30]; 20:22) shows that the majority of these affirmations are relatively “traditional”, since they reoccur in other traditions within early Christianity. (1) The Spirit is the eschatological gift par excellence promised for the post-Easter period of the Church (John 7:38–39 and 20:22): see Acts 2:1ff; 1 Cor 12–14; and so forth. (2) The Spirit is traditionally given to believers during baptism (John 3:3, 5, probably): see Acts 2:38; 1 Cor 12:13; Titus 3:5; and so forth. (3) The Spirit creates and incarnates life (John 6:63, cf. also 20:22): see Rom 8:2, 6, 10–11; Gal 5:25a. (4) The Spirit allows true worship (John 4:23–24): see Rom 8:15–16; Gal 4:6. (5) The sending of the disciples in the time of the Church is linked to the gift of the Spirit (John 20:21b–22): see Acts 1:8; 8:29; 10:19–20; 13:2; 16:6–7; (6) The Spirit enables the forgiveness of sins (John 20:23): see Acts 2:38 (linked to baptism); 1 Cor 6:11 (indirectly); and so forth. However, a more detailed analysis of these “traditional” passages shows that they are closely integrated into, and subordinated to, the overall christological and soteriological project of the Fourth Gospel. I will rapidly develop this thesis, while being aware that any sharp distinction between Christology and soteriology is artificial, since the two are strongly interrelated. 3.1 Pneumatology within the Framework of Johannine Christology Johannine pneumatology, even outside of the farewell discourses, is exclusively linked to Christology. Virtually all the passages are explicitly connect-

47

The original re-reading in John 16, however, raises the question about the legitimacy of the activity of the Spirit-Paraclete. Does the “new” word of the Paraclete in the present and the future of the community coincide with the “old” word of the earthly Jesus? In any case, one observes that John 16:13–15 invests, from a rhetorical point of view, heavily in the legitimation – first christological (v. 14), second theo-logical (v. 15) – of the future activity of the Paraclete. Does this indicate that the saying of the Paraclete, within the evolution of Johannine theology, is no longer totally self-evident? It is interesting to see that in 1 John 4:1–6, the problem of the authenticity of the Spirit is partly resolved by grounding it in a material christological affirmation (4:2: Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἐν σαρκὶ ἐληλυθότα). Pneumatology is not self-evident anymore but needs an explicit christological framework. Does that mean that John 16, within the evolution of Johannine pneumatology, is to be situated somewhere between John 14 and 1 John? See further, DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 236–237 (n. 3).

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

167

ed to Jesus.48 In John 1:32–33, the Johannine re-writing of the synoptic narrative of the baptism of Jesus shows that Jesus, during his lifetime, is the unique bearer of the Spirit on whom the Spirit abides (1:32 – µένειν for the first time); John’s baptism “has no independent significance”49 anymore but serves to emphasize “the one who is to baptize in Holy Spirit” (1:33). The exclusive bearer of the Spirit is thereby at the same time the giver of the eschatological gift of the Spirit.50 John 3:34 speaks in a highly condensed form of God, of Jesus as his unique messenger, and of the gift of the Spirit: For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God; because not by measure (i.e., in abundance) does he (God? Jesus?) give the Spirit (ὃν γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὰ ῥήµατα τοῦ θεοῦ λαλεῖ, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ µέτρου δίδωσιν τὸ πνεῦµα).

The grammatical subject of the second phrase is undetermined, and it remains difficult to choose between God and Jesus. If the subject is God, then God would be the giver (cf., for ex., 14:16, 26) and Jesus the receiver and bearer of the Spirit (a reprise of 1:32). If, however, the subject is Jesus, then Jesus is the giver of the Spirit (at Easter; cf. 7:38; 15:26; 16:7; 20:22; a repetition of 1:33).51 In any case, the strong relationship between Jesus and the Spirit is evident. In John 6:63b, Jesus affirms that “the words that I have spoken to you are both Spirit and Life” (τὰ ῥήµατα ἃ ἐγὼ λελάληκα ὑµῖν πνεῦµά ἐστιν καὶ ζωή ἐστιν). In John 7:39, the narrator, in an explicit commentary to 7:37–38, states that the scriptural sentence, “streams of living water shall flow out of his (i.e., Jesus’s) belly” (v. 38), has to be understood as the gift of the Spirit offered by Jesus during / after his “glorification” to those who believe in him. As we already mentioned (see note 5), in John 19:30, Jesus, dying, “handed over the s/Spirit”, while John 19:34 can also be read as an echo of 7:37–39. In John 20:22 (the last pneumatological affirmation), the risen Christ transmits, simultaneously in a gesture (ἐνεφύσησεν) and in a verbal act (λέγει), the Holy Spirit to the disciples (λάβετε πνεῦµα ἅγιον), accompanied by the gift of the power of forgiving human beings’ sins (20:23). Needless to say, this twofold gift is addressed to all the members of

48 Cf. C. DIETZFELBINGER, Das Evangelium nach Johannes (ZBK.NT 4/1–2; Zürich, 2001), vol. 1: “Geist ist bei Johannes immer und unzweifelhaft an die Person Jesu gebunden” (112); “Dass der Geist im Christusgeschehen und nur da zur Wirkung kommt, ist eine der Voraussetzungen johanneischen Denkens” (125). 49 C. K. BARRETT, The Gospel according to St. John (London, 2nd ed. 1978), 171. 50 PORSCH, Pneuma und Wort, 49 (n. 8), rightly emphasizes the importance of this first pneumatological affirmation in John: “Das Wort [i.e., John 1:32–33] bildet … geradezu ein ‘Prinzip’ seiner Pneumatologie, für die die Bindung des Pneuma an die Person Jesu charakteristisch ist.” 51 The old textual tradition favours God as grammatical subject; in favour of Jesus (probably still the minority view), see, for ex., KAMMLER, “Jesus Christus,” 170–181 (n. 8) (with a detailed argument).

168

Andreas Dettwiler

the community of disciples, without envisaging functional or other distinctions within this community.52 The Easter narrative of John 20:19–23 confirms the egalitarian character of Johannine ecclesiology which appears implicitly throughout the narrative (for ex., John 13:31–14:31; 15:1–17).53 To sum up, these pneumatological affirmations, the majority of which are located in the first part of the Johannine narrative, are remarkably coherent, insofar as they underscore the life-giving activity of Jesus, the messenger of God, the unique bearer of the Spirit during his lifetime, but also the giver of the Spirit in the (post-)Easter period of the Church. We already have seen that the Paraclete-sayings in John 14–16 will take up and deepen this christological focus. It is nevertheless clear that this christological project ultimately culminates in a renewed understanding of God. In fact, what is probably the most important pneumatological affirmation in the first half of the Fourth Gospel is John 4:23–24, which, in the narrative context of the dialogue with the Samaritan woman, speaks about the true and necessary worship in “Spirit and Truth” (ἐν πνεύµατι καὶ ἀληθείᾳ, v.23, 24), since God himself is Spirit (πνεῦµα ὁ θεός, v.24a). This should not be understood as an essentialist definition of God in Godself, but God is Spirit (and Truth) insofar as God communicates his creative, live-giving power to humankind through the word and the destiny of Jesus, his “unique Son” – or non-metaphorically speaking, his authentic Revealer. 3.2 Pneumatology within the Framework of Johannine Soteriology The “traditional” pneumatological affirmations are also shaped by the Johannine understanding of salvation. One of the most characteristic features of Johannine pneumatology – the Paraclete-sayings included – is its strong concentration on the word. As has often been mentioned, charismatic and ecstatic phenomena, which are present in other ecclesiological traditions of early Christianity, are almost entirely absent, and the thaumaturgical activity of the Johannine Jesus is never linked to the activity of the Spirit. Positively formulated: the Johannine school is close to those pneumatological traditions within early Christianity that connect the experience of the Spirit with religious discourses that have a noetic quality, that are “intelligible” (cf. 1 Cor 14:19).54 Why this concentration? The answer seems clear: Johannine pneu52 P. DRAGUTINOVIĆ, “The Holy Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of John. A Discourse Analysis of John 20:19–23,” (in this volume, 129–147), rightly underlines the strong link between Johannine pneumatology and ecclesiology. Virtually no text of the Gospel of John supports an individualistic understanding of the gift of the Spirit. 53 In this sense, for ex., DETTWILER, Gegenwart, 207 (n. 3). 54 Cf. BECKER, Johannes. Kapitel 11–21, 566 (n. 8): “Der joh Gemeindeverband steht im Zusammenhang derjenigen urchristlichen Geisttradition, die den Geist verstehbarer

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

169

matology is intimately linked to Christology and soteriology. The wordaspect of the Spirit is correlated to the Christ who manifests himself through his word, a word that has a soteriological quality (cf. 6:63 and throughout the Gospel). This soteriological quality of the Spirit passages appears explicitly in several places. In the initial revelation discourse with Nicodemus, Jesus insists on the necessity of being born from “above”, that is, being born from “water and spirit” (3:3–8). New existence in faith is not a human option but is entirely initiated and enabled by a divine act. The entirely creative, lifeenabling dimension of the word of Jesus is also explicit in 6:63 (τὸ πνεῦµά ἐστιν τὸ ζῳοποιοῦν κτλ.), but also in John 7:38–39; 19:34; and 20:22 (cf. supra). Once again, the last pneumatological passage of the Fourth Gospel is particularly interesting, since the extravagant gesture of the risen Christ – “he breathed (on them)” (ἐνεφύσησεν) – echoes God’s creative breath on the first human being (Gen 2:7 LXX). The gift of the Holy Spirit in John 20:22 should then be understood as an entirely creative act with universal dimensions.

4. Concluding Remarks I would like to discuss, in three points, several elements of Johannine pneumatology that seem important to me. I try to highlight in particular its hermeneutical originality and richness – an originality that is already terminologi-

Rede zuordnet, also wort- und traditionsbezogen versteht. Ekstatische Phänomene, Wundertätigkeit und Charismen im Sinne der korinthischen Gemeinde (1 Kor 12–14) werden dem der Gemeinde gegebenen Geist nirgends direkt zugesprochen. Er wird in Zusammenhängen genannt, die Lehre, Zeugnis, Bekenntnis und Schriftauslegung zum Thema haben”; cf. already SCHWEIZER, “πνεῦµα κτλ.,” 438 (n. 31) (= ThWNT 6: 436): “In John there is no thought of the sporadic coming of the Spirit, the extraordinary nature of His manifestations, ecstatic phenomena, or miraculous acts. Jesus is not presented as a pneumatic. His inspired speech and His miracles are nowhere attributed to the Spirit. The path taken by Luke does not satisfy John. He completely abandons the idea of inspiration because this emphasises the distinction between God and Jesus – a distinction which can be overcome only by a third, namely, the Spirit. If the Christ event is really to be understood as the turning-point of the aeons, then everything depends on the fact that the Father Himself, not just a gift of the Father, is genuinely encountered therein. There is thus no reference to the conception of Christ by the Spirit or to His endowment with the Spirit in baptism.” Cf. also DIETZFELBINGER, “Paraklet und theologischer Anspruch,” 401 (n. 8): “Die für uns verwirrende Breite und Vielfalt frühchristlicher Geisterfahrung reduziert sich im johanneischen Bereich auf das gesprochene Wort, d.h. auf die Gabe und Erfahrung urchristlicher Prophetie, und hier wieder auf die Vergegenwärtigung Jesu und auf das neu-Sagen seines Wortes in der jeweiligen Gegenwart. Eine der vielen urchristlichen Geistesgaben wird zur Geistesgabe schlechthin: das Wort”; (almost) in the same sense, FREY, “Windbrausen,” 147 (n. 32).

170

Andreas Dettwiler

cally indicated by the specific Johannine term “Paraclete” and that finds its strongest expression in the farewell discourses. The concentration on Christ and the Word – “proto-trinitarian” perspective. Virtually all the pneumatological passages in John emphasize the close relationship to the Christ. Johannine pneumatology is a function of Johannine Christology and soteriology. This is also the reason why the Fourth Gospel underlines almost systematically the verbal functions of the Spirit-Paraclete. This concentration appears most clearly in the farewell discourses where the Paraclete appears as the “other Paraclete” who does not have any autonomy but “re-presents” Christ among the disciples in the time of his physical absence, in the same way as Christ re-presents the transcendent God.55 The presence of the Spirit-Paraclete in the (post-)Easter community of disciples is manifest essentially in verbal acts (“teaching and remembering the words of Jesus”; “bearing witness”; “proving the world wrong about its erroneous perception of the Christ-event”; “guiding”). No more charismatic or ecstatic phenomena, no more spirit-inspired miraculous acts, but the miracle of the intelligibility and the innovative re-reading of the Jesus tradition – that is the project of the Spirit-Paraclete. Closely linked to this aspect is the fact that the Paraclete is presented as a “person”56 whose being and acting are both carefully distinguished and closely interrelated to Jesus and God. Therefore, it is probably legitimate to speak of a “proto-trinitarian” concept in Johannine theology.57 It is no accident that Johannine pneumatology strongly influenced the later dogmatic developments of trinitarian doctrine. Between tradition and innovation. According to John 14:26, the main function of the Paraclete is to offer the community of disciples a retrospective understanding of the true meaning of the figure of Christ, the incarnate Logos. The past is not understandable in itself. The Paraclete is therefore the decisive agent of the creative process of reminding and thus re-presenting the foundational past. The tension between tradition and innovation is not only inevitable, but productive; otherwise, the consequence would be either a radical break with tradition and history, or an unproductive traditionalism that is no longer able to disclose the meaning of the Christ-event for the contemporary ecclesial situation. It is precisely this anamnetic work of the Paraclete, “materialised” in the Fourth Gospel as Scripture, that enables the community 55 The close literary relationship between the Johannine Jesus and the Paraclete has been convincingly demonstrated by BORNKAMM, “Paraklet,” 68–69 (n. 8). 56 Cf. especially ONUKI, Gemeinde und Welt, 72–76 (n. 37). 57 So also FREY, “Windbrausen,” 146–151, esp. 151 (n. 32); cf. also THEOBALD, “Gott, Logos und Pneuma,” 383, who identifies an evolution within the Johannine farewell discourses (from John 13:31–14:31 to John 15–16) to more personal connotations in the discourse about the Spirit-Paraclete: “Dabei ist bezeichnend, dass die personalen Konnotationen in der Rede vom Geist-Parakleten sich gegenüber der ersten Abschiedsrede verstärkt haben” (n. 24).

The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John

171

of the addressees to embark on the “apprenticeship of faith” (apprentissage de la foi), as Jean Zumstein called the main pragmatic function of the Gospel of John.58 Faith, from a Johannine perspective, does not pop up ex nihilo but needs mediations and agents of mediation. The Spirit-Paraclete is a main agent of mediation of faith insofar as he incarnates one of its basic elements – anamnesis. “Easter”, here and now. Closely related to the anamnetic function of the Paraclete is the highly original Johannine understanding of “Easter”. In fact, the Spirit-Paraclete is not only a narrative object of one of the Johannine Easter stories (20:19–23) but secretly its main hermeneutical subject. He is not only part of the mythos, but he is, above all, its logos who shapes its understanding. It is through the activity of the Spirit-Paraclete that the community of disciples learns to re-evaluate its historical situation not only as a time of discontinuity with regard to the earthly Jesus (although this constitutes an indispensable element of the construction of the Johannine faith; see, for example, 13:31–38), nor a time of expectation of the “things to come”, but as a time of a possible existential encounter with the risen Christ (“Easter”) – an encounter qualified as a “love”-relationship (14:15–26). The time of Easter, and therefore, the time of the Church, is not a time of deficiency, but a time of spiritual accomplishment, a time that surpasses qualitatively the “old” relationship between the earthly Jesus and his disciples. “Easter” happens everywhere and anytime human beings discover in the destiny of Jesus of Nazareth the life-creating and transformative power of the presence of God.

58 See, for ex., J. ZUMSTEIN, “L’évangile johannique: une stratégie du croire,” in Miettes exégétiques (Le Monde de la Bible 25; Genève, 1991), 237–252 (German translation: “Das Johannesevangelium. Eine Strategie des Glaubens,” in Kreative Erinnerung. Relecture und Auslegung im Johannesevangelium [AThANT 84; Zürich, 2nd ed. 2004], 31–45), and, for a broad public, J. ZUMSTEIN, L’apprentissage de la foi: A la découverte de l’évangile de Jean et de ses lecteurs (Genève, 2015).

The Holy Spirit in Paul from an Orthodox Perspective John Fotopoulos The title of the paper that was assigned to me by the conference organizers is “The Holy Spirit in Paul from an Orthodox Perspective”. One preliminary issue that is necessary to mention at the outset is the very challenge of this title. Certainly any of the scholars present for this conference could write a paper on the Holy Spirit in the Pauline letters. The challenge and central issue, however, is what does it mean to write a paper on the Holy Spirit in Paul from an Orthodox perspective? Does this mean: What is the official Orthodox Christian interpretation of Paul’s thought on the Holy Spirit? Or, does this even mean: What is the Orthodox consensus on Paul’s thought regarding the Holy Spirit? In either case, it is my view that such an Orthodox interpretation or consensus on Paul’s thought regarding the Holy Spirit has not been overtly articulated. Indeed, we Orthodox generally avoid articulating theological definitions overtly if it can be avoided! Although this is said somewhat tongue-in-cheek, this is in all seriousness a basic Orthodox approach to theological reflection.1 Be that as it may, when Orthodox Christian scholars attempt to think of foundational works on the Holy Spirit from the Orthodox tradition that they can turn to for guidance on this topic, immediately the writings on the Holy Spirit by St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian, and St. Gregory of Nyssa come to mind. However, after becoming reacquainted with these magnificent works in light of the present paper, I came to realize that the Pauline corpus (both undisputed and disputed Pauline letters, since the Fathers made 1 On this approach, see, e.g., S. BULGAKOV, Unfading Light: Contemplations and Speculations (trans. T. A. Smith; Grand Rapids, 2012), 74, who has written the following: “Dogma, in turning down pseudo-wisdom, puts in its place the right formula and this formula is the logical limit, the fence of dogma. It defines that external boundary beyond which it is impossible to deviate, but it is not adequate to dogma at all, it does not exhaust its content: first of all because every dogmatic formulation, as already said, is only a logical schema, a sketch of integral religious experience, its complete translation into the language of concepts; and then because it usually arises because of heresy – ‘divisions’ (hairesis – division).”

174

John Fotopoulos

no such distinction) does not play a central role in the Cappadocian Fathers’ theological reflections on the Holy Spirit. Indeed, Paul’s statements on the Holy Spirit are quite ancillary in these works of the Cappadocians. The reason for this is most likely because the attacks on the Holy Spirit by the Πνευµατοµάχοι2 in the second half of the fourth century C.E. came riding on the coattails of the Arian controversy, which itself was largely fed by sayings of Jesus from the Gospels, particularly from the Gospel of John. Thus, the Cappadocians’ theological reflections on the Holy Spirit primarily utilize the Gospel of John, as well as the Synoptics and Acts of the Apostles. In light of this, the “Orthodox perspective” on the Holy Spirit in Paul that will be articulated in this paper is that of the author. To be sure, while always attempting to stand and work within the Orthodox Christian tradition, I do not speak for the entirety of the tradition or for all Orthodox Christians everywhere. Indeed, I must frankly confess that I did not realize how little I knew about the Holy Spirit in Paul’s thinking and theology before writing this paper, and how absolutely crucial the Holy Spirit is for the apostle. Stephen Neill and N.T. Wright have written that “Paul’s doctrine of the Spirit is far more central and characteristic than his doctrine of justification by faith”3, which is an absolutely remarkable statement when one thinks about the history of Western Christian theological discourse and interpretation of Paul. However, despite the centrality of Paul’s understanding of the Spirit, relatively little has been written on the Holy Spirit in Paul’s thought by New Testament scholars when compared to many other topics in Pauline studies. Moreover, as Gordon Fee has declared, despite the affirmations in our creeds and hymns and the lip service largely paid to the Spirit in our occasional conversations, the Spirit is largely marginalized in our actual life together as a community of faith.4

Now, this declaration has been written by Fee who is himself a Pentecostal! How much more true is his statement for those of us who call ourselves Orthodox Christians? As I have become more focused on the place of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox theology and worship (and here it bears reminding ourselves how fundamental lex orandi, lex credendi5 is in the Orthodox tradi2

The Πνευµατοµάχοι were also referred to as Μακεδονιανοί (“Macedonians”), taking the latter epithet from a leader of this theological faction, Μακεδόνιος, a former archbishop of Constantinople. For more on this, see Socrates, Hist. eccl. 2.45. 3 S. NEILL and N. T. WRIGHT, The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861–1986 (Oxford, 1988), 203. 4 G. D. FEE, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, 1994), 1. 5 This phrase, “the rule of worship is the rule of faith”, helps to convey a basic Orthodox principle. As K. WARE, The Orthodox Church (London, 1993), 205, explains simply, “our faith is expressed in our prayer.”

The Holy Spirit in Paul

175

tion), I have come to realize that our venerable Orthodox predecessors were much more aware of the centrality of the Holy Spirit in the life of the community of faith than many Orthodox Christians are today (myself included). Indeed, the central place of the Spirit in the Orthodox community of faith is beautifully expressed in our highly theological hymns that praise the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son, as well as reminding worshippers of the vivifying operation of the Holy Spirit in the life of the faithful.6 This brings us squarely to the issue of the Holy Spirit in Paul from an Orthodox perspective (the present paper will restrict itself to the undisputed Pauline letters). Of course, the polyvalence of the Greek word πνεῦµα is well-known in New Testament studies. Πνεῦµα could be translated as Spirit, spirit, soul, wind, air, or breath, to name but a few possibilities, while in ancient Stoicism the term πνεῦµα conveys something like “the breath of life”, which itself is understood to be a mixture of the elements of air (providing motion) and fire (providing warmth). This very brief look at the term πνεῦµα and various translations of it could lead us to the view that in Paul’s thought the Spirit is something intangible, something that cannot be grasped, and thus also something that is impersonal. However, when one lines up all of Paul’s references to Spirit or to the Holy Spirit in his undisputed letters, such an impression could not be further from the truth.7 Indeed, as I went through all of Paul’s references to the Spirit, I outlined several common themes that come through in the apostle’s thinking: the Holy Spirit as gift to the believer; the Holy Spirit as dwelling/living in the believer; the Holy Spirit engaged in 6 A basic example of the beautiful praise of the Holy Spirit in Orthodox worship comes from the Ἀναβαθµοί (Hymns of Ascent) of the Sunday matins service, tone 4, antiphon 1: Ἁγίῳ Πνεύµατι ἀναβλύζει τὰ τῆς χάριτος ρεῖθρα, ἀρδεύοντα ἅπασαν τὴν κτίσιν πρὸς ζωογονίαν. (“By the Holy Spirit streams of grace overflow, watering all creation toward productive life.”) 7 By my count, Paul uses the term πνεῦµα 102 times (with or without articles) with various meanings in his undisputed letters (πνεῦµα, πνεύµατι, πνεύµατος). Paul also uses the term in the plural 3 times (πνεύµατα and πνευµάτων) for a total of 105 occurrences. In many cases, the word πνεῦµα denotes the “Spirit” or “Holy Spirit”, rather than something like “a spirit” or “a holy spirit”. Contextual exegesis is the primary tool for deciding Paul’s usage. However, in studying the issue of whether Paul is referring to “the Spirit” or “a spirit”, FEE, God’s Empowering Presence, 15–24 (n. 4), has examined all of the occurrences of the term with or without the presence of an article in the Pauline correspondence and has concluded that “the presence of the article with the Spirit is always controlled by whether the noun it modifies is articular or not”. In Fee’s view, almost without exception, Paul refers to the Spirit. In any case, by my count in the undisputed letters, “Holy Spirit” is used by the apostle 12 times, whereas Paul also refers to the “Spirit of God” 11 times, “Spirit of the Lord” 1 time, and πνεῦµα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν 1 time. The term πνευµατικός presents further difficulties for exegetes in ascertaining Paul’s meaning.

176

John Fotopoulos

action in the believer; and finally the Holy Spirit as personal God (and thus a person of the Holy Trinity).

1. The Spirit as Gift First and foremost, the Spirit in Paul is a gift. Paul mentions on numerous occasions that the Spirit is given to the faithful as a gift. For example, Paul writes in 1 Thess 4:7–8 that οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡµᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλ’ ἐν ἁγιασµῷ. τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν τὸν καὶ διδόντα τὸ πνεῦµα αὐτοῦ τὸ ἅγιον εἰς ὑµᾶς. Similarly, in Rom 5:5, Paul writes ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ ἐκκέχυται ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡµῶν διὰ πνεύµατος ἁγίου τοῦ δοθέντος ἡµῖν. Likewise, in 2 Cor 1:21–22, Paul writes that ὁ δὲ βεβαιῶν ἡµᾶς σὺν ὑµῖν εἰς Χριστὸν καὶ χρίσας ἡµᾶς θεός, ὁ καὶ σφραγισάµενος ἡµᾶς καὶ δοὺς τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύµατος ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡµῶν. Similarly, in 2 Cor 5:5, Paul states that ὁ δὲ κατεργασάµενος ἡµᾶς εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο θεός, ὁ δοὺς ἡµῖν τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύµατος. Such types of verses could be multiplied many times with various references to the Spirit as a gift, such as Paul’s speaking of “receiving” the Spirit (ἐλάβοµεν, 1 Cor 2:11b–12; ἐλάβετε, Gal 3:2; λάβωµεν, Gal 3:14), being “supplied with” the Spirit (ἐπιχορηγῶν, Gal 3:5), and “sending” the Spirit (ἐξαπέστειλεν, Gal 4:6). It is the two verses from 2 Cor (1:22; 5:5) that I would like to touch on here regarding the Spirit as a gift. In both verses, Paul refers to the ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύµατος. The word ἀρραβών is generally used in ancient Greek in conjunction with contracts of sale to convey earnest money, a deposit, or a down payment that a purchaser would give to a vendor prior to delivery of goods with a pledge or guarantee that outstanding monies will be paid in full at some point in the future.8 The word ἀρραβών appears regularly in the Greek papyri within business contracts, business letters, and agreements of various types.9 The term was also used in antiquity in conjunction with arranged marriages to convey that a dowry was agreed to and that a portion of the dowry was given as deposit before the woman to be married moved in with her future husband, the ἀρραβών also constituting a pledge to

8

“ἀρραβών,” LSJ; J. H. THAYER, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament; (Boston, 1896). 9 For example, BGU 1.240; BGU 2.446; P.Cair. Zen. 3.5929; P.Bodl. 01; P.Louvre 02; P.Oxy. 74; P.Oxy. 1.140; P.Oxy. 2.299; P.Oxy. 6.920; P.Oxy. 14.1673; P.Petra 03; P.Polit. Iud.; PSI 15; SB 21; SB 25; BGU 16; O.Eleph. DAIK; P.Fay. 91.

The Holy Spirit in Paul

177

complete the payment sometime in the future.10 In this way, the word functions much like the English word “betrothal” (which is derived from “betrouthen”, from bi- "thoroughly" + Old English treowðe "truth, a pledge"). In light of the use and meaning of ἀρραβών in Greco-Roman antiquity, it seems better to translate the term as “deposit”, “down payment”, or “first installment”, rather than as “guarantee”. By stating that God has given the followers of Jesus the ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύµατος (2 Cor 1:22; 5:5), Paul is saying that a formal agreement has been made between God and each Christian in which the Christian has been given the valuable Spirit as a down payment or first installment. This ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύµατος implies that an obligation has been laid upon both God and each believer to fulfill the terms of their agreement. God will fulfill the terms of the agreement when “full payment” of God’s self is made by becoming even more fully present to believers after the Parousia, when God will be seen “face to face” (rather than in a mirror dimly, 1 Cor 12:12) and when God will be “all in all” (1 Cor 15:28). Believers will fulfill the terms of the agreement after they have supplied their very lives to God and ultimately even their mortal bodies, “so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a down payment (ὁ δοὺς ἡµῖν τὸν ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύµατος).” (2 Cor 5:5) Not only has the Spirit been given as a gift and as a down payment, but the Spirit has been given to the believers in their hearts (ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡµῶν) – the heart being the center of spiritual consciousness from a Jewish perspective. In three texts, Paul refers to the Spirit residing in the heart: 2 Cor 1:22; Rom 5:5; and Gal 4:6.

2. The Spirit Dwelling/Living The idea of the Spirit’s being given to believers in their hearts brings us to the next theme to be examined in Paul’s thinking about the Spirit, which is that of the Holy Spirit as dwelling/living in the believer. Several texts in Paul’s undisputed letters convey this idea. Paul writes in Rom 8:9 that the πνεῦµα θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑµῖν (“the Spirit of God dwells in you”), and in Rom 8:11,

10 For ἀρραβών used in conjunction with marriage, an interesting example from the sixth century C.E. is P. NESS. 3.33. This divorce contract mentions προικιµαῖα καὶ παραφερνικαῖα πράγµατα such as fifteen gold coins, women’s clothing, and women’s adornment, which were given as part of a married couple’s ἀρραβε͂να γαµικὸν … τρων καὶ τὰ τῆς µνηστίας εἴδη. Upon this divorce settlement, the aforementioned items were being returned by the divorced husband to his father-in-law.

178

John Fotopoulos

εἰ δὲ τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ ἐγείραντος τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑµῖν, ὁ ἐγείρας Χριστὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν ζῳοποιήσει καὶ τὰ θνητὰ σώµατα ὑµῶν διὰ τὸ ἐνοικοῦν αὐτοῦ πνεῦµα ἐν ὑµῖν.

This same idea is also repeated two times in 1 Corinthians: in 3:16 where Paul writes that ναὸς θεοῦ ἐστε καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ οἰκεῖ ἐν ὑµῖν, and again in 6:19 where he states that τὸ σῶµα ὑµῶν ναὸς τοῦ ἐν ὑµῖν ἁγίου πνεύµατός ἐστιν, οὗ ἔχετε ἀπὸ θεοῦ. In all four of these texts, Paul emphasizes the idea of God and the Holy Spirit “dwelling” in the believer, and thus in 1 Corinthians he is making explicit an idea implicit elsewhere – namely, that the believer is therefore a temple of God and the Holy Spirit. Here Paul seems to have taken the traditional Israelite idea of shekinah (‫)שכינה‬, the divine presence of God dwelling most fully at God’s Temple in Jerusalem at the Holy of Holies, which the apostle now seems to see as dwelling within the followers of Jesus. In this way, Christian believers are temples of God and the Holy Spirit since God dwells within them. God not only dwells within believers, but in their very hearts (again, as previously stated, the heart being the center of spiritual consciousness). This Spirit that dwells within believers as temples of God and the Spirit is (a) opposed to the flesh (Rom 8:9, 13–14; Gal 5:24–25, 6:7–10; Phil 3:3); (b) opposed to the letter (“for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:5–6); and (c) opposed to the works of the Law (Gal 3:2, 5). The new disposition of the believer is marked by the indwelling Spirit, which makes that person into a holy temple containing the shekinah of God, as opposed to the old disposition of a person prior to her faith in Christ when she was of the flesh. Paul seems to be saying that without the dwelling of the Spirit through Christ in the believer, those of the flesh constitute historical/literal Israelites who, according to Daniel Boyarin, interpret the Scriptures according to “the letter” – that is, they pursue the literal interpretation of the Law and a life lived by literal performance of the works of the Law.11 Conversely, the believer who bears the Spirit within his heart is to live his life in a new way consistent with the Spirit within him (which we will survey shortly). But for now, it bears emphasizing once again that the presence of the Holy Spirit within the believer – the person as temple of the Holy Spirit, the shekinah of God that is present within each Christian’s center of consciousness – is merely the ἀρραβῶνα τοῦ πνεύµατος (the down payment or first installment of God’s presence in his or her life) until the Parousia occurs when the presence of God is encountered face to face and when God becomes all in all. According to Paul’s undisputed letters, when do believers first receive the gift of the Holy Spirit? When do they become temples of the Holy Spirit, and 11

See especially, D. BOYARIN, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley/Los Angeles, 1994).

The Holy Spirit in Paul

179

when is the down payment of the Spirit first received into their hearts? It seems to me that for Paul this occurs during the ritual of baptism. Many of Paul’s statements on reception of the Spirit are ambiguous enough, but at least two texts may shed some light on the matter. Both of these texts are from 1 Corinthians. The foremost is 12:13 where Paul writes, ἐν ἑνὶ πνεύµατι ἡµεῖς πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶµα ἐβαπτίσθηµεν, εἴτε Ἰουδαῖοι εἴτε Ἕλληνες, εἴτε δοῦλοι εἴτε ἐλεύθεροι, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦµα ἐποτίσθηµεν.(“For in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body – Jews or Greeks, slaves or free–and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.” [NRSV])

In this verse, Paul links the Corinthians’ reception of the Spirit with their baptism by using the conjunction καί. When Paul writes καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦµα ἐποτίσθηµεν, this is often translated as “and we were all made to drink of one Spirit”. However, an equally valid translation of ἐποτίσθηµεν in this verse is: “and we were all watered by one Spirit”. Many Greek authors use the term ποτίζω in reference to fields or plants being irrigated (e.g., Xenophon, Symp. 2, 25; Lucian, Athen.; Geoponica 10.19; Strabo; LXX Genesis 13:10; LXX Ezekiel 17:7), including Philo, who uses the term not only to refer to literal seeds and plants being watered.12 Philo can also use the term to refer to souls that are watered by the divine Logos: κάτεισι δὲ ὥσπερ ἀπὸ πηγῆς τῆς σοφίας ποταµοῦ τρόπον ὁ θεῖος λόγος, ἵνα ἄρδῃ καὶ ποτίζῃ τὰ ὀλύµπια καὶ οὐράνια φιλαρέτων ψυχῶν βλαστήµατα καὶ φυτά, ὡσανεὶ παράδεισον. (“And the divine Logos, like a river, flows forth from wisdom as from a spring, in order to irrigate and water the celestial and heavenly shoots and plants of virtue-loving souls, as if they were paradise.”)13

What Philo states about the divine Logos irrigating and watering the virtueloving souls of believers is in some way mirrored by Paul’s reference to all believers having been “watered” by the Spirit in baptism (πάντες ἓν πνεῦµα ἐποτίσθηµεν). Such an understanding of the believer having been watered by the Spirit in baptism is also consistent with what Paul says about water baptism in Rom 6:5 (which is often lost in English translations) – namely, that those who are baptized σύµφυτοι γεγόναµεν τῷ ὁµοιώµατι τοῦ θανάτου αὐτοῦ (which we could translate literally as, “we have become planted with

12 Philo, Post. 125.2–126.1: ὥσπερ οὖν τὰ κατὰ γῆν σπέρµατα καὶ φυτὰ ποτιζόµενα αὔξεται καὶ βλαστάνει καὶ πρὸς καρπῶν γενέσεις εὐτοκεῖ, στερόµενα δὲ ἐπιρροῆς ἀφαυαίνεται, οὕτως ἡ ψυχή, καθάπερ φαίνεται, ὅταν νάµατι ποτίµῳ σοφίας ἄρδηται, βλαστάνει τε καὶ ἐπιδίδωσι πρὸς τὸ βέλτιον. (“Just as, therefore, the seeds and plants which are put into the ground grow and blossom by being watered, and are thus made fertile for the production of fruits, but if they are deprived of moisture they wither away, so likewise is the soul, just as it appears when it is watered with the wholesome stream of wisdom, blossoms and produces toward the better.”) 13 Philo, Somn. 2.242.5.

180

John Fotopoulos

him in the likeness of his death”)14, another similarity with Philo and his reference to ἵνα ἄρδῃ καὶ ποτίζῃ τὰ ὀλύµπια καὶ οὐράνια φιλαρέτων ψυχῶν βλαστήµατα καὶ φυτά (“to irrigate and water the celestial and heavenly shoots and plants of virtue-loving souls”).

Indeed, if Paul means to say in 1 Cor 12:13 that the Corinthians were all watered by the Spirit, he may also be using again the metaphor of the Corinthians as God’s field (θεοῦ γεώργιον), which he had applied earlier in 1 Cor 3:9. A final possible translation to consider for Paul’s phrase, καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦµα ἐποτίσθηµεν, is “and we were all fed (or nourished) by one Spirit”. In this case, the meaning of ἐποτίσθηµεν is like Paul’s statement in 1 Cor 3:2 where he tells the Corinthians that he had “fed” them with milk and not with solid food (γάλα ὑµᾶς ἐπότισα), just as Apollos later fed them (Ἀπολλῶς ἐπότισεν, 1 Cor 3:6). Translating καὶ πάντες ἓν πνεῦµα ἐποτίσθηµεν as “and we were all fed (or nourished) by one Spirit” seems preferable to “and we were all made to drink of one Spirit”, since there is no evidence that the neophyte drank any baptismal water during the baptismal ritual. The best translation would seem to be “and we were all watered by one Spirit”, a translation which conveys that in baptism a person receives the Spirit in a fashion similar to a plant that is watered, then becoming σύµφυτος in the likeness of Christ’s death.15 Regardless of translation, the point seems clear enough regarding 1 Cor 12:13: just as the Corinthians were baptized into one body, they received one Spirit at baptism. The second verse that seems to indicate that for Paul the Spirit is received or experienced for the first time at baptism is 1 Cor 6:11. After identifying in 1 Cor 6:9–10 some of the undesirable behaviors that the Corinthians were engaged in before their conversion, Paul then states in v. 11, ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ πνεύµατι τοῦ θεοῦ ἡµῶν. (“But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and in the Spirit of our God.”)

14

A few English translations that do capture the idea of planting in conjunction with water baptism are the following: KJV, DRA, WBT: “we have been planted together in the likeness”; YLT: “we have become planted together to the likeness”; WYC: “we planted together be made to the likeness”; GNV: “we be planted with him to the similitude”; ISR (1998): “we have come to be grown together in the likeness”; TNT: “we be graft in death like unto him.” 15 In this regard, it seems likely that the Spirit was understood to be able to water, feed, or nourish the believer in the water ritual of baptism through either the pores, the intestines, or through oro-nasal respiration. See note 18 below and the corresponding body of this paper regarding ancient Greek medical texts and πνεῦµα.

The Holy Spirit in Paul

181

Many commentators see v. 11 as a reference to baptism since the Corinthians were “washed” of their former identification with the immoral behaviors of vv. 9–10. In this way, washing is a metaphor for water baptism. Notice that Paul says this washing, sanctification, and justification occurred in the “name” of the Lord Jesus (in the dative singular, ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι), as well as in the Spirit of our God. This seems to mean that the spiritual washing, sanctification, and justification are achieved through Christ’s salvific death and resurrection, actualized for each person through the ritual of baptism, and realized by/in the Spirit. So that I am not misunderstood, let me clearly say that my position on water baptism does not imply that faith is an unnecessary or ancillary component in conjunction with the salvation of the human person. Of course, it is Paul himself who says that we “receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal 3:14). But in proper Orthodox Christian fashion, my perspective is that the Christ-event is not made one’s own simply by means of a “cognitio of salvation”.16 In any case, after ascending from the baptismal water, Paul mentions that the newly baptized person cried out, Αββα ὁ πατήρ (Gal 4:6; Rom 8:15). Wayne Meeks has asserted that the “ecstatic response of the baptized person, Abba! Father! is at the same time a sign of the gift of the Spirit and of the sonship (hyiothesia) that the Spirit conveys by incorporating the person into the one Son of God.”17

3. The Spirit Acting/in Action The next point that Paul makes about the Spirit and that I find to be absolutely central to his thought, is that the Spirit is active within Christians. This action of the Spirit can be described in several ways: the Spirit acting; the Spirit in action; or the Spirit energizing believers to act in various ways. Paul uses numerous action words to express this on-going action of the Spirit, as well as the Spirit-inspired action of Christians. First and foremost, as we have said, the Spirit waters/feeds/nourishes believers and dwells in their hearts (as 16 The phrase “cognitio of salvation” is Oscar Cullmann’s, but this phrase entirely in Latin (cognitio salutis) stems from John Calvin (Calvin, Institutes 4.15.2). Of course, it is Karl Barth who argued strongly against water baptism as a ritual that effects forgiveness, salvation, justification, sanctification, or reception of the Holy Spirit, asserting rather that the objective of baptism is the knowledge of salvation (cognitio salutis). Consequently, since an infant cannot have such intellectual knowledge of salvation, Barth rejected the propriety of infant baptism. However, for Orthodox Christians, the mystery of baptism involves much more than a cerebral cognitio of salvation. On these matters and the propriety of infant baptism in light of NT evidence, see Cullmann’s discussion in his Baptism in the New Testament (SBT 1; London, 1950), 23–46, esp. 31–35. 17 W. A. MEEKS, The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul (New Haven/London, 1983), 88.

182

John Fotopoulos

we have discussed, 2 Cor 1:22; Rom 5:5; Gal 4:6), but the Spirit is also in action in the following ways. The Spirit: leads (ἄγονται, Rom 8:14); helps us (συναντιλαµβάνεται, Rom 8:26); intercedes (ὑπερεντυγχάνει, Rom 8:26; ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων, Rom 8:27); searches (ἐραυνᾷ, 1 Cor 2:10); comprehends (ἔγνωκεν, 1 Cor 2:11); speaks (λαλῶν, 1 Cor 12:3); activates (ἐνεργεῖ, 1 Cor 12:11); distributes (διαιροῦν, 1 Cor 12:11); gives life (ζῳοποιεῖ, 2 Cor 3:6; “eternal life”, Gal 6:8); transforms from glory to glory (µεταµορφούµεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν, καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύµατος, 2 Cor 3:18); communes (κοινωνία, 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 2:1); and manifests itself in a variety of gifts (φανέρωσις, 1 Cor 12:7).

Indeed, it is Paul who writes in 1 Cor 12:6 that διαιρέσεις ἐνεργηµάτων εἰσίν, ὁ δὲ αὐτὸς θεός, ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν (“there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who activates all of them in everyone”).

There are far too many interesting action words to be examined within the short space of this paper, but it is important to stress that these actions of the Spirit are communal as well as personal/individual. Indeed, many of these actions of the Spirit seem to occur within the assembled worshipping community. Interceding, comprehending, inspired speaking, and gifts such as the utterance of wisdom, the utterance of knowledge, faith, gifts of healing, working of miracles, prophecy, the discernment of spirits, various kinds of tongues, and the interpretation of tongues are all “activated by one and the same Spirit, who distributes to each one individually just as the Spirit chooses” as the body of Christ is engaged in worship, since they are intended for the church’s common advantage (πρὸς τὸ συµφέρον, 1 Cor 12:7). This communal as well as personal/individual dimension of the Spirit’s action needs to be stressed in light of the individualistic emphasis conveyed in many contemporary forms of Christianity and super-churches. A very interesting context to consider for an understanding of Paul’s statements on the Spirit, particularly many of the above actions of the Spirit, is that of ancient Greek medical texts – and here I would refer you to the excellent work of Troy Martin on the topic.18 Martin has shown that the concept of πνεῦµα is discussed in ancient medical texts as one of three essential nutrients (food, drink, and πνεῦµα). Although Martin shows that ancient 18 T. W. MARTIN, “Paul’s Pneumatological Statements and Ancient Medical Texts,” in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune (NovTSup 122; ed. J. Fotopoulos; Leiden, 2006), 105–126.

The Holy Spirit in Paul

183

medical texts vary regarding how πνεῦµα is received by human beings (via the pores, via the intestines, or via oro-nasal respiration),19 once πνεῦµα is received into a person, it nourishes the brain and heart, which are variously thought to be the center of rationality and intelligence.20 Martin goes on to discuss how once within the human body, ancient medical texts agree that πνεῦµα “causes movement, rationality, health, and life”.21 It is my assertion that we could easily replace the word “movement” with the words “action” or “activity”. Thus, Martin has shown that there are numerous parallels between ancient medical texts’ concept of πνεῦµα and Paul’s concept of it. For the purposes of this paper, it is enough for me to emphasize that Paul states that God’s πνεῦµα is received into the “hearts” of believers (2 Cor 1:22; Rom 5:5; Gal 4:6), dwells there (Rom 8:9, 8:11; 1 Cor 3:16), and without it, there would be spiritual death, while God’s πνεῦµα also energizes, activates, or motivates Christian believers to live spiritually vibrant lives that evidence the presence of the divine Spirit within them.

4. The Spirit as God This brings us to the final point of my survey of Paul’s understanding of Spirit – and here Paul’s concept of the Spirit differs considerably from that of ancient Greek medical texts, from Hellenistic notions of Spirit in general, and even from Hebrew biblical notions of Spirit – and this final point is that Paul conceives of the Spirit as personal or as a person. For Paul, the Spirit is not a mechanical force or divine laser beam of sorts. Rather, for Paul, the Spirit is God’s very self, one divine person within the Triune God. I do indeed realize that many Pauline scholars do not hold such a view. Indeed, there are some NT scholars and theologians who do not even think that Paul believed that the Lord Jesus was God or divine, let alone holding that Paul believed the Spirit was God or divine. To be sure, Paul does not use the philosophical language of ὑπόστασις when discussing the Spirit (or when discussing the Father or the Son for that matter), nor does he even discuss the relationship of the Trinity as such, and Paul certainly does not discuss the Trinity as occurs in later Christian dogmatic expressions. However, I do think that the data for concluding that Paul believed the Spirit to be God are present in the undisputed Pauline letters (while data demonstrating that Paul believed Jesus is God are definitely present in Paul’s undisputed letters).22 Certainly, even the Cappa19

Idem, 107 (n. 18). Idem, 108 (n. 18). 21 Idem, 111–112 (n. 18). 22 There are several unambiguous references to Jesus as divine in Paul’s undisputed letters. Paul refers to Christ as the πνευµατικῆς ἀκολουθούσης πέτρας (1 Cor 10:4); as ὁ 20

184

John Fotopoulos

docian Fathers in the late fourth century were reluctant to say plainly that the Holy Spirit was God because there were no Scriptural texts explicitly articulating such a belief. Thus, Basil the Great composed his entire masterful treaty on the Holy Spirit with the intention of proving that the Holy Spirit is God over/against the position of the Πνευµατοµάχοι without ever explicitly saying, “the Holy Spirit is God”.23 Gregory the Theologian was far less subtle when he gave his Fifth Theological Oration on the topic.24 ἄνθρωπος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ (1 Cor 15:47) and as τοῦ ἐπουρανίου (1 Cor 15:49); as ὃς ἐν µορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων and as τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ (Phil 2:6); and as ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ (2 Cor 4:4). At the Parousia, the Lord Jesus καταβήσεται ἀπ’ οὐρανοῦ (1 Thess 4:16) and τοὺς γὰρ πάντας ἡµᾶς φανερωθῆναι δεῖ ἔµπροσθεν τοῦ βήµατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ (2 Cor 5:10). Moreover, Paul’s favorite title for Jesus is κύριος, a title that in its Jewish contexts, as well as in Greco-Roman contexts, conveys that Jesus is divine. Finally, although Rom 9:5 seems somewhat ambiguous (καὶ ἐξ ὧν ὁ χριστὸς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα, ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων, θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας), since θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας could be said in praise of the Father, that it is referring to Christ as God seems clear enough since otherwise it is hard to make sense of what it means for Christ to be ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων if he is not God. Finally, not only does Phil 2:9b–11 convey Paul’s favorite title for Jesus, Κύριος (“Lord”), but in this text Paul states that the title of Κύριος is given to Jesus after the resurrection. Thus, the title Κύριος (“Lord”) here conveys that Jesus is divine, especially since the entire cosmos is to engage in worship of Lord Jesus to the glory of God the Father (τὸ ὄνοµα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνοµα, ἵνα ἐν τῷ ὀνόµατι Ἰησοῦ πᾶν γόνυ κάµψῃ ἐπουρανίων καὶ ἐπιγείων καὶ καταχθονίων, καὶ πᾶσα γλῶσσα ἐξοµολογήσηται ὅτι κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς εἰς δόξαν θεοῦ πατρός). 23 Gregory Nazianzen, reflecting on this matter in his Panegyric on St. Basil, says that the Arians, having the support of the Emperor Valens, sought to seize on Basil’s statements about the Spirit so as to take over his episcopal see. Gregory says: “The enemy were on the watch for the unqualified statement ‘the Spirit is God;’ which, although it is true, they and the wicked patron of their impiety imagined to be impious; so that they might banish him and his power of theological instruction from the city, and themselves be able to seize upon the church, and make it the starting point and citadel, from which they could overrun with their evil doctrine the rest of the world. Accordingly, by the use of other terms, and by statements which unmistakably had the same meaning, and by arguments necessarily leading to this conclusion, he so overpowered his antagonists, that they were left without reply, and involved in their own admissions, – the greatest proof possible of dialectical power and skill. His treatise on this subject makes it further manifest, being evidently written by a pen borrowed from the Spirit's store.” Gregory goes on to add, “That he, no less than any other, acknowledged that the Spirit is God, is plain from his often having publicly preached this truth, whenever opportunity offered, and eagerly confessed it when questioned in private. But he made it more clear in his conversations with me, from whom he concealed nothing during our conferences upon this subject. Not content with simply asserting it, he proceeded, as he had but very seldom done before, to imprecate upon himself that most terrible fate of separation from the Spirit, if he did not adore the Spirit as consubstantial and coequal with the Father and the Son.” See Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 43: Panegyric on Saint Basil 68–69 (NPNF2 7:418). 24 Gregory Nazianzen’s Fifth Theological Oration (On the Holy Spirit) is commonly cited as Oration 31. In Oration 31, 3.19–22, Gregory says boldly regarding the deity of the

The Holy Spirit in Paul

185

Despite the lack of explicit theological articulation of the Holy Spirit as God in Paul’s undisputed letters, I believe a close examination of Paul’s reflections on the Spirit leave us with no other choice than to conclude that for Paul, the Spirit is God (together with God the Father, and with God the Son who is the Lord Jesus Christ). Even so, the closest thing to an explicit Trinitarian reflection in Paul occurs in his closing greeting of 2 Cor 13:13 where he writes, ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύµατος µετὰ πάντων ὑµῶν. The word κοινωνία conveys relationship, communion, fellowship, participation, and partnership,25 and here there is κοινωνία between the Spirit, Jesus, and God the Father; between the Corinthians and the Spirit, Jesus, and the Father; and between the Corinthians themselves. Such κοινωνία (relationship, communion, fellowship, participation, or partnership) is only possible between persons capable of relationship. Indeed, Paul’s expressions for the activity or action of the Spirit in his letters presuppose the Spirit as person or personal. It is only a person who: leads (ἄγονται, Rom 8:14); helps us (συναντιλαµβάνεται, Rom 8:26); intercedes (ὑπερεντυγχάνει, Rom 8:26); intercedes for the saints (ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων, Rom 8:27); searches (ἐραυνᾷ, 1 Cor 2:10); comprehends (ἔγνωκεν, 1 Cor 2:11); speaks (λαλῶν, 1 Cor 12:3); activates (ἐνεργεῖ, 1 Cor 12:11); distributes (διαιροῦν, 1 Cor 12:11); gives life (ζῳοποιεῖ, 2 Cor 3:6; “eternal life”, Gal 6:8); transforms (µεταµορφούµεθα, 2 Cor 3:18); communes (κοινωνία, 2 Cor 13:13; Phil 2:1); manifests/reveals one’s self (φανέρωσις, 1 Cor 12:7) and has a mind/ethos (φρόνηµα, Rom 8:27).

Spirit: Ἡµεῖς ὃ νενοήκαµεν, κηρύσσοµεν. ἐπ’ ὄρος ὑψηλὸν ἀναβησόµεθα καὶ βοήσοµεν, εἰ µὴ κάτωθεν ἀκουοίµεθα. ὑψώσοµεν τὸ πνεῦµα, οὐ φοβηθησόµεθα. εἰ δὲ καὶ φοβηθησόµεθα, ἡσυχάζοντες, οὐ κηρύσσοντες. (“What we have understood, we will proclaim. We will ascend to a high mountain and we will shout, if we are not heard from below. We will exalt the Spirit, we will not be afraid. If indeed we will be afraid, it will be of being silent, not of proclaiming.”) A bit later in the same oration (10.1–2), Gregory responds even more boldly regarding the divinity of the Spirit: Τί οὖν; θεὸς τὸ πνεῦµα; πάνυ γε. τί οὖν, ὁµοούσιον; εἴπερ θεός. (“What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. What then, is he consubstantial? If, as is the fact, he is God.”) Such statements are far more pointed than was the work of Basil the Great on the Holy Spirit which was meant to leave the reader with no other conclusion than that the Spirit is God without ever explicitly saying so. 25 “κοινωνία,” LSJ; J. H. THAYER, Greek-English Lexicon.

186

John Fotopoulos

Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit which as God conveys power (ἐν δυνάµει πνεύµατος ἁγίου, Rom 15:13). It seems untenable that an impersonal force or a kind of supernatural laser beam could act and engage with human persons in such personal ways. Moreover, Paul is capable of speaking about the Spirit in ways in which the Spirit is very closely associated with God the Father and with the Lord Jesus, leading one to conclude that the Spirit is indeed God. Paul refers to the Spirit as the “Spirit of God” (πνεῦµα θεοῦ, Rom 8:9, 15; 1 Cor 7:40; 12:3; Phil 3:3; πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ, 1 Cor 2:11) and as “the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (τοῦ πνεύµατος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, Phil 1:19), stating that “God has sent the Spirit of his Son” (ἐξαπέστειλεν ὁ θεὸς τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, Gal 4:6) and also asserting that “the Lord is the Spirit” (ὁ δὲ κύριος τὸ πνεῦµά ἐστιν, 2 Cor 3:17). It is God, who searches the heart (the center of spiritual consciousness/rationality/intelligence, which is nourished by πνεῦµα), who knows the mind of the Spirit (ὁ δὲ ἐραυνῶν τὰς καρδίας οἶδεν τί τὸ φρόνηµα τοῦ πνεύµατος, ὅτι κατὰ θεὸν ἐντυγχάνει ὑπὲρ ἁγίων, Rom 8:27). Although the Spirit and Christ/the Son are closely associated in Paul’s thought, they are also distinct. Romans 8 makes this position quite clear. Indeed, there Paul speaks about the Spirit dwelling in the Christian’s heart and interceding for Christians in their weakness because Christians do not know how to pray as they ought, adding that the very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. Ultimately, Paul states, the Spirit who is present with us intercedes for the saints according to [the will of] God (Rom 8:26– 27), while it is also “Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes” for Christians (Rom 8:34). These examples from Rom 8 make it clear that God the Father, the Spirit, and Christ are very closely associated (in some cases having the same or similar functions), while also being distinct from one another. As such, the Spirit is present in each believer’s heart while interceding, whereas Christ is at the right hand of God interceding for the faithful. The four themes regarding the Spirit that I have tried to touch on in the present paper certainly do not exhaust Paul’s understanding of the Spirit. These four themes are, however, in my estimation, central to Paul’s thought on the Spirit as found in his undisputed letters. Paul’s understanding of the Spirit as gift to the believer; the Spirit as dwelling/living in the believer; the Spirit engaged in action in the believer; and finally the Spirit as personal God who is one divine person within the Triune God, all reflect an Orthodox Christian perspective on Paul and the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul: A ‘Western’ Perspective Volker Rabens The Holy Spirit is the driving force of the life of Paul’s churches. Paul’s letters provide ample evidence for this thesis. In order to illustrate this perspective on Paul’s pneumatology and ecclesiology, we could, for example, turn to 1 Thessalonians and find out about the work of the Spirit in initiating and sanctifying Christian life. Or we could walk through 1 Corinthians and study the vitalizing and community-building effects of the Spirit and spiritual gifts in Paul’s assemblies. Or we could look at the epistle to the Galatians and explore the significant role of the Spirit in Paul’s response to his opponents who insisted on the works of the law as essential for those who follow Jesus the Messiah.1 This list could easily be continued, and most students of Paul’s epistles will find this broad perspective on the intimate relationship between the work of the Spirit and the spirituality of Paul’s congregations uncontroversial.2 For this reason, I want to use this contribution to focus on one of the 1

On the role of the Spirit in these three epistles, see, e.g., V. RABENS, “1 Thessalonians,” in A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit (ed. T. J. Burke and K. Warrington; London, 2014), 198–212; W. P. ATKINSON, “1 Corinthians,” in A Biblical Theology of the Holy Spirit (ed. T. J. Burke and K. Warrington; London, 2014), 146–159; J. M. G. BARCLAY, Obeying the Truth: A Study of Paul’s Ethics in Galatians (SNTW; Edinburgh, 1988), 106–215; V. RABENS, “‘Indicative and Imperative’ as the Substructure of Paul’s Theology-and-Ethics in Galatians? A Discussion of Divine and Human Agency in Paul,” in Galatians and Christian Theology: Justification, the Gospel, and Ethics in Paul’s Letter (ed. M. W. Elliott, S. J. Hafemann, N. T. Wright, and J. Frederick; Grand Rapids, 2014), 299–305. 2 For general introductions to Paul’s pneumatology, see, e.g., M. TURNER, The Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts – Then and Now (Carlisle, 2nd ed., 1999), 101–132; V. RABENS, “Power from In Between: The Relational Experience of the Holy Spirit and Spiritual Gifts in Paul’s Churches,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner (ed. I. H. Marshall, V. Rabens, and C. Bennema; Grand Rapids, 2012), 138–155; and the in-depth treatment in G. D. FEE, God’s Empowering Presence: The Holy Spirit in the Letters of Paul (Peabody, 1994). The most extensive study in German has been provided by F. W. HORN, Das Angeld des Geistes.

188

Volker Rabens

more debated aspects of the vitalizing and community-building effect of the Spirit in Paul’s communities. This aspect should be of special interest to our East-West dialogue because it concerns the nature of the transformation that the Spirit works in those that he indwells. In particular, I want to investigate the transforming work of the Spirit from the perspective of deification or theosis. Human deification has a long-standing tradition, especially in Orthodox theology,3 but it has sometimes been treated with suspicion in Western approaches to Paul and Pauline pneumatology.4 Is it appropriate and illuminating to use the concept of deification when trying to fathom Paul’s notion of human transformation by the Spirit? While one may think that employing this terminology in the context of our discussion is a proprium of Orthodoxy theology, a brief look at recent AngloAmerican scholarship shows that it has almost become en vogue among some “Western” exegetes to use this language too. For instance, Stephen Finlan, Michael Gorman, Ben Blackwell, David Litwa, Tom Wright, and others are eager to describe Paul’s theology from this perspective.5 However, does the

Studien zur paulinischen Pneumatologie (FRLANT 154; Göttingen, 1992); see also the short treatment in V. RABENS, “Begeisternde Spiritualität. Geisterfahrungen im Leben der paulinischen Gemeinden,” GlLern 26 (2011), 133–147. For a critical overview of the crucial literature on the Holy Spirit in Biblical Studies (including five sections on Pauline literature), cf. J. R. LEVISON and V. RABENS, “The Holy Spirit,” Oxford Bibliographies Online, http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195393361/obo9780195393361-0094.xml. 3 See the expositions of theosis in Eastern and Western traditions by the contributions to M. J. Christensen and J. A. Wittung, eds., Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions (Grand Rapids, 2007); and V. Kharlamov, ed., Theōsis: Deification in Christian Theology. Vol. 2 (Eugene, 2012). 4 Thus recently, e.g., by G. MACASKILL, Union with Christ in the New Testament (Oxford, 2013), 42–76. 5 S. Finlan and V. Kharlamov, eds., Theōsis: Deification in Christian Theology. Vol. 1 (Eugene, 2006); S. FINLAN, “Can We Speak of Theosis in Paul?,” in Partakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions (ed. M. J. Christensen and J. A. Wittung; Grand Rapids, 2007), 68–80 (n. 3); M. J. GORMAN, Inhabiting the Cruciform God: Kenosis, Justification, and Theosis in Paul’s Narrative Soteriology (Grand Rapids, 2009); B. C. BLACKWELL, Christosis: Pauline Soteriology in Light of Deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria (WUNT II.314; Tübingen, 2011); M. D. LITWA, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology (BZNW 187; Berlin, 2012); N. T. WRIGHT, Paul and the Faithfulness of God (COQG 4; Minneapolis, 2013), 546, 1021–1023; M. J. GORMAN, “Paul’s Corporate, Cruciform, Missional Theosis in 2 Corinthians,” in “In Christ” in Paul: Explorations in Paul’s Theology of Union and Participation (WUNT II.384; ed. M. J. Thate, K. J. Vanhoozer, and C. R. Campbell; Tübingen, 2014), 181–208; M. J. GORMAN, Becoming the Gospel: Paul, Participation, and Mission (Grand Rapids, 2015), esp. 261–296.

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

189

concept of deification help us to understand better the apostle’s pneumatology and ecclesiology, and is it an accurate way of describing Paul’s thought?6 In order to answer this question, we first of all need to provide a working definition of deification for the purpose of the present study. Constantine Campbell wonders whether the term deification is actually helpful or if it dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Perhaps it is analogous to the term “mysticism” with reference to Paul’s theology of union with Christ. It had to be qualified to such an extent that it ultimately failed to be useful.7

Michael Gorman agrees with this criticism of the use of the term “mysticism” regarding union with Christ, because it bears the danger of being understood merely as a private love affair (although he admits that in contrast to this individualistic misunderstanding, already Albert Schweitzer’s Mysticism of Paul the Apostle8 had sensitivities to the corporate dimensions of Paul’s spir-

6 This study utilizes and builds on my work in V. RABENS, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (WUNT II.283; Tübingen, 2nd ed., 2013), and V. RABENS, “Pneuma and the Beholding of God: Reading Paul in the Context of Philonic Mystical Traditions,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Ekstasis 5; ed. J. Frey and J. R. Levison; Berlin/New York, 2014), 293–329. The passages from Philo discussed in “Pneuma and the Beholding of God” provide further support for the model of relational transformation in Paul advanced in the present chapter as they form part of Paul’s religious context. (At least) Two helpful articles related to these issues in Philo have been published since then: F. TIMMERS, “Philo of Alexandria’s Understanding of πνεῦµα in Deus 33–50,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Ekstasis 5; ed. J. Frey and J. R. Levison; Berlin/New York, 2014), 265–292 (on the nature of the Spirit), and M. D. LITWA, “The Deification of Moses in Philo of Alexandria,” SPA 26 (2014), 1–27 (on deification). Litwa’s work on Philo appears to be more nuanced than that on Paul, which I have critically engaged at greater length in “Pneuma and the Beholding of God” (cf. section 2 below). Litwa admits that in many places Philo comprehends Moses’ godhood in metaphorical terms (thus the thesis of R. BAUCKHAM, “Moses as ‘God’ in Philo of Alexandria: A Precedent for Christology?,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner [ed. I. H. Marshall, V. Rabens, and C. Bennema; Grand Rapids, 2012], 246– 265). However, Litwa’s point is that “Philo can also think in ontological ways about Moses’s participation in divinity. The different ways that Philo can speak about Moses’s deification do not represent a vacillation, in my judgment. Rather, they represent the complexity of his theological thought, as well as his ability to modify his teachings to suit the occasion or the text that he is interpreting.” Philo presents a form of deification in which Moses did not directly participate in the Existent; rather, he is “deified by participating in the Logos, the Mind of God, and Philo’s ‘second God’” (LITWA, “Deification of Moses,” 27). 7 C. R. CAMPBELL, Paul and Union With Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study (Grand Rapids, 2012), 366. 8 A. SCHWEITZER, The Mysticism of Paul the Apostle (London, 2nd ed., 1953).

190

Volker Rabens

ituality).9 However, as I have argued elsewhere, there is no need to dismiss certain terminology from the study of religions as long as one provides some qualification on how it (i.e., “mysticism”) is being employed with regard to the study of Paul.10 When it comes to theosis, Gorman then concurs with this approach.11 In his most recent book, Gorman defines theosis – which is used interchangeably with the terms deification, Christification, and Christosis12 – as “Spirit-enabled transformative participation in the life and character of God revealed in the crucified and resurrected Messiah Jesus”.13 This definition is open enough to be agreeable to many New Testament scholars. For the sake of our discussion of Spirit-induced transformation in Paul in the context of our dialogue between Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant traditions, it seems useful to turn to a more detailed definition of theosis that is informed by the developments in the Early Church.14 This approach has the potential of equipping us to uncover aspects of Paul’s pneumatology and ecclesiology that we have not seen before. However, it also requires methodological caution lest one forces Paul’s thought into a procrustean bed of later developments. Ben Blackwell has recently provided a study that looks at Paul’s soteriology in the light of deification in Irenaeus and Cyril of Alexandria. He distinguishes two ways of understanding deification in the ancient world: memorial/cultic (as in the apotheosis of heroes and emperors) and ontological deification. The latter category is the more dominant one. It can be divided into two different aspects: an essential ontology or an attributive ontology. With essential deification, the human shares ontologically in the essence of the divine, or rather they contain a divine element within themselves … Those proposing attributive deification maintain that humans remain ontologically separate from the divine primarily

9

GORMAN, “Missional Theosis,” 194–195 (n. 5). RABENS, “Pneuma and the Beholding of God,” 294–295, esp. note 7 (n. 6). 11 Cf. the title of his recent article which uses three (important) qualifiers: “Paul’s Corporate, Cruciform, Missional Theosis.” 12 BLACKWELL, Christosis (n. 5); GORMAN, Becoming the Gospel, 7 (n. 5). 13 GORMAN, Becoming the Gospel, 4, 261 (n. 5). He adds that there is no official definition of theosis but that “the fundamental theological axiom of theosis is the formulation by church fathers such as Irenaeus and Athanasius that God (or Christ) became what we are so that we might become what God (or Christ) is. This axiom is rooted in Pauline ‘interchange’ texts such as Gal 3:13; 2 Cor 5:21; and 2 Cor 8:9 … As a spiritual theology, theosis is predicated as well on the Pauline and Johannine experience of Christ’s indwelling (see, e.g., Gal 2:19–20; Eph 3:17; Col 1:27; Rom. 8:1–17; John 15; 17:20–23)” (p. 3–4, n. 9). 14 This is not to suggest that Gorman would be unaware of the church fathers (cf. our previous note). However, in Blackwell’s study, the Fathers are explicitly set up as dialogue partners for Paul. 10

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

191

due to a distinction between the Creator and the created, but humans are ontologically changed as they share in particular divine attributes such as immortality.15

How does this terminological differentiation relate to our investigation of human transformation by the Spirit in Paul? Blackwell submits that one distinction between essential-transformational deification and attributive deification is the nature of pneuma. With essential-transformational deification, the pneuma is the divine material in which believers come to share and by which they are constituted. In contrast, attributive deification maintains the agency of the Spirit as one who mediates the divine presence and thus always remains distinct from believers, who nonetheless come to take on a pneumatic body through the relationship.16

Blackwell provides two examples for these two lines of interpretation: While not characterizing their discussion as deification, the contrast between essentialtransformative and attributive deification directly parallels the distinction of the role of pneuma in Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford, 2010), and Volker Rabens, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (WUNT II.283; Tübingen, 2010).17

One of the aims of my paper is to elucidate the difference between these two approaches to human transformation by the divine Spirit in Paul. I have called the former approach to Paul’s pneumatology, which Blackwell identifies as essential-transformational deification, infusion-transformation. My own approach, which Blackwell categorizes as attributive deification, conceptualizes the work of the Spirit in Paul as relational transformation. It should be noted at the outset that “relational” neither means “metaphorical”18 nor “not ontological”.19 Paul’s thinking moves beyond these false adjacency pairs.20 We will look at both approaches in turn.

15

BLACKWELL, Christosis, 104 (n. 5), italics added. BLACKWELL, Christosis, 104 (n. 5). 17 BLACKWELL, Christosis, 104, note 13 (n. 5). 18 It is somewhat confusing that Blackwell equates his category of “attributive deification” with Russel’s category of “metaphorical deification” (BLACKWELL, Christosis, 102– 105, drawing on N. RUSSELL, The Doctrine of Deification in the Greek Patristic Tradition [Oxford, 2004], 1–3). Attributive deification is a subcategory of ontological deification, whereas “metaphorical” may suggest to the majority of readers that the transformation is not ontological. 19 Cf. n. 57 below. 20 Unfortunately, my work has sometimes been (mis)read through these lenses. See the preface to the second edition of RABENS, Spirit, V–VII (n. 6). Cf. n. 28 below. 16

192

Volker Rabens

1. The Spirit’s Work in Paul as Infusion-Transformation (“Essential-Transformational Deification”) The approach to the transforming work of the Spirit that Blackwell categorizes as “essential deification” has been championed in recent scholarship by the work of Friedrich W. Horn and Troels Engberg-Pedersen (although this is not the terminology).21 It can build on a long-standing scholarly tradition that argues that the religious-ethical life of believers derives from an ontic change achieved by the infusion with divine πνεῦµα-substance. For example, Wrede, for whom salvation “is an ontic transformation of humanity which produces ethical transformation as its result”, explains that Paul “appears to understand him [the Spirit] as a heavenly substance that transforms the human being substantially”.22 This view of the religious-ethical work of the Spirit can be called “infusion-transformation” because it suggests that a material πνεῦµαsubstance23 is like a “fluidum” poured into the believer. On the basis of its physical nature, the Spirit transforms the human soul (which is presupposed to be physical too) and makes it divine. Religious-ethical life flows almost automatically from this new nature. This interpretation of the work of the Spirit in Paul usually locates the apostle in a Stoic context. However, an extensive examination of GrecoRoman literature reveals that these writings provide only very few direct links for the early Christian statement, “God has given us the Spirit”.24 Ac21 HORN, Angeld (n. 2); T. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford, 2010). Cf. M. D. LITWA, Becoming Divine: An Introduction to Deification in Western Culture (Eugene, 2013), 58–68. 22 W. WREDE, “Paulus,” in Das Paulusbild in der neueren deutschen Forschung (WdF 24; ed. K.H. Rengstorf; Darmstadt, 1969), 61; 58–59, italics added. Cf. O. PFLEIDERER, Paulinism: A Contribution to the History of Primitive Christian Theology. Vol. 1: Exposition of Paul’s Doctrine (London, 1877), 201; H. GUNKEL, The Influence of the Holy Spirit: The Popular View of the Apostolic Age and the Teaching of the Apostle Paul (Philadelphia, 1979), 124–26. Thus also Asting: “on the basis of the fact that he receives the Holy Spirit, the Christian becomes a different person. The content of his soul is from now on divine … and the Spirit brings forth a new, divine way of life” (R. ASTING, Die Heiligkeit im Urchristentum [FRLANT 46; Göttingen, 1930], 215). 23 As the term “substance” is ambiguous, one should rather use “material or physical substance” in order to indicate that one operates with a concept of the Spirit as Stoff or (fine) matter. – Pauline scholars continue to apply a material concept of the Spirit to the letters of the apostle. See, e.g., most recently J. W. BARRIER, “Jesus’ Breath: A Physiological Analysis of πνεῦµα within Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” JSNT 37 (2014), 115–138; F. S. TAPPENDEN, “Embodiment, Folk Dualism, and the Convergence of Cosmology and Anthropology in Paul’s Resurrection Ideals,” BI 23 (2015), 428–455. 24 See the more detailed treatment in V. RABENS, “Geistes-Geschichte: Die Rede vom Geist im Horizont der griechisch-römischen und jüdisch-hellenistischen Literatur,” ZNT 25 (2010), 46–55.

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

193

cording to the teaching of the Stoics, everything and everyone “possesses” πνεῦµα. This is due to the fact that πνεῦµα was understood as a physical principle that permeates the entire cosmos and holds it together. No comparable distinction was made between divine and human S/spirit25 as seems to be presupposed in Pauline texts like Romans 8:16 (“it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit …”) and 1 Corinthians 2:10–12 (πνεῦµα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου / πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ).26 In Stoicism, the human spirit is a frag25

Seneca’s “holy spirit that indwells within us” (Ep. 41.1) is no exception to this rule, for he explains a little later that this spirit is the god-given human soul that human beings should live in accord with (41.8–9). 26 However, see the alternative interpretation of these passages by D. HELISO, “Divine Spirit and Human Spirit in Paul in the Light of Stoic and Biblical-Jewish Perspectives,” in The Spirit and Christ in the New Testament and Christian Theology: Essays in Honor of Max Turner (ed. I. H. Marshall, V. Rabens, and C. Bennema; Grand Rapids, 2012), 156–76 (cf., more generally, J. R. LEVISON, Filled with the Spirit [Grant Rapids/Cambridge, 2009]). Heliso helpfully points out that the different contexts in which Paul uses πνεῦµα (such as Rom 1:9; 1 Cor 6:17; 12:13) indicate that Paul employs various linguistic expressions and imageries to describe his new understanding of πνεῦµα. “Paul – like others before, during and after him – uses divine and human categories but without implying the existence of two separate, distinct (metaphysical) entities.” Introducing a concept from Latin Christology, Heliso then argues for the consubstantiality between human spirit and divine spirit. However, although this position is theologically very attractive, it nonetheless seems to struggle to explain why Paul uses two different “linguistic expressions” for the same Spirit in the texts in question. Πνεῦµα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου and πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ in 1 Cor 2:11 may indeed be of the same “substance” (as Gen 2:11 may indicate – though the talk of “substance” as such is problematic: see n. 23 above), but this common nature does not speak against the most obvious reading of the text. That is, on the one side, a human spirit is within the human being (πνεῦµα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὸ ἐν αὐτῷ; cf. 5:4; 14:14; 16:18; Rom 1:9) that knows what is truly human, and on the other side, only πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ comprehends what is truly God’s. However, 1 Cor 2:11 does not help us to understand what happens to the πνεῦµα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου when a person “receives” the πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ. Paul does not provide us with a systematic answer to this question. Nonetheless, what he says in Rom 8:15–16 certainly contradicts the Stoic concept of toning up the soul through philosophy – developing its muscles, assisting its use of its own capabilities more effectively, etc. (Seneca, Ep. 15; cf. 6.1 where Seneca uses anima, not spiritus). Rom 8:15–16 does not depict the human spirit as being “topped up” or “increased” (rather: ἐλάβετε πνεῦµα υἱοθεσίας – v. 15). Although Heliso states that in verse 16 “the referent of τῷ πνεύµατι ἡµῶν should not be different from the referent of αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦµα”, one wonders why Paul uses these two different expressions (which are not equated with ἐστιν, as κύριος and πνεῦµα in 2 Cor 3:17) when he says αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦµα συµµαρτυρεῖ τῷ πνεύµατι ἡµῶν ὅτι ἐσµὲν τέκνα θεοῦ (Rom 8:16; cf. v. 26). It is clear from the preceding verses that αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦµα refers to πνεῦµα θεοῦ / πνεῦµα υἱοθεσίας (vv. 14–15). However, if τῷ πνεύµατι ἡµῶν would refer to the same (divine) Spirit too, the meaning of “testifying with/to” of συµµαρτυρέω is lost. This becomes even more problematic if Deut 19:15 was in the background of Paul’s use of συµµαρτυρέω: “Only on the evidence of two or three witnesses [δύο / τριῶν µαρτύρων] shall a charge be sustained.” The distinction between human and divine S/spirit conveyed in these two verses should certain-

194

Volker Rabens

ment of the all-pervading world-pneuma, which can also be referred to as “divine” (e.g., Cicero, Nat. d. 2.19). Paul, however, uses a different concept when he speaks about “the Spirit of his son” who is sent by God into the hearts of the believers (Gal 4:6). As the presence of God and presence of Christ, the Spirit bears personal traits and is “received”.27 There is, then, no evidence in Paul that he would share the same interest in the ontology of the Spirit as the Stoics did. We do not find any of the kind of discussions about the nature of πνεῦµα as we do in Stoicism.28 Moreover, even in Stoicism, the concept of transformation through the infusion with πνεῦµα is not readily available in the form in which it is presupposed by the proponents of the infusion-transformation approach regarding Paul and his context. Despite some claims to the contrary, one hardly finds a Stoic text in which the ethical effect of πνεῦµα is explicitly treated.29 As there is a lack of more explicit data, we can agree with Büchsel, Keener, and Annas that for the Stoics, the physical concept of πνεῦµα did not play a central role in their ethics but in their physics.30 The Stoics thus had a materialis-

ly not be overdrawn, but it should preserve us from speaking about the identity of the two, or even a “fusion” – a view championed 140 years ago by Pfleiderer (PFLEIDERER, Paulinism, 213–216 [n. 22]). 27 This is not to say that Paul had a fully developed concept of the Spirit as a “person”; cf. Excursus 2 below. 28 My study is in agreement with the fundamental point of the volume Paul Beyond the Judaism/Hellenism Divide, edited by Troels Engberg-Pedersen (2001). With regard to our topic, this means that it is an oversimplification to try to connect Paul to either a “Hellenistic-materialistic” or to a “Jewish-immaterialistic” pneumatology. However, it is likewise a false dichotomy when one forces a division between either a Stoic or a Platonic reading of πνεῦµα in Paul, as Engberg-Pedersen appears to do (ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Cosmology, 16–19 [n. 21]). Engberg-Pedersen does not reckon with a third option, which is that Paul did not follow the agendas of either of these philosophical schools. Paul does not inquire into the (im/material) nature of πνεῦµα. The closest Paul comes to this interest in ontology is when, upon the question of the Corinthians, he discusses the nature of the resurrection body (1 Cor 15:35–54). However, it is the resurrection body that is in focus, not the nature of πνεῦµα. It is therefore misleading to make this the starting point not only of one’s conception of Pauline pneumatology but also of Paul’s theology in general (pace ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Cosmology, 14 [n. 21]). 29 The closest one can get, seems to be the description of Stoic physics by Diogenes Laertius in which he mentions in passing that the Stoics “consider that the passions are caused by the variations of the vital breath” (αἰτίας δὲ τῶν παθῶν ἀπολείποθσι τὰς περὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τροπάς, 7.158). 30 F. BÜCHSEL, Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament (Gütersloh, 1926), 47; C. S. KEENER, The Spirit in the Gospels and Acts: Divine Purity and Power (Peabody, 1997), 7; J. ANNAS, “Ethics in Stoic Philosophy,” Phronesis 52 (2007), 58–87, esp. 67. Nonetheless, it is of course not possible to divorce ethics from physics in Stoic philosophy. Cf. the discussions in M. BOERI, “Does Cosmic Nature Matter? Some Remarks on the

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

195

tic pneumatology, but not an ethic of substantive transformation with ethical results that is built upon it. After birth, a supplementary increase or “compression” of one’s individual πνεῦµα through external intervention by the divine (as the reception of the Spirit, cf. Gal 3:1–5; 1 Thess 1:4–6; etc.) is not intended in Stoic philosophy. Rather, cognitive transformation through philosophy and active reasoning played a central role in Stoic ethics.31 Careful exegesis of Paul’s epistles shows, then, that one cannot determine an explicit inclusion, transformation, or even densification of (nor a demarcation from) Stoic pneumatology in Paul’s writings.32 Excursus 1: The Alleged Infusion with the Spirit at Baptism The so-called “sacramental passages” in Paul (of which we will here focus on 1 Cor 12:13) are the locus classicus for establishing an infusion-transformation approach to Paul’s view of the Spirit’s work in the believers. Particularly with regard to baptism, the infusiontransformation view draws upon what has almost become the communis opinio of critical scholarship – namely, that Paul understands the Spirit to be imparted to believers by means of water-baptism.33 A number of scholars, like Strecker, believe that this connection of

Cosmological Aspects of Stoic Ethics,” in God and Cosmos in Stoicism (ed. R. Salles; Oxford, 2009), 173–200; RABENS, Spirit, 30–35 (n. 6). 31 See, e.g., Seneca, Ep. 6.1–2; 73.15–16; 110.1, 10; Marcus Aurelius 8.14 [LS 61P]. Cf. A. A. LONG and D. N. SEDLEY, The Hellenistic Philosophers. Vol. 1: Translation of the Principal Sources, with Philosophical Commentary (Cambridge, 2001), 346–54, 359–68, 381–86; M. FORSCHNER, Die Stoische Ethik. Über den Zusammenhang von Natur-, Sprach- und Moralphilosophie im altstoischen System (Stuttgart, 1981), 151; M. NUSSBAUM, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics (Princeton, 1994), esp. 316–401; C. HORN, Antike Lebenskunst. Glück und Moral von Sokrates bis zu den Neuplatonikern (BsR 1271; München, 1998), 11–60, 147–191; T. ENGBERGPEDERSEN, Paul and the Stoics (Edinburgh, 2000), 45–79; J. WARE, “Moral Progress and Divine Power in Seneca and Paul,” in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought (RMCS; ed. J.T. Fitzgerald; London, 2008), 267–83; L. T. JOHNSON, Among the Gentiles: Greco-Roman Religion and Christianity (AYBRL; Yale, 2009), 70–71. Philosophy’s ethical function is understood as that of toning up the soul – developing its muscles, assisting its use of its own capabilities more effectively (Seneca, Ep. 15; this is not a metaphor but a physical idea, as Nussbaum, Therapy, 317–18, points out). On Stoic physics of the mind, see further, LONG and SEDLEY, Philosophers. I, 313–23, 368, 385–86 (n. 31). 32 Cf. RABENS, Spirit, 25–120 (n. 6). 33 See, e.g., H.-J. Klauck: The Spirit “is infused by means of the pneuma-containing sacramental signs, through baptism and through the gifts of the Eucharist” (H.-J. KLAUCK, Herrenmahl und hellenistischer Kult. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief [NTA NS 15; Münster, 2nd ed., 1986], 334). See further 289; U. SCHNELLE, Gerechtigkeit und Christusgegenwart. Vorpaulinische und nachpaulinische Tauftheologie (GTA 24; Göttingen, 1983), 125–26, 133, 164; G. HAUFE, “Taufe und Heiliger Geist im Urchristentum,” ThLZ 101 (1976), 169, 419; M.-A. CHEVALLIER, Souffle de Dieu: Le Saint-Esprit dans le Nouveau Testament. Vol. 2: L’apôtre Paul etc. (Le Point Théologique 26; Paris, 1990), 381; A. J. M. WEDDERBURN, “Pauline Pneumatology and

196

Volker Rabens

Spirit and water “most likely derives from the fact that the Spirit enters into a substantial union with the water”.34 Berger explains that – due to the material concept of the Spirit that was predominant in antiquity and the Bible – the “problems of transmission [‘Transmissionsprobleme (Übergang, Vermittlung zwischen Geist und Körper)’], which were to become characteristic of western philosophy”, did not arise.35 On the basis of this line of thinking, Horn draws the following conclusion in relation to human transformation in Paul: “The holiness of the church is settled by the gift of the Spirit (1 Thess 4:8; 1 Cor 3:16; 6:19) because it is sacramentally transferred (1 Cor 6:11).”36 The verdict that the Spirit is transferred through baptism is opposed by a number of scholars,37 and various authors propose a more differentiated view of the matter.38 Moreover, it seems helpful to conceptualize the entry into the community of Christ-believers in Paul by utilizing Dunn’s widely accepted notion of “conversion-initiation”.39 Dunn argues that the event of becoming a Christian comprises both water-baptism and the more inward, subjective (even mystical) aspects, like repentance, forgiveness, union with Christ. I shall therefore use “initiation” to describe the ritual, external acts as distinct from these latter, and “conversion” when we are thinking of that inner transforPauline Theology,” in The Holy Spirit and Christian Origins: Essays in Honor of James D. G. Dunn (ed. G. Stanton, B. W. Longenecker, and S. C. Barton; Grand Rapids/Cambridge, 2004), 151; D. ZELLER, Der erste Brief an die Korinther (KEK 5; Göttingen, 2010), 397; ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, Cosmology, 69 (n. 21); U. SCHNELLE, “Taufe als Teilhabe an Christus,” in Paulus Handbuch (ed. F. W. Horn; Tübingen, 2013), 334–335. For a list of further scholars who hold this view, see J. D. G. DUNN, Baptism in the Holy Spirit: A Reexamination of the New Testament Teaching on the Gift of the Spirit in Relation to Pentecostalism Today (London, 2nd ed., 2010), 98, note 11), and, with specific reference to 1 Cor 12:13, A. R. CROSS, “Spirit- and Water-Baptism in 1 Corinthians 12.13,” in Dimensions of Baptism: Biblical and Theological Studies (JSNTSup 234; ed. S.E. Porter and A.R. Cross; London, 2002), 121, note 2. 34 G. STRECKER, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Bearbeitet, ergänzt und herausgegeben von Friedrich Wilhelm Horn) (Berlin/New York, 1996), 173, note 79. 35 K. BERGER, Theologiegeschichte des Urchristentums. Theologie des Urchristentums (UTBW; Tübingen/Basel, 2nd ed., 1995), 53. Cf. HORN, Angeld, 57 (n. 2). Levison even thinks that πνεῦµα is released through the penis during sexual intercourse (J. R. LEVISON, “The Spirit and the Temple in Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians,” in Paul and His Theology [PS 3; ed. S. E. Porter; Leiden, 2006], 206). 36 HORN, Angeld, 387, 298 (n. 2). 37 E.g. BÜCHSEL, Geist, 426–427 (n. 30); K. STALDER, Das Werk des Geistes in der Heiligung bei Paulus (Zürich, 1962), 79, 201–202, 447; M. BARTH, Die Taufe – Ein Sakrament? Ein exegetischer Beitrag zum Gespräch über die kirchliche Taufe (ZollikonZürich, 1951), passim; W. F. ORR and J. A. WALTHER, I Corinthians (AB 32; Garden City, 1976), 284; H.-C. MEIER, Mystik bei Paulus. Zur Phänomenologie religiöser Erfahrung im Neuen Testament (TANZ 26; Tübingen, 1998), 271; M. FATEHI, The Spirit’s Relation to the Risen Lord in Paul: An Examination of Its Christological Implications (WUNT II.128; Tübingen, 2000), 169. 38 E.g., J. D. G. DUNN, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Edinburgh, 1998), 450–455; see also Horn’s developmental model of the connection of baptism and Spirit-transferal (HORN, Angeld, 142–143 [n. 2]). 39 See CROSS, “Corinthians,” 126, note 18 (n. 33), for an extensive list of scholars who have adopted Dunn’s concept.

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

197

mation as distinct from, or rather without including, the ritual acts. The total event of becoming a Christian embraces both “conversion” and “initiation”, and so we shall call it “conversion-initiation.40 Paul does not offer separate treatments of conversion on one side and initiation on the other. Rather, as Hofius and others have argued, the Spirit is received in the process of (or as part and parcel of) conversion-initiation.41 Nevertheless, building on the presupposition that Paul teaches that the Spirit is received in baptism, Horn states that when Paul says “we were all made to drink of one Spirit” (1 Cor 12:13), he tries to suggest that the Spirit has become “the substance of the new being”. This means that “Paul … presupposes that the church is familiar with the fact that the Spirit is comparable to a substance or fluid which has been incorporated sacramentally into the believer; it has thus become the new substance of his existence.”42 Horn explains further that “with the sacramental transferal of the Spirit an ontic basis of the new being is given, from which conduct in harmony with the Spirit is to be expected”.43 Troy W. Martin has attempted to provide new grounds for these claims by studying ancient medicine. Martin writes that Paul’s association of the reception of the Spirit with water baptism in 1 Cor 12:13a implicates the pores of the moistened skin as the ports of the Spirit’s entry into the human body. The author of Nutriment writes that moisture is the vehicle of nutriment and without moisture the body cannot assimilate nutriment. Thus, water baptism is necessary for receiving the nutriment of Spirit.44 Martin thus attempts to explain 12:13a with parallels from ancient medical literature. He even believes to find support within the biblical tradition itself. He thinks that Mark’s account of Jesus’s baptism implicates the moistened pores as the entrance of the Spirit. Mark 1:10 narrates that as Jesus stepped out (ἀναβαίνων ἐκ) of the water, the Spirit stepped into (καταβαῖνον εἰς αὐτόν) him. Martin concludes: Since baptism does not involve drinking the holy water until later among the Gnostics and Mandaeans but rather involves immersing the body in water, the baptismal reception of the Spirit in 1 Cor 12:13a does not reflect an understanding of the Spirit’s entry through the digestive system or through the oro-nasal passages but rather through the pores of the moistened skin.45 The foundations on which Martin rests his case are shaky. For one thing, in Mark 1:10 the Spirit comes from above (like the voice from heaven), not “from below” out of the water

40

DUNN, Baptism, 7 (n. 33). O. HOFIUS, “Wort Gottes und Glaube bei Paulus,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum. Tübingen-Durham-Symposium im Gedenken an den 50. Todestag Adolf Schlatters (19. Mai 1938) (WUNT I.58; ed. M. Hengel and U. Heckel; Tübingen, 1991), 400–401; M. HAUGER, “Die Deutung der Auferweckung Jesu Christi bei Paulus,” in Die Wirklichkeit der Auferstehung (ed. H.-J. Eckstein and M. Welker; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2002), 54, esp. note 109; CROSS, “Corinthians,” 132 (n. 33). 42 HORN, Angeld, 175 (n. 2). 43 HORN, Angeld, 388 (n. 2). 44 T. W. MARTIN, “Paul’s Pneumatological Statements and Ancient Medical Texts,” in The New Testament and Early Christian Literature in Greco-Roman Context: Studies in Honor of David E. Aune (SNT 122; ed. J. Fotopoulos; Leiden, 2006), 116–117, referring to Hippocrates, Alim. 55.1. 45 MARTIN, “Statements,” 117 (n. 44). 41

198

Volker Rabens

that Jesus is leaving behind.46 More importantly, while Martin is right that the ancient medics understood πνεῦµα to be a physical element that is physically transferred, he has overlooked that all of these sources deal with πνεῦµα in the sense of air and thus need to be differentiated from texts concerned with the Spirit of God.47 The following quotation of Erasistratus, who is frequently cited by Martin, gives ample evidence that there are no parallels between Paul’s writings and those of the medics. Erasistratus maintains that “when an artery was severed, the pneuma it contained escaped unperceived and created a vacuum whose pull drew blood from the adjacent veins (paremptôsis) through fine capillaries (sunanastomôses) which were normally closed. This blood then spurted out of the artery after the escaping pneuma [VII.19 & 20].”48 Paul’s language and purpose differ considerably from this medical account. In 1 Cor 12:13, Paul is concerned with the basis of the Corinthians’ unity and not with the mode of the reception of the S/spirit and of spiritual nutriment. Martin has taken issue with Fatehi’s and my criticism of Horn’s position. He maintains that the ancient medical context of Paul’s Spirit-texts permits them to be interpreted either literally or metaphorically, for even if the statements were completely metaphorical, the ancient physiology of πνεῦµα would have provided the perceived reality from which the metaphors arose.49 However, Martin does not provide any evidence for his claim that Paul’s Spirit-metaphors developed from ancient medical discourses. Nor does he discuss any alternative frameworks, particularly those from the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish literature of the Second Temple Period which reveal significant linguistic and conceptual parallels to that of Paul’s pneumatology. 50 In the end, as the apostle does not discuss the (physical) nature of the Holy Spirit, Martin’s exegesis of Paul’s Spirit-texts is largely based on arguments from silence. In any case, it seems obvious that Martin has overstated his case because his claim that “water baptism is necessary for receiving the nutriment of Spirit” is contradicted both by the ancient medics and by himself. All of them knew other entry points of the Spirit apart from the pores of the skin. More generally, one wonders why the Spirit would first need to move into the water and then into the believer. In the case of baptism in the running waters of a river, this would mean that for Paul the river would need to be indwelled or fused with πνεῦµα so that πνεῦµα could be received by the person to be baptized. It thus seems that it is the proponents of the infusion-transformation approach who have created “problems of

46 Had there been anything physical involved in the reception of the Spirit, it would have been transferred via the dove and not via the water. However, it is important to note that the author explicitly says “like a dove”. Apart from that, in keeping with the image of the dove, εἰς is better rendered as “upon” (so all major translations, signaling empowering) than as “into” in Martin’s sense of “entry.” 47 Sometimes the anthropological spirit is in view; cf. n. 26 above. 48 Galen, Plac. Hipp. Plat. 6.6 (548–50K = CMG V.4,1,2 p. 396 De Lacy = Erasistratus Fr. 201 Garofalo), quoted according to J. LONGRIGG, Greek Medicine From the Heroic to the Hellenistic Age – A Source Book (London, 1998), 95. 49 MARTIN, “Statements,” 117, note 57 (n. 44), referring to V. RABENS, “The Development of Pauline Pneumatology: A Response to F. W. Horn,” BZ 43 (1999), 169– 172, and FATEHI, Relation, 168–169 (n. 37). 50 See RABENS, Spirit, 25–79, 146–170; on the interpretation of (Spirit-) metaphors, see my detailed discussion in Idem., pp. 43–54 (n. 6).

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

199

transmission”51 and not those who are skeptical that Paul had such a view of water and of the Spirit of God. Returning to the claims regarding 1 Cor 12:13 mentioned above, we finally want to ask two questions: First, does this passage convey that Paul reckoned with the infusion with the material Spirit at baptism (cf. 6:11)? Second, is there an infusion with the material Spirit at the Lord’s Supper (cf. 10:3–4)?. I have provided a detailed answer to these two questions elsewhere. Here I can only present a short summary.52 In responding to the first question (which focuses on 12:13a: “for by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body”), we have already engaged with T. Martin’s arguments for a physical πνεῦµαtransferal based on the insights from ancient medical texts. A detailed comparison of both texts (and genres) shows that Paul’s language and purpose differ considerably from medical accounts. In 12:13, Paul is concerned with the basis of the Corinthians’ unity, and he does not evidently presuppose a particular mode of the reception of the S/spirit and of spiritual nutriment. This leads to the conclusion that 1 Corinthians 12:13a does not lend support to the infusion-transformation approach to Paul’s ethics. The Spirit is not portrayed as Stoff that is transferred through the water of baptism in order to re-organize the interior of believers in such a way that holy living would be a natural result. Nor is it likely that the half-line has the Synoptic tradition of “baptism in the Spirit” in view (pace Barth, Dunn, Fee, et al.), although it is possible that Paul uses βαπτίζειν as a metaphor for being “plunged” (i.e., incorporated) into the one body by the one Spirit. More likely, however, Paul reminds the Corinthians of their common experience of (the facilitating activity [ἐν ἑνί πνεύµατι is instrumental] of) the one Spirit at their baptism. This conclusion also holds true for 1 Corinthians 6:11. Again, Paul refers the Corinthians back to their conversion-initiation, and the Spirit, though not the single focus of the verse, is portrayed as an instrument of sanctification (cf. Ezek 36:25–27). However, this connection provides no clues that Paul would in this way introduce the concept of infusion-transformation as an answer to the ethical problems of the Corinthian Christians. In order to answer the second question (which regards 12:13c: “we were all made to drink of one Spirit”), one needs to engage with the two interpretative options of this sentence as a reference to either the Lord’s Supper or baptism. I suggest that it is preferable to read πάντες εἰς ἓν σῶµα ἐβαπτίσθηµεν as a metaphor for the Corinthians’ reception of the Spirit, functioning as a pars pro toto reference to the Spirit’s activity in conversioninitiation. A metaphorical reading means that the giving of πνεῦµα (tenor) is spoken of in terms which are suggestive of the drinking of a fluid (vehicle), thus resulting in a new meaning.53 A literal interpretation of the locution, per contra, conveys that the Spirit itself is a fluid (or fuses with the wine in the Eucharist or the waters of baptism) and enters the person via the skin at baptism or via the mouth and digestive system at the Eucharist. However, 1 Corinthians 12 provides suggestive evidence for interpreting 12:13 as a reminder to the Corinthians of their common experience of the Spirit at conversion-initiation. Thus, in 13a πνεῦµα is the subject of divine action in that the Spirit is portrayed as the instrument of baptism into the body of Christ. In 13c πνεῦµα is the object of divine action in that the Spirit is granted to be taken in by the converts. However, we do not see any 51

BERGER, Theologiegeschichte, 53 (n. 35), as quoted above. RABENS, Spirit, 98–119 (n. 6). Cf. the summary article: V. RABENS, “Ethics and the Spirit in Paul (1): Religious-Ethical Empowerment through Infusion-Transformation?,” ExpTim 125 (2014), 209–219. 53 My argument works in the same way on the alternative rendering of ἐποτίσθηµεν against an agricultural background as “we were watered.” 52

200

Volker Rabens

evidence that the Spirit was assumed by Paul to be a (physical) substance that would be incorporated into believers through the baptismal waters or the Eucharistic drink in order to become the new substance of their existence.

From the perspective of the reception of Paul’s letters, however, we cannot (and need not) rule out that Paul’s Spirit-language, as for instance the image of being made to drink of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13c), evoked associations of Stoic pneumatology in Paul’s audience. Nonetheless, as we have seen, the philosophic language of Stoicism and of the ancient medics fundamentally differs from that of Paul. Furthermore, the proponents of the infusiontransformation view would need to provide evidence that Stoic pneumatology was part of the general education of the members of Paul’s churches (and not just of the educated elite), and that they would, over and above that, be able to fill the logical gaps between the role of πνεῦµα in Stoic physics and the infusion-transformation concept of religious-ethical empowerment. As this potential interpretative framework is the main grounds for arguing, from the perspective of Paul’s pneumatology, for an essential deification of the believer, we can conclude that this approach to the transforming work of the Spirit in Paul is at best speculative. In the next part, I will suggest that the activity of the Spirit in the context of deification in Paul is better understood from a relational perspective.

2. The Spirit’s Work in Paul as Relational Transformation (“Attributive Deification”) Thus far I have discussed what I have called the “infusion-transformation” approach to the work of the Spirit in Paul’s churches. According to this view, the Spirit brings about religious-ethical life predominantly by means of the ontologically transforming effect of its physical nature. It can be understood as essential-transformational deification as the Spirit is the divine material in which believers come to share and by which they are constituted. In the relational approach to the transforming work of the Spirit to which we turn now, however, I suggest that the Spirit effects religious-ethical life predominantly by means of intimate relationships created by the Spirit with God (Αββα), Jesus, and fellow believers. My central thesis is that it is primarily through deeper knowledge of, and an intimate relationship with, God, Jesus Christ, and with the community of faith that people are transformed and empowered by the Spirit for religious-ethical life. While I have developed this model on the basis of the exegesis of a number of key Pauline texts of which some shall be discussed in the present section, it is worth noting that modern psychological research is nevertheless in agreement with the results of my investiga-

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

201

tion.54 Moreover, this new model is firmly rooted within Pauline theology. For one thing, relationships are central in the writings of Paul and in the tradition on which he draws. Moreover, Paul’s epistles amply evidence that the apostle comprehended intimate and loving relationships to be empowering.55 The difference between infusion-transformation and my relational approach to the work of the Spirit in Paul can be illustrated with the following two diagrams: πνεῦµα sacramental transferral of πνεῦµαsubstance

σάρξ ethical life

believer

Diagram 1: The “infusion-transformation model”: “static” transformation Diagram 1 is a sketch of the infusion-transformation approach (essential deification). The (material) πνεῦµα is infused into the person – namely, into her interior or “inner being” (ψυχή/καρδία/νοῦς/πνεῦµα/ἔσω ἄνθρωπος, etc.), symbolized by the inner circle (the line is broken because the person is here 54 On the empowering nature of positive, intimate (human) relationships, see, e.g., R. A. HINDE, Towards Understanding Relationships (EMSP 18; London, 1979), 4, 14, 273, 326; J. BOWLBY, A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development (New York, 1988), 119–136; H. LAFOLLETTE, Personal Relationships: Love, Identity, and Morality (Oxford, 1996), 89–90, 197–99, 207–209; L. STECHER, Die Wirkung sozialer Beziehungen. Empirische Ergebnisse zur Bedeutung sozialen Kapitals für die Entwicklung von Kindern und Jugendlichen (München, 2001), 249–250; P. R. SHAVER and M. MIKULINCER, “Attachment Theory, Individual Psychodynamics, and Relationship Functioning,” in The Cambridge Handbook of Personal Relationships (ed. A.L. Vangelisti and D. Perlman; Cambridge, 2006), 251–271. 55 Cf. RABENS, Spirit, 133–138 (Paul), 146–170 (early Judaism); V. RABENS, “The Faithfulness of God and its Effects on Faithful Living: A Critical Analysis of Tom Wright’s Faithfulness to Paul’s Ethics,” in God and the Faithfulness of Paul: A Critical Examination of the Pauline Theology of N.T. Wright (WUNT II; ed. M. F. Bird, C. Heilig, and J. T. Hewitt; Tübingen, 2016), section 2, forthcoming.

202

Volker Rabens

conceptualized as a psychosomatic unity, symbolized by the outer circle, the somatic boundary). Ethical life is the outflow of this transformation (proving itself in the face of the opposing powers of σάρξ, etc.). The proponents of infusion-transformation are not very clear whether further change or empowering is to be expected after the person has been changed through the πνεῦµα-substance at baptism. The significance of further impartation of πνεῦµα-substance at the Eucharist is not explicitly spelled out. It therefore seems justified to call this model “static”. The relational model that I have suggested is a dynamic one, and hence more complex:

θεὸς πατήρ, Χριστός, fellow believers

dynamic Spirit-designed relationships

πνεῦµα

b

σάρξ

a

ethical life

believer ἐν πνεύµατι

Diagram 2: The “relational model”: dynamic transformation (a) and empowering (b) Diagram 2 depicts the believer as influenced by relationships. At the outset, this is marked by the transferal of the believer into the sphere of influence of the Spirit (ἐν πνεύµατι, indicated by the large hatched circle). The consequence is a different, more remote relation to σάρξ and a new relationship to πνεῦµα.56 The first part (‘a’) of the model covers the aspect of transformation. As we will see in more detail further below, in 2 Corinthians 3:18 Paul describes transformation as the result of the Spirit’s relational work. In 56

However, this view is not centered on a relationship to the Spirit as a person. See Excursus 2 below.

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

203

the diagram, this is symbolized by the big, round arrow ‘a’: the transforming power is drawn from the believer’s Spirit-created relationships to θεός (αββα ὁ πατήρ), Χριστός, and fellow believers. These intimate relationships are signified by the two converse arrows which are initiated by πνεῦµα. As 2 Corinthians 3:18 speaks about transformation, round arrow ‘a’ is targeted at the inner being of the believer. However, the force of Paul’s phrase µεταµορφούµεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν is taken into account, so that this (ontological)57 transformation and deification is comprehended as “gradual” or “dynamic”. The second big round arrow (‘b’) represents those passages in Paul (e.g., Rom 8:12–17; 1:11–12) that do not explicitly say that the Spirit’s relational work transforms believers but that imply empowering for religiousethical life. Round arrow ‘b’ is hence not aimed at the core of the person. However, the core of the person does not remain unaffected in the process of empowering because the change of the believer’s relationship to God, Christ, and fellow believers has transforming effects on the person (identity, etc.). This is indicated by the fact that the arrow that leads from πνεῦµα to God et alii takes its route through the core of the believer. The result of these intimate relationships is that the believer is strengthened and empowered. Excursus 2: The Nature of the Spirit in Pauline Literature: Person, (Immaterial) Substance, or What? The infusion-transformation approach to the transforming work of the Spirit in Paul builds on the concept of the Spirit as a material substance. I have indicated above (and demonstrated at length elsewhere) that this presupposition rests in many cases on a failure to recognize and interpret adequately (i.e., in line with the discourse topic, etc.) the figurative language used by the various early Jewish authors (including Paul).58 This methodological 57

There is hence no opposition between the infusion-transformation approach and my relational approach from the perspective of “ontology”. I build on Dunn’s insight regarding the effects of justification-sanctification according to Paul, that “the basic idea assumed by Paul was of a relationship in which God acts on behalf of his human partner, first in calling Israel into and then in sustaining Israel in its covenant with him … The covenant God counts the covenant partner as still in partnership, despite the latter’s continued failure. But the covenant partner could hardly fail to be transformed by a living relationship with the life-giving God” (DUNN, Theology, 344 [n. 38]). Applying this insight to the debated ontological frameworks of human transformation by the Spirit means to appreciate that the dominance of the (covenant) relationship of God with his people in Paul’s thinking rules out the “relational-as-opposed-to-ontological” approach to Paul’s theology and anthropology that is evidenced by Dockery and others (D. S. DOCKERY, “New Nature and Old Nature,” DPL, 628; followed by J. M. HOWARD, Paul, the Community, and Progressive Sanctification: An Exploration into Community-Based Transformation within Pauline Theology [SBL 90; New York, 2007], 81, [note 61]; cf. J. BUCHEGGER, Erneuerung des Menschen. Exegetische Studien zu Paulus [TANZ 40; Tübingen, 2003], 295). 58 See the detailed discussion in RABENS, Spirit, 23–120; on the identification and interpretation of metaphors, see esp. pp. VI, 43–54 (n. 6).

204

Volker Rabens

sophistication also needs to be applied to potentially metaphorical language that is regularly interpreted as conveying a “personal” notion of the Spirit. Already the Hebrew Bible evidences such a huge variety of examples of Spirit-language that, when interpreting them literally, it would be difficult to assign a particular concept of the Spirit to each different phrase. For example, what ontology of the Spirit would be implied by the assertion that the Spirit “clothed himself with Gideon” (Judg 6:34), and how would such an ontology line up with the Spirit being “on” (Num 11:25–26; Isa 32:15; Joel 2:28–29; etc.), “rushing on” (Judg 14:6; etc.), “with” (Exod 31:3; Dan 4:9; Mic 3:8; etc.) or “in” (Gen 6:3; Num 27:18; Dan 5:14; etc.) people? As both individual writers as well as the Old Testament in general freely vary the kinds of (mutually inconsistent) usage of Spirit-locutions, it seems that they do not consider them literal forms of language, particularly as they often appear in literary genres where non-literal language abounds (prayers, prophecies, psalms, etc.).59 Also Paul evidences a variety of divergent Spirit-locutions. In his contribution to this volume, John Fotopoulos has listed the majority of the verbs relating Spirit-activities that may suggest a concept of πνεῦµα as a “person”. He seems to be happy to see both the concept of the Holy Spirit as a material substance as well as that of a (Trinitarian60) person to co-exist in Paul (i.e., he does not discuss their correlation). An alternative approach has been chosen by Friedrich W. Horn, who assigns different developmental stages to these differing clusters of Spirit-locutions.61 However, Horn is faced with the question: On what grounds does Paul now attribute a particular new aspect to the Spirit if he had not done so 59 Cf. M. B. TURNER, “Spirit Endowment in Luke-Acts: Some Linguistic Considerations,” VoxEv 12 (1981), 56–58. G. B. CAIRD, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London, 1980), 190, notes that the juxtaposition of a number of different images in a text is a mark of the linguistic awareness writer that a is using metaphors. 60 On the relation of the Spirit in Paul to the concept of “trinity,” see FATEHI, Relation (n. 37); M. B. TURNER, “‘Trinitarian’ Pneumatology in the New Testament? – Towards an Explanation of the Worship of Jesus,” ATJ 57/58 (2002/2003), 167–186; J. FREY, “How did the Spirit become a Person?,” in The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (Ekstasis 5; ed. J. Frey and J. R. Levison; Berlin/New York, 2014), 343–371; W. HILL, Paul and the Trinity: Persons, Relations, and the Pauline Letters (Grand Rapids, 2015); C. TILLING, “Paul, the Trinity and Contemporary Trinitarian Debates,” PJBR 11 (2016), forthcoming. Tibbs and Williams seek to shift scholarly opinion on the nature of πνεῦµα into a different direction. They argue that πνεῦµα in Paul refers to a “spirit world” (C. TIBBS, Religious Experience of the Pneuma: Communication with the Spirit World in 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 [WUNT II.230; Tübingen, 2007]; C. TIBBS, “The Spirit (World) and the (Holy) Spirits among the Earliest Christians: 1 Corinthians 12 and 14 as a Test Case,” CBQ 70 [2008], 321–30; G. WILLIAMS, The Spirit World in the Letters of Paul the Apostle: A Critical Examination of the Role of Spiritual Beings in the Authentic Pauline Epistles [FRLANT 231; Göttingen, 2009]). However, πνεῦµα is in Paul regularly qualified as πνεῦµα Χριστοῦ, πνεῦµα Ἰησοῦ, τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ υἱοῦ (Rom 8:9, 11; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; etc.), τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ (e.g., Rom 15:19; 1 Cor 2:11; 6:11; 7:40; 12:3; Phil 3:3; cf. 1 Thess 4:8), ἓν πνεῦµα, τὸ … αὐτὸ πνεῦµα (e.g., 1 Cor 12:4, 8–9, 11, 13), etc. These unambiguous passages, which contradict a plural rendering of πνεῦµα as “spirit world,” suggest that Paul may also refer to this one Spirit when he uses πνεῦµα without qualification (unless he employs πνεῦµα with an anthropological reference, etc., as, e.g., in Rom 8:16) or as πνεῦµα ἅγιον (e.g., 1 Cor 12:3). 61 See the summary and critique in RABENS, “Development,” 161–179 (n. 49).

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

205

before? Why would Paul need the Corinthians to make him adopt a material concept of the Spirit that he should have been familiar with from his Jewish upbringing (since Horn thinks that texts like Sir 39:6; 1QHa 15.7; JosAs 8.9; 15.5; 16.14–16; 19.11; etc., convey a material concept of the Spirit)?62 The same question needs to be raised concerning Horn’s last stage of Pauline pneumatology. Why should it be only at the time of writing Romans that Paul would ascribe activities to the Spirit that, according to Horn, assume the Spirit to be a hypostasis? The way in which Paul describes some activities of the Spirit at the time of 1 Corinthians, however, might suggest that he was attributing personal traits to the Spirit already then (2:10–13; 3:16; 6:11; 12:11; cf. 2 Cor 3:6; Gal 4:6; 5:17–18, 22–23). Fee even believes that these references, together with Rom 8 (e.g., v. 27: “God knows the mind of the Spirit”), disclose the Spirit to be a person – and not an impersonal influence or substance (i.e., he understand these concepts to be mutually exclusive).63 While one may not want to go as far as Fee,64 one will nevertheless need to acknowledge the possibility that the Hebrew Bible imagery mentioned above – which might originally have been developed against the background of a concept of the Spirit as substance – had become a dead metaphor at Paul’s time, and a personal concept of the Spirit had come more to the foreground for Paul. In order not to commit the same mistake as Horn and build our view of Paul’s conception of the Spirit on his use of metaphors (or personifications), however, it would be wise to go no further than to say that Paul understands the Spirit as having personal traits.65 This view seems to suggest itself on the basis of the fact that the dominant cluster of metaphors tends to revolve around activities usually ascribed to persons. Moreover, the similarity of the nexus of activities that elsewhere is attributed to either the Father or the Son (cf. 1 Cor 12:6, 11; Rom 8:11; 2 Cor 3:6; Rom 8:26, 34) and yet the clear distinction of the three (1 Cor 2:10; 12:4–11; 2 Cor 13:13; Rom 8:27) explicitly locate the Spirit on the side of a “‘personal’ Jesus” and God. This may or may not exclude the possibility of the Spirit being a material substance (Horn sees both “hypostasis” and Stoff clearly in Rom 5:5).66 But at least it is evident that even from within Horn’s own methodology Paul’s development was not as drastic as Horn proposes because Paul would already have con-

62

HORN, Angeld, 40–48, 54–59 (n. 2). FEE, Presence, 830–831 (n. 2). Cf. H. BERTRAMS, Das Wesen des Geistes nach der Anschauung des Apostels Paulus. Eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung (NTA 4.4; Münster, 1913), 144–166; V. WARNACH, “Das Wirken des Pneuma in den Gläubigen nach Paulus,” in Pro Veritate. Ein theologischer Dialog. FS L. Jaeger and W. Stählin (ed. E. Schlink and H. Volk; Münster, 1963), 184–89; J. MALEPARAMPIL, The ‘Trinitarian’ Formulae in St. Paul: An Exegetical Investigation into the Meaning and Function of those Pauline Sayings which Compositely Make Mention of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit (EUS 23; Frankfurt, 1995). 64 See the methodological caution of E. SCHWEIZER, “A Very Helpful Challenge: Gordon Fee’s God’s Empowering Presence,” JPT 8 (1996), 7–21, 13–16. Cf. O. KUSS, Der Römerbrief. Vol. 2 (Röm 6,11 bis 8,19) (Regensburg, 2nd ed., 1963), 580–584. 65 Cf. A. J. M. WEDDERBURN, Baptism and Resurrection: Studies in Pauline Theology against its Graeco-Roman Background (WUNT I.44; Tübingen, 1987), 266–267; H.-D. WENDLAND, “Das Wirken des Heiligen Geistes in den Gläubigen nach Paulus,” in Pro Veritate. Ein theologischer Dialog. FS L. Jaeger and W. Stählin (ed. E. Schlink and H. Volk; Münster, 1963), 136–137. 66 HORN, Angeld, 60 (n. 2). However, Horn has unfortunately overlooked that Rom 5:5 speaks of love (and not of the Spirit) as being poured into the believers’ hearts. 63

206

Volker Rabens

ceived of the Spirit as a personal agent from the time of 1 Corinthians (or even 1 Thess [see 5:19]) onwards. A common reaction to a critical engagement with the notion of a physical πνεῦµα in Paul is the assumption that surely the critic must be arguing from the perspective that Paul comprehended the Spirit as immaterial substance.67 However, this is not what I suggest. Horn, per contra, in the context of his differentiation of what he thinks are various concepts of the Spirit in Paul, states that the Spirit is understood as an immaterial substance “when the Spirit takes up residence within the believer as ‘forma substantialis’ (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; Rom 8:9; 1 Thess 4:8)”.68 However, as Paul does not discuss or evidently presuppose a particular make-up of the Spirit, I maintain that it is best to refrain from such claims regarding the nature of πνεῦµα in Paul – whether material or immaterial. In respect to the somewhat elusive statements of indwelling, I suggest that for the apostle the Spirit was a new and dominant influence in a person’s life and that Paul seems to say that a new and intimate relationship to God/Christ/the Spirit has commenced through God/Christ/the Spirit’s (“ )living in(”) the believer. I have placed the inverted commas within brackets in this phrase because I want to indicate that a binary interpretation of the indwelling statements in the sense of either literal or metaphorical will not suffice. By adopting this strategy of interpretation, I apply Aaron’s gradient model of meaning as a continuum, according to which the indwelling statement could be designated with the term “ascriptive”.69 It is a “quasi-local” indwelling by the Spirit. I hence suggest that one can speak of Paul’s statements of mutual indwelling in Romans 8:9–10 as portraying the believer’s intimate union with the Spirit of Christ. The advantage of this formulation, which should not be confused with fusion, is its potential ambiguity that comes close to Paul’s usage of ἐν in the indwelling statements. The concept of intimate union allows for a more or less local indwelling (which would concur with the anthropologies of Paul’s time)70 as well as for an interpretation that draws on the concept of being “strongly influenced by” and “belonging to” the subject that is said to indwell the person. It has to remain uncertain whether the apostle ever understood God’s Spirit as an immaterial or material substance, but it is certain that for Paul the new reality and new self-understanding as people who are indwelled by God’s Spirit has a strong impact on religious-ethical living. We can conclude that a sensible way of conceptualizing the Holy Spirit in Paul is to speak of the Spirit as having “personal traits”. Due to the methodological complexities of establishing the nature of the Spirit in the Pauline corpus, this language is to be preferred to speaking of the Spirit explicitly as a person.71 Nevertheless, as I have indicated, it is methodologically unwise to build one’s model of the Spirit’s enabling of religious-ethical life in Paul on a particular concept of the ontology of the Spirit. The relational model of

67

Cf. the authors mentioned in RABENS, Spirit, VI, note 3 (n. 6). HORN, Angeld, 60, 429–430 (n. 2). See the detailed discussion in RABENS, Spirit, 82– 86 (n. 6). 69 D. H. AARON, Biblical Ambiguities: Metaphor, Semantics and Divine Imagery (BRLAJ 4; Leiden, 2001), 112. 70 Cf., e.g., MEIER, Mystik, 257–258 (n. 37). 71 Cf. K. BERGER, Ist Gott Person? Ein Weg zum Verstehen des christlichen Gottesbildes (Gütersloh, 2004), 86–87. 68

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

207

deification by the Spirit presented in this part of the paper is rather based on the actual effects that are attributed to the Spirit in Hellenism, Judaism, and in Paul.72

In the remainder of this paper we will look at one example of both the empowering (round arrow ‘b’) and the transforming work (‘a’) of the Spirit. We will start more briefly with the former and then devote more attention to the latter, since “transformation” is more obviously related to our investigation of the deifying work of the Spirit. The empowering work of the Spirit through a filial relationship with God comes most clearly to the fore in Romans 8:12–17. Verse 13 of this “high point of Paul’s theology of the Spirit”,73 relates the Spirit instrumentally to an implicit imperative of a protasis: “if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live”. A detailed analysis of the passage shows that it is the Spirit-shaped74 experience of being adopted by God as a loving Father that empowers the Roman Christians to put to death the works of the body. This becomes particularly clear when we look at how religious-ethical life is established in verses 12–14 and how this part is syntactically linked to the rest of the passage. The syntactical structure of 8:12–17 indicates that the Spirit-shaped relationship with God as Father (vv. 14–16) empowers the ethical action described in verse 13. Verse 14 is linked to verse 13 via γάρ, which suggests that verse 14 provides a foundation or further explanation of verse 13. The putting to death of the works of the body by the Spirit (v. 13b) is a matter of being led, directed, impelled, and controlled by the Spirit (v. 14). While this argumentative structure at first sight appears to allow for the interpretation that it merely functions to stress the believers’ duty to kill the works of the body because they are children of God,75 a closer look favors the relational approach put forward in this paper. For one thing, the verse that most explicitly links sonship and ethics (i.e., v. 14) explains that the religiousethical action (ἄγονται) that is the mark of sonship is bestowed upon believers by the Spirit (πνεύµατι θεοῦ ἄγονται). The fact that ἄγονται is in the passive voice indicates that it is primarily a gift rather than a duty. Further72

Saarinen calls such an approach “Wirkungsdenken” (as opposed to “Wesensdenken”) (R. SAARINEN, “Gottes Sein – Gottes Wirken. Die Grunddifferenz von Substanzdenken und Wirkungsdenken in der evangelischen Lutherdeutung,” in Luther und Theosis. Vergöttlichung als Thema der abendländischen Theologie [VLAR 15; SLAG 25; ed. S. Peura and A. Raunio; Erlangen/Helsinki, 1990], 118, note 52. Cf. B. J. HILBERATH, Pneumatologie (LTh 23; Düsseldorf, 1994), 78–79; A. K. GABRIEL, “Pauline Pneumatology and the Question of Trinitarian Presuppositions,” in Paul and His Theology (PS 3; ed. S. E. Porter; Leiden, 2006), 361. See also n. 28 above. 73 Thus DUNN, Theology, 423 (n. 38), on Rom 8. 74 “Spirit-shaped” is here used with the meaning “modelled by the Spirit,” not “modelled on the Spirit.” 75 Thus, e.g., T. J. BURKE, Adopted into God’s Family: Exploring a Pauline Metaphor (NSBT 22; Downers Grove, 2006), 147, 175.

208

Volker Rabens

more, the Spirit provides the empowering for the ethical action required in verse 13 by means of (γάρ) the Spirit-created intimate relationship to God expressed in verses 15–17. Moreover, this reading is also supported by the fact that Paul regularly associates the motif of human sonship of God with privileges (vv. 14–17, 29; Gal 4:5–7, etc.), not with duties.76 A comprehensive analysis of Romans 8:12–17 (and the parallel passages like Gal 4:1–7; Eph 3:16–19) thus leads to the conclusion that Paul clearly indicates how the Spirit empowers people to put to death the works of the body: Paul grounds his implicit request in 8:13 to put to death through the Spirit the “deeds of the body” (πνεύµατι τὰς πράξεις τοῦ σώµατος θανατοῦτε) in the experiential reality of the Spirit leading (8:14), freeing from fear, enabling to cry “Abba” (8:15), and bearing witness to one’s being a child of God. This line of reasoning is indicated through the employment of the causative conjunction “because” (γάρ) at the beginning of both verses 14 and 15. Paul can describe the Spirit in verse 13 as an instrument (πνεύµατι) for fighting temptations, because the indicatives of the Spirit’s relational work in the following verses enable (and require) such ethical behavior. Believers draw strength and motivation from the new identity, the intimacy, and the corporate dimension of the Spirit-shaped filial relationship with God, epitomized in the Spirit-inspired prayer, “Abba, dearest Father” (v. 15).77 76 It is significant to see how in verses 15–16 Paul continues the thought from verses 12–14. He explains to the Romans that they have not received the spirit of slavery and consequent fear but they have received the Spirit of “adoption as sons”. In a similar manner as slavery is contrasted with sonship, “fear” has a counterpart in the loving relationship (cf. 8:35, 37, 39) expressed in the cry “Abba, Father” that is the consequence of the presence of the Spirit. The “Spirit of adoption” thus brings about adoption as sons (“you received the Spirit of adoption”) and provides further affirmation (in the continuous ἐν ᾧ κράζοµεν αββα ὁ πατήρ [v. 15], and the Spirit’s “bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God” [v. 16]). “Adoption as sons” is therefore not only a metaphor relating to the beginning (and end) of Christian life, but it characterizes the very essence of Christian existence. This new identity as children of God, and the loving relationship to ἀββα ὁ πατήρ determines the self-understanding, being, and acting of the community of believers in Rome. 77 On the sanctifying work of the Spirit in Romans, see more fully RABENS, Spirit, 203– 237 (n. 6). Cf. K.-W. NIEBUHR, “Heiligkeit und Heiligung im Rahmen der paulinischen Theologie,” in Theologischer Dialog mit der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche. Die Apostoliziät der Kirche. 12. Begegnung im bilateralen theologischen Dialog zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (Goslar XII). Heiligkeit und Heiligung. 13. Begegnung im bilateralen theologischen Dialog zwischen der Rumänischen Orthodoxen Kirche und der Evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland (Goslar XIII) (ÖR.B 97; ed. M. Illert and M. Schindehütte; Leipzig, 2014), 164–182; V. RABENS, “‘By the Spirit You Put to Death the Works of the Body’ (Rom 8:13): Sanctification and the Work of the Spirit according to the Apostle Paul,” in The Holy Spirit: History, Theology, Practice (SPbCU Transaction 8; ed. V. Alikin; St. Petersburg, 2016), forthcoming in Russian.

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

209

Finally, we turn to the transforming work of the Spirit and return in more detail to the question of human deification by focusing on 2 Corinthians 3. We will start with a short summary paragraph on how the passage, particularly verse 18, can be read. (Due to limitations of space, this overview will pass over many of the exegetical riddles that interpreters of 2 Corinthians 3:18 and its context are faced with. I have tried to provide solutions to a number of these issues in a more detailed treatment elsewhere.78) We will then focus on teasing out some new insights from this text from the perspective of the two notions of “deification” presented in the introduction. In the context of this discussion, the concept of relational transformation will receive further differentiation in dialogue with the work of M. David Litwa, who argues in his 2012 monograph, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology, that Paul is speaking in 2 Corinthians 3:18 about the (essential)79 deification of believers by the Spirit. In 2 Corinthians 3, Paul compares his ministry with that of Moses and reaches the heights of his exposition (mainly of the Exod 33–34 narrative; cf. Num 12:5–8) in verse 18. Including all believers (ἡµεῖς … πάντες) as the recipients of the effects of the new covenant ministry, Paul proclaims, And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are being transformed into the same image from one glory to another; for this comes from the Lord, the Spirit.

In this climactic statement, Paul praises the relational work of the Spirit in human transformation. Through the cognitive and the immediacy-creating character of “unveiling”, the Spirit enables people to be transformed through “beholding the glory of the Lord as in a mirror”. This activity is best comprehended through the concept of “transformation through contemplation”, which entails both deeper knowledge of as well as a personal encounter with 78

RABENS, Spirit, 174–203 (n. 6); cf. RABENS, “Pneuma and the Beholding of God,” 312–329 (n. 6). 79 I have placed “essential” in parentheses because Litwa rejects the categorizations of Russell and Blackwell. He says that “it is clear that both Russell and Blackwell are thinking in terms of later patristic theology. But later patristic theology is not determinative for Paul” (LITWA, Being Transformed, 9, note 18 [n. 5]). Also, Blackwell does not suggest that this was a conscious differentiation made by the ancient authors (BLACKWELL, Christosis, 105 [n. 5]). We should hence resist the temptation to force the ancient evidence into one of these categories. Nonetheless, we may still compare these (patristic) categories with what we find in Paul, in the same way as Litwa does with other (though mainly earlier) sources. Litwa (Being Transformed, 291 [n. 5]) describes his method as “… essentially etic. Viewing Paul from the outside, I have pinpointed some analogies between his eschatological ideas and other (chiefly Graeco-Roman) ideas which involve deification. Based on similarities, I have then categorized an aspect of Paul’s soteriology (that involving the reception of immortal corporeality, cosmic rule, and Christic virtues) as a form of deification …. Paul … might resist my classification of aspects of his thought as a form of ‘deification.’”

210

Volker Rabens

the divine. On the basis of this Spirit-created intimate relationship to God in Christ, believers are transformed “into the same image”. What is the meaning and significance of Paul’s locution that through the Spirit-worked beholding of the glory of the Lord with an unveiled face, we are transformed into the same image (τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα µεταµορφούµεθα)? Understanding this phrase will be key to comprehending Paul’s idea of transformation and deification by the Spirit in 2 Corinthians 3:18. As most scholars agree, “the same image” here refers to Christ,80 as is suggested by the context: in 4:4 Paul designates Christ as the image of God (“… seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God [ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ]”; cf. 4:6; Col 1:15). Litwa concludes from this phrase that believers are “transformed into Christ” – that is, they are deified.81 In order to understand the import of this claim, we need to look at how Litwa defines deification. He argues: The basis of deification … is sharing in a or the divine identity – that is, sharing in those distinctive qualities which make (a) God (a) God. It is not enough, in other words, to define deification in terms of ‘likeness’ to God. For likeness is too vague in terms of content (how are two beings alike?) and degree (to what extent are two beings alike?). … For ‘like’ language to work, the likeness has to be defined with reference to specifically divine qualities. … The[se] qualities must be constitutive of the divine identity. … In this way, participation in divine qualities results in a participation in the divine identity. Likeness language, in contrast, tends to distinguish the identities of God and the deified. This is because likeness never means identity. Participation means more than likeness. … Participation language, … allows us to speak about sharing identity. … In short, then, deification is the participation in the divine identity of (a particular) God …82

Litwa’s definition of deification is helpful. By applying this defined concept of deification to 2 Corinthians 3:18, we are provided with a potential heuristic tool for gaining a new perspective on the nature of the transformation that Paul ascribes to the work of the Spirit in this passage. However, does the concept fit the evidence? In the light of 2 Corinthians 3:18, it seems unfortunate that Litwa so strongly differentiates his definition of deification from the language of likeness. Not only is “likeness” a more open term (as is “participation”) than the theologically charged and in his definition more specific term “deification”, but more significantly, “likeness” (to Christ) is a key concept that Paul tends to employ when he speaks about human transformation. For example, in Romans 8:29, Paul says that believers are “conformed to the image [or: likeness] of his Son” (συμμόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ

80

Thus, e.g., K. PRÜMM, Diakonia Pneumatos. Theologische Auslegung des zweiten Korintherbriefes. Vol. I (Freiburg, 1967), 192, et al. 81 LITWA, Being Transformed, 219–220 (n. 5). 82 LITWA, Being Transformed, 32 (n. 5). See further LITWA, Becoming Divine, 63, 68 (n. 21).

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

211

αὐτοῦ). As in 2 Corinthians 3:18, Paul here employs the term εἰκών, which is usually rendered as “likeness”, “image”, or “form” (BDAG, LSJ, etc.). However, in 2 Cor 3:18, εἰκών refers to Christ (without mentioning him explicitly83), whereas Rom 8:29 speaks about the εἰκών of Christ. The reason for this formulation in 2 Cor 3:18 may be simply linguistic (rather than “theological” in the sense of Paul employing a different concept of transformation in 2 Cor 3:18): having mentioned Christ once already as τὴν δόξαν κυρίου,84 it appears to be stylistically more natural to again use a circumlocution (rather than the name Ἰησοῦς Χριστός) in a second mentioning (i.e., τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα). Applying his more typical formulation of being transformed τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ (Rom 8:29; cf. Col 3:10: κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος) to 3:18 would have meant an awkward doubling of εἰκών (being transformed “into the image of the same image”).

In Paul, “likeness” does not appear to be differentiated from “participation” as strongly as Litwa suggests (“participation means more than likeness”85). Litwa seems to overdraw his differentiation when he says that only participation involves ontological change, whereas becoming like someone else does not.86 It is hard to imagine how in 2 Corinthians 3:18, becoming like Christ would not involve ontological change, particularly as Paul says that we are transformed (µεταµορφούµεθα) into the image (of God), that is, Christ. When we look at Paul, it seems rather that participation is, inter alia, a means to greater likeness. As believers participate “in Christ”, they are in the realm of Christ’s influence and become more like Christ. In one of his most crucial passages on the participation in Christ of believers – that is, Romans 6 – Paul draws out two major consequences of participation: 1) As believers participate in Christ’s death, they have died to sin and can walk in newness of life 83 Litwa nonetheless prefers speaking about transformation into Christ. He rightly observes that Christians are not “being transformed into a lesser image than the true image” (Being Transformed, 219, note 58 [n. 5]). In an earlier publication, Litwa explains that there will remain a difference between Christ and believers since Christ is the head of his body whereas believers are the members (1 Cor 11:7). The “church’s divinity, for Paul, is not an ontological state – let alone a mystical one – but consists (at least in this life) in a mode of being that is manifested in concrete ethical acts” (M. D. LITWA, “2 Corinthians 3:18 and Its Implications for Theosis,” JTI 2 [2008], 125). Likewise, with regard to 2 Cor 3:18, he says that “even though the image of Christ and believers become ‘the same,’ still Christ’s image remains superior to the image of believers as its exemplar. The eschatological image is always an Abbild of the Christological Vorbild, and thereby always inferior” (LITWA, “2 Corinthians 3:18,” 129). 84 Thrall notes with regard to δόξα κυρίου in 3:18 that “since for Paul δόξα and εἰκών are similar concepts, and in 4:4 the εἰκών of God is Christ, we should expect that τὴν δόξαν here likewise refers to Christ, who is thus the glory of the Lord as he is the image of God” (THRALL, Corinthians, Vol. 1, 283). 85 LITWA, Being Transformed, 32 (n. 5). 86 LITWA, Being Transformed, 9 (n. 5): in the case of likeness, two fundamentally dissimilar beings merely have secondary similarities.

212

Volker Rabens

(Rom 6:2–11). The result thus seems to be ethical transformation in the broader sense.87 It is a likeness to Christ’s character. 2) Participating in Christ not only means sharing in his death but also in his resurrection. However, this aspect of life is mainly in the future: “we will certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his” (τῆς ἀναστάσεως ἐσόµεθα, 6:5; 6:8: πιστεύοµεν ὅτι καὶ συζήσοµεν αὐτω). Participation in Christ can hence at best be described as a gradual deification (cf. 2 Cor 3:18: µεταµορφούµεθα ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν). Litwa’s central argument for conceptualizing the transformation described in 2 Corinthians 3:18 as deification is his assertion that it is impossible to separate Christ’s humanity from his divinity. If believers are transformed into Christ, they are transformed both into his humanity and his divinity.88 This conclusion should be appreciated because Paul does not provide any evidence for distinguishing the human from the resurrected Christ in this passage.89 However, neither do Paul’s lines provide evidence that the divine aspect of Christ is his focus when he says ἡµεῖς δὲ πάντες … τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα µεταµορφούµεθα – although this is the emphasis of Litwa’s discussion (which presupposes an early high Christology).90 Remarkably, Paul does not use Litwa’s terminology of “transformation into Christ” but of “transformation into the same image”. In order to understand the meaning of this cryptic formulation, one needs to look at the way in which Paul uses εἰκών elsewhere. This shows that Paul tends to employ εἰκών in order to indicate the likeness of two entities, not their total qualitative identity.91 For example, in 87

Cf. Phil 2:1–2; Col 1:28; Eph 2:10. 2 Cor 5:17 leaves the details of the transformation/newness open: γέγονεν καινά. 88 LITWA, “2 Corinthians 3:18,” 121 (n. 83). See the recent overview and discussion of scholars who emphasize either the human or the divine “aspect” of Christ in Paul, in N. A. MEYER, Adam’s Dust and Adam’s Glory: Rethinking Anthropogony and Theology in the Hodayot and the Letters of Paul (Paper 8292; DigitalCommons@McMaster, 2013), 164– 71. 89 Cf. BLACKWELL, Christosis, 194–195 (n. 5); C. TILLING, Paul’s Divine Christology (WUNT II.323; Tübingen, 2012), 119–123; J. M. F. HEATH, Paul’s Visual Piety: The Metamorphosis of the Beholder (Oxford, 2013), 222. 90 Paul only focuses on the divine aspect of Christ in the first reference to Christ as δόξα κυρίου (3:18b). Cf. LITWA, “2 Corinthians 3:18,” 119 (n. 83). 91 Regarding “identity” in this context, cf. Aristotle’s distinction between numerical and qualitative identity in Top. 103a.8–10; Metaph. 1016b.32–33; and the analysis in E. TUGENDHAT and U. WOLF, Logisch-semantische Propädeutik (Stuttgart, 1983), 168–69: “Wenn a und b der Zahl nach ein einziges Ding sind, wenn sie, wie Aristoteles es erläutert, ein und dieselbe materielle Einheit sind, so haben wir es mit der Identität im engeren Sinn zu tun, die man als numerische Identität bezeichnet. In einem schwächeren Sinn kann man auch dann sagen, daß a dasselbe ist wie b (bzw. … besser ‘das gleiche’…), wenn a und b zwei verschiedene Gegenstände sind, die in einer bestimmten Eigenschaft (oder mehreren) gleich sind. Dieses Verhältnis zwischen a und b bezeichnet man als qualitative Identität.”

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

213

Romans 1:23, Paul speaks about people exchanging “the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds”. The images are not the human beings or birds themselves, but they resemble these, as Paul explicitly says (ἐν ὁµοιώµατι εἰκόνος). And in 1 Corinthians 11:7, Paul calls the man “the image and reflection of God (εἰκὼν καὶ δόξα θεοῦ)”. Again, εἰκών indicates likeness but not qualitative identity.92 This conclusion can be easily applied to 2 Corinthians 3:18: believers are changed into the same image (likeness), that is Christ (δόξα θεοῦ, 3:18; εἰκών τοῦ θεοῦ, 4:4), but they are not changed “into God”, becoming qualitatively identical with God. Another piece of the puzzle of Paul’s notion of “transformation into the same image” falls into place when we look at how he continues in chapter 4. There he elucidates the significance of having Christ manifested in the apostles’ bodies. Bearing Christ, the image of God (4:4), and the glory of God (3:18, which is seen in the face of Jesus Christ: 4:6), is spelled out as bearing both his death and his life (4:10) which can be understood as resembling the human and the resurrected Christ.93 Belivers, hence, are not transformed into some abstract divine image. Rather, since the “exalted Christ … remains forever the crucified one, their ongoing metamorphosis into the image of God, or the image of the Son (2 Cor 3:18), is a participation in his cruciform narrative identity and the transformation into his cruciform image”.94 Deification in Paul thus has a physical aspect – carrying around the death and life of Jesus in one’s body (4:10) – though this is not to say that religious-ethical change is based on physical transformation in the sense of an infusiontransformation.95 However, the type of physical deification that Litwa as-

92

For further occurrences of εἰκών in Paul, see Rom 1:23; 8:29; 1 Cor 11:7; 15:49; 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15; 3:10. Outside Paul, see Gen 1:26; Philo, Leg. 1.43; et al. Wis 7:26 is of particular interest in this context, for Wisdom is both “a spotless mirror of the working of God” (thus providing an intertext of Paul’s mirror-metaphor, κατοπτριζόµενοι) and “an image of his goodness” (εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ). The latter attributes a clearly ethical character to the notion of εἰκών, which seems to be in the background of Paul’s employment of the term here. 93 “Life” designates the resurrection power which brought Jesus back to life; cf. 4:7, 12, 14. 94 GORMAN, Inhabiting the Cruciform God, 92 (n. 5). Cf. BLACKWELL, Christosis, 193, 195 (n. 5); WRIGHT, Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 1023; MEYER, Adam’s Dust, 169 (n. 88). 95 Thus, however, T. ENGBERG-PEDERSEN, “Complete and Incomplete Transformation in Paul – A Philosophic Reading of Paul on Body and Spirit,” in Metamorphoses: Resurrection, Body and Transformative Practices in Early Christianity (Ekstasis 1; ed. T.K. Seim and J. Økland; Berlin/New York, 2009), 137: “It is … rather likely, that the idea in 2 Cor 3:18 is that the transformation of ‘us’ that is being operated by the pneuma is a transformation of ‘our’ bodies as wholes from being infused with a certain amount of

214

Volker Rabens

sumes to take place in the present is what Paul projects into the future (4:14; 1 Cor 15:44, 49 [again using the idea of being transformed into the image of Christ]; Rom 8:11).96 The physical aspect of the inhabitation of Christ in the present is rather an embodiment of the narrative identity of Christ as one of death and life. Significantly, the “outer” (physical) nature (ὁ ἔξω ἡµῶν ἄνθρωπος) is wasting away while the inner nature (ὁ ἔσω ἡµῶν) is being renewed day by day (4:16).97 As indicated above, we can bring still further clarity into the discussion of the notion of transformation “into the same image”, by studying how Paul uses this idea elsewhere. One of the clearest parallels to 2 Corinthians 3:18, though not from the undisputed Pauline epistles, is Colossians 3:10.98 The concept of “being transformed”, or as Colossians puts it, of “being renewed in knowledge99 after the image of its [i.e., that of the νέον ἄνθρωπον] creator [ἀνακαινούµενον εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν κατ᾽ εἰκόνα τοῦ κτίσαντος αὐτόν]” is here overtly related to ethics. This is indicated by the fact that the renewal after God’s image is closely intertwined with “putting on the new self”, which is brought into ethical focus in the preceding verses (the practices of the old self are lying, etc.; see esp. 3:9).100 As Dunn puts it, pneuma – and the glory that corresponds with that – into a more extensive infusion with more pneuma and more glory.” 96 See, e.g., LITWA, Being Transformed, 119–171, 220–221 (n. 5). 97 Were we to follow Steenburg, we could argue that if Paul had wanted to emphasize the physical aspect of the transformation, he could have used µορφή rather than the less specific εἰκών (D. STEENBURG, “The Case against the Synonymity of Morphē and Eikōn,” JSNT 34 [1988], 85: “morphē theou expresses a more visual element, such that it is used to convey the visible/physical appearance/representation of God, in contrast to the less specific eikōn theou”). However, as George van Kooten rightly observes, the two terms can also be used interchangeably, e.g., in Sib. Or. 3.8 (G. H. VAN KOOTEN, Paul’s Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity [WUNT I.232; Tübingen, 2008], 89). 98 It seems justified to refer to an epistle that is part of the Pauline tradition but not necessarily written by Paul himself as long as one does not rest an argument on its evidence alone. The disputed Paulines should not be wholly disregarded when the attempt is made to describe the theology of the apostle whose name they bear (cf. DUNN, Theology, 13 [n. 38]). 99 As in 2 Cor 3:18, knowledge is a relational concept in Col 3:10 as it concerns God (cf. Col 1:10; see also the instrumental role of the mind in Rom 12:2). 100 Back seems to think that Col 3:10–11 is not important for the discussion of 2 Cor 3:18 because the former speaks about transformation into the image of God whereas the latter is about transformation into the image of the Lord – i.e., Christ (F. BACK, Verwandlung durch Offenbarung bei Paulus. Eine religionsgeschichtlich-exegetische Untersuchung zu 2 Kor 2,14–4,6 [WUNT II.153; Tübingen, 2002], 150). However, she does not unfold in what way this difference is significant to the discussion. In any case, Dunn highlights that the concept of renewal into the divine image in Col 3:10 “merges into Adam christology, where Christ as the divine image … is the middle term between the

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

215

the thought is equivalent to ‘putting on Christ’ in Rom 13:14, as Col 3:3–4 also implies. At its simplest, this means that the manner of Christ’s living, as attested in the Jesus tradition, provided the pattern for this new self life (2:6–7).101

Such an interlocking of being “created according to the likeness of God”, putting on the new self, and paraenesis can also be observed in the parallel text, Ephesians 4:24. Here the transformation is described as happening in the ethical qualities of righteousness and holiness.102 The undisputed Pauline epistles likewise provide strong evidence that transformation into the image of the divine predominantly refers to the ethical characteristics of conforming to Christ (cf. the concept of imitating Christ in 1 Thess 1:6; Phil 2:5; 1 Cor 11:1; etc.103). In Romans 8:29, Paul says that believers are “predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son [προώρισεν συµµόρφους τῆς εἰκόνος τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ]”.104 This passage is particularly interesting because it draws together the thought of Romans 8:12–17 and of 2 Corinthians 3:18: to experience the Spirit’s working is not only to experience sonship but also to become more like the Son and to take creator and his first creation and his re-creation (cf. Rom 8:29; 1 Cor 15:49; 2 Cor 3:18; 4:4; cf. Ign. Eph. 20:1 …). In this way Paul and Timothy in true Pauline style manage to hold together creation and salvation in the thought of Christ as both the creative power of God (1:15) and as the archetype for both creation and redeemed, renewed humanity” (J. D. G. DUNN, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text [NIGTC; Carlisle/Grand Rapids, 1996], 222). 101 DUNN, Colossians, 221 (n. 100). Cf. G. KITTEL, “εἰκών,” TDNT 2: 397; M. M. THOMPSON, A Commentary on Colossians and Philemon (THNTC; Grand Rapids, 2005), 78. On the ethical aspect, see esp. M. B. THOMPSON, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12.1–15.13 (JSNTSup 53; Sheffield, 1991), 149–160; J. H. KIM, The Significance of Clothing Imagery in the Pauline Corpus (JSNTSup 268; London, 2004), 174–175. 102 On the similarities and differences between Col 3:9–11 and Eph 4:22–24, see BUCHEGGER, Erneuerung, 233–34 (n. 57). Righteousness and holiness are specified as characteristics of God in LXX Ps 144:17 and Deut 32:4. Cf. KIM, Clothing Imagery, 187– 191 (n. 101). 103 The difference between the texts in which Paul calls for imitatio Christi and 2 Cor. 3:18 is that in the former Paul uses explicit imperatives, asking the church to conform to Christ, whereas in 3:18 the agency of the transformation is explicitly attributed to the Spirit. On the relation of divine and human agency in Paul, see RABENS, “Indicative and Imperative,” 285–305 (n. 1). 104 Lambrecht notes that Paul uses the concept of transformation in 3:18 (and Rom 12:2), whereas he uses that of conformation in Rom 8:29 and Phil 3:10, 21. Both terms refer to the same reality. Nonetheless, Lambrecht concludes that “a deeper unity, i.e., identity (be it without consequent loss of distinct being), is indicated more by transformation than by conformation” (J. LAMBRECHT, “Transformation in 2 Cor 3,18,” Bib 64 [1983], 253–254, 251). See the detailed analysis of the semantic overlap of the verbs central to the parallel passages discussed in the present section, in BUCHEGGER, Erneuerung, 156–162 (n. 57).

216

Volker Rabens

on increasingly the family likeness. The ethical significance of becoming more like the Son in Romans 8:29 is more specifically drawn out by Cranfield. He explains that the believers’ final glorification is their full conformity to the εἰκών of Christ glorified; but it is probable … that Paul is here thinking not only of their final glorification but also of their growing conformity to Christ here and now in suffering and in obedience – that is, that συµµόρφους, κ.τ.λ. is meant to embrace sanctification as well as final glory, the former being thought of as a progressive conformity to Christ, who is the εἰκών of God, and so as a progressive renewal of the believer into that likeness of God which is God’s original purpose for man (cf. Col. 3.9f).105

This idea of religious-ethical transformation is also expressed in Galatians 4:19, where Paul is concerned that “Christ is formed” in the Galatians (µορφωθῇ Χριστὸς ἐν ὑµῖν). In the situation of the Galatians’ developing enmity towards Paul through turning away from him (and from the truth, 4:16) and returning into bondage to the beggarly elemental spirits (4:9) and the law (4:21), Paul is in pain that Christ within them will shape the character of the community to such an extent that they will be able to “share in the fullness and freedom of life … (2:20) which Christ himself had enjoyed”.106 Our analysis of the way in which Paul uses the idea of being transformed into the image of the divine in Galatians 4:19 and elsewhere in his letters thus supports the same interpretation that is also suggested by the immediate literary context of 2 Corinthians 3:18:107 transformation τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα focuses on the religious-ethical dimension of taking on the character of Christ.108 This conclusion agrees with Litwa’s general point, that – based on the parallel with Romans 12:1–2 (µεταµορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοός) – 2 Corinthians 3:18 speaks about moral (and physical) assimilation to God.109 We will summarize the results of section 2 in the context of the conclusion to this paper, to which we now turn.

105

C. E. B. CRANFIELD, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 1: Introduction and Commentary on Romans I–VIII (ICC; Edinburgh, 1975), 432. Cf. KITTEL, “εἰκών,” 396–397 (n. 101). 106 J. D. G. DUNN, The Epistle to the Galatians (BNTC; London, 1993), 241. Cf. B. W. LONGENECKER, The Triumph of Abraham’s God: The Transformation of Identity in Galatians (Edinburgh, 1998), 72, 158; J. L. MARTYN, Galatians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 33A; New York, 1997), 429–30. Cf. the ethical notion of “having the mind of Christ” in 1 Cor 2:16, which is linked to discernment in 2:15. See further Rom 15:5 (κατὰ Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν). 107 On the ethical aspects in 2 Cor 4, see above; on those in 2 Cor 3, see further RABENS, Spirit, 198–199 (n. 6). 108 Pace BACK, Verwandlung, 151–55 (n. 100). 109 LITWA, Being Transformed, 220–221 (n. 5). Cf. RABENS, Spirit, 201–202 (n. 6).

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

217

3. Conclusion In this paper we have looked at the transforming work of the Spirit in Paul’s churches as it is presented in the letters of the apostle Paul. In particular, I have raised the question whether it is appropriate and illuminating to use the concept of deification when trying to fathom Paul’s notion of human transformation by the Spirit. I am not aware of any “Eastern” (nor, for that matter, any “Western”) study that has addressed Pauline pneumatology from this particular perspective. For this reason, it is not easy to (self-) assess whether the results of this investigation have a distinctly “Western” stance. I assume that Eastern (as well as many Western) scholars will probably not share my hesitation, expressed in the two excursus, to wholeheartedly support the positions that Paul explicitly said that the Spirit is imparted by means of (the water of) baptism and that Paul had a (fully developed) concept of the Spirit as a (Trinitarian) person. I rather prefer to speak more broadly about the Spirit being received and being active in the process of conversion-initiation, and about the Spirit having “personal traits” in Paul’s presentation. However, these two issues are not essential to the answer that I have given to our central question. My answer has been positive: yes, it is appropriate and illuminating to approach the transforming work of the Spirit in Paul from the perspective of deification. I hope that the arguments that I have submitted in support for this thesis function as an invitation for further dialogue between Eastern and Western students of Paul from all corners of the world. Deification or theosis, which can be generally understood as Spirit-enabled transformative participation in the life and character of God revealed in the crucified and resurrected Messiah Jesus, is a process of ontological change. For heuristic reasons, we have followed the two subcategories provided by Blackwell – namely, those of essential and of attributive deification. In the first part of this paper, we have looked at one potential avenue of essential deification, which I have called infusion-transformation. According to this view, the individual is transformed (and deified) on the basis of a physical infusion with material πνεῦµα-Stoff. I have argued that Paul’s epistles do not provide any conclusive evidence to support this approach to the work of the Spirit. In the second part, I have proposed a relational model of theosis by the Spirit, which maintains that it is primarily through deeper knowledge of, and an intimate relationship with, God, Jesus Christ, and with the community of faith that people are transformed and empowered by the Spirit for religiousethical life.110

110 For a “Western” (Protestant) systematic-theological perspective developed on the basis of this thesis, see M. SAUCY, “How Does the Holy Spirit Change Us? – A Review Essay,” JBPR 4 (2012), 109–122.

218

Volker Rabens

The results of the discussion in part 2 can be summarized by five points: 1) Human deification by the Spirit can be understood as a process that encompasses both empowering (thus our exegesis of Rom 8) and transformation (thus our exegesis of 2 Cor 3–4). When discussing theosis in Paul, both aspects need to be taken into account (together with other aspects like the narrative identification with and corporate participation in Christ).111 We have given here more weight to the latter because Paul’s explicit language of transformation in 2 Corinthians 3:18 relates more obviously to that of theosis. 2) The “mechanics” of deification in 2 Corinthians 3:18 support the relational model of the transforming work of the Spirit put forward at the outset of part 2: the Spirit creates relational immediacy (or intimacy) with the divine by “unveiling” the faces of believers, enabling them to behold the “glory of the Lord”. This process is well captured by the ancient concept of “transformation through contemplation”. 3) The language that Paul uses in the context of transformation is that of “likeness” or “image” (εἰκών). This terminology is more open than Litwa’s specific definition of deification as participating in the divine identity. Although the latter designation may also work as an explanation of τὴν αὐτὴν εἰκόνα µεταµορφούµεθα, the more ambiguous language of likeness should not be rejected. 4) Transformation “into the same image” should not be reduced to transformation into the divine Christ. Rather, bearing Christ in one’s body is spelled out in 2 Corinthians 4:10 as bearing both his death and his life (i.e., his human and his resurrected identity). We can thus speak of participation in this context, but it needs to be spelled out as participation in Christ’s cruciform and anastiform narrative identity112 and transformation into his image as expounded in chapters 4–5. Further physical transformation is reserved for the future. It is not the basis of moral transformation in 3:18. 5) Pauline usage elsewhere of the motif of transformation into “the same image” or the image of Christ supports the observations made on the basis of 2 Corinthians 3–4; namely, that Paul’s primary focus in 3:18 rests on the religious-ethical dimensions of taking on the character of Christ. Paul does not use the language of deification. Nonetheless, it is illuminating to apply this concept to Paul’s letters as an etic category. We have seen that the category of attributive deification fits the evidence of the Pauline corpus better than that of essential deification. The “concept” of Spiritworked transformation into the image of Christ that we have encountered in 2 Corinthians 3:18 (and similar passages) appears to focus on the aspect of moral transformation. While Paul’s language is open and does not exclude other aspects, one would need to show more clearly that further shades of “divinity” are appealed to in 2 Corinthians 3:18 and other Spirit-passages in Paul. However, as divine characteristics like omnipotence and immortality do 111 112

See the works cited in n. 5 for a more comprehensive picture. Cf. n. 114 below.

The Holy Spirit and Deification in Paul

219

not seem to be implied in these texts, it is precarious to comprehend human deification by the Spirit in Paul in the sense of (total) qualitative identity with God or in the sense of essential deification. It seems more appropriate to speak of deification in the sense of an attributive or partial qualitative identity: believers become more like God as they are transformed by the Spirit in God’s intimate presence in the context of the body of Christ (cf. 1 Cor 12– 14). Assimilation to God (ὁµοίωσις θεῷ) is in 2 Corinthians 3:18 and elsewhere in Paul specified as assimilation to Christ. For this reason, the designation Christosis (“Christification”) seems to be particularly fitting.113 Christosis means assimilation to Christ’s narrative identity with the characteristic elements of the past, present, and future of Christ’s story, which is reflected in the very life and existence of the church. As Blackwell points out, based upon a close divine-human encounter, Paul’s soteriology consists, in the present, of a moral enablement and noetic enlightenment in a somatic context of suffering (2 Cor 3.13– 4.18; Rom 7.4–6; 8.1–13). … The consummation of this soteriology will occur in the future through a bodily resurrection (Rom 8.9–30; 2 Cor 3.6, 18; 4.16–5.5, 21; Col 3.4; 1 Cor 15.12–58; Phil 3.10, 20–21). During both temporal stages, believers are empowered by the Spirit to grow into conformity with the death and life of Christ.114

The aspect of (moral) transformation into Christ’s character, which features in both Romans 8 and 2 Corinthians 3:18, is hence embedded in a broader, eschatological process which affects believers holistically. Second Corinthians 3:18 focuses on the transforming work of the Spirit in the present. However, as it portrays deification as a gradual transformation, indicated by the present tense µεταµορφούµεθα and by the phrase ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν,115 the future element of transformation is implied even in this text (cf. 4:17–18; 113

Cf. BLACKWELL, Christosis, 264–267 (n. 5). BLACKWELL, Christosis, 242–43 (n. 5). Cf. Blackwell’s chart of the various aspects of assimilation to Christ in Paul (p. 242), which displays the characteristic structure of the “now and not yet” of Paul’s eschatology (on which, see more fully, e.g., V. RABENS, “‘Schon jetzt’ und ‘noch mehr’. Gegenwart und Zukunft des Heils bei Paulus und in seinen Gemeinden,” JBTh 28 [2013], 103–128). This aspect of “time” is often ignored in Litwa’s delineation of deification in Paul (cf. V. RABENS, “Review of David M. Litwa, We Are Being Transformed: Deification in Paul’s Soteriology,” ThLZ 138 [2013], 446–48); however, it is also recognized by FINLAN, “Theosis,” 73 (n. 5), who singles out three potential stages of deification according to Paul: 1) dying to sin, 2) reflecting righteousness and light, and 3) receiving a glorious body. Gorman, Inhabiting the Cruciform God, 6–7 (n. 5), rephrases these as (1) dying to sin, (2) moral transformation, and (3) eschatological transformation. 115 With regard to the interpretation of “from glory to glory,” Gorman explains that “the primary meaning is the transition from a present, paradoxical, cruciform glory to a future, eschatological, fully anastiform (resurrection-shaped) glory. The process of becoming more Christlike and Godlike is a process of glorification, and it is glorification with both present and future aspects” (GORMAN, “Missional Theosis,” 190 [n. 5]). 114

220

Volker Rabens

Rom 8:17). This final aspect of deification is again the result of the transforming work of the Spirit (see 1 Cor 15:44–45; Rom 8:11).116

116

For the work of the Spirit in animating and enlivening the resurrection body, see RABENS, Spirit, 86–96 (n. 6).

The Holy Spirit and the New Testament in St. Symeon of Thessalonica (†1429) Demetrios Bathrellos

1. Introduction Symeon of Thessalonica is one of the most significant theologians of late Byzantium.1 He died in 1429, only six months before the Turks captured Thessalonica, whose population he shepherded for a number of years as its bishop. Symeon was a prolific writer. His works are mainly doctrinal, liturgical, and historical.2 His doctrinal works, especially his Dialogue in Christ against all Heresies, are important mainly because they give a summary of the Orthodox doctrine just as the Byzantine world was taking its final and agonizing gasps. Symeon’s times were very challenging on two accounts. The first was the enemy from the East. The Turks were constantly threatening what was left of the once glorious Roman Empire and eventually managed to capture its capital, Constantinople, only 24 years after Symeon’s death. But there was also the “enemy” from the West. This was no other than the Latin Church, which, according to Symeon, had fallen into heresy and now threatened to pollute with its heretical teachings and false liturgical and moral practices the Eastern Church, too. That Symeon’s fears were not wholly unjustified is shown by the fact that ten years after his death, the Greek bishops at the unionist Coun-

1

For more on Symeon, see D. BATHRELLOS Orthodox Dogmatics at the End of Byzantium: The Case of St. Symeon of Thessalonica (Athens, 2008). What follows in this article depends largely on this book. 2 Most of Symeon’s works are to be found in PG 155. We now have critical editions of some additional works of Symeon in two volumes edited by David Balfour: PoliticoHistorical Works of Symeon Archbishop of Thessalonica (1416/7 to 1429) (Vienna, 1979) and Theological Works of Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica (1416/7–1429) (Thessalonica, 1981). We also have an edition of some additional liturgical works: J. M. Fountoulis, ed., Symeon, Archbishop of Thessalonica, Liturgical Works, I, Prayers and Hymns (Thessalonica, 1968).

222

Demetrios Bathrellos

cil of Ferrara – Florence would subscribe to the Latin doctrines, although the decisions of the council were to be rejected in the East shortly thereafter.3 This is the historical context within which Symeon wrote his works. It comes, therefore, as no surprise that his treatment of the Holy Spirit had mainly to do with his defense of the Orthodox faith and his polemics against the Latin Church. There were several points of contention between the two Churches.4 Three of the most important among them have to do with the Holy Spirit. First, the Filioque. The Eastern Church believes to this day that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This was once the unanimous, official teaching of the Church, at least insofar as this was enshrined in the so-called Nicaean-Constantinopolitan Creed, put forward by the Second Ecumenical Council (381). Centuries later, the Latin Church unilaterally inserted the clause “and from the Son” (Filioque) into the Creed, indicating that the Filioque is a doctrine that every Christian had to accept. In the Eastern Church, the unilateral insertion of this doctrine into the Creed caused a huge theological and ecclesiological scandal.5 The second point of disagreement between the Greek and the Latin Church had to do with the distinction between divine essence and divine energies. This teaching, latent in the patristic tradition, was expounded by St. Gregory Palamas, the fourteenth century predecessor of Symeon at the see of Thessalonica.6 Based on earlier patristic tradition, Gregory argued that the divine essence is unknowable, incommunicable, and invisible. This, however, does not cut human beings off from God, because the divine energies are knowable, communicable, and visible. The divine energies are uncreated. Therefore, 3 The classic work on this council, written from a Roman Catholic perspective, is J. GILL, S.J., The Council of Florence (Cambridge, 1959). For a more recent and balanced work, see G. Alberigo, ed., Christian Unity: The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438/39 – 1989) (Leuven, 1991). For the reception of the council, see GILL, The Council of Florence, 349–388. For its reception in Byzantium, see also M.-H. BLANCHET, “L’ Église byzantine à la suite de l’ union de Florence (1439–1445): De la contestation à la scission,” ByF 29 (2007), 79–123. For its reception in Russia, see I. ŠEVČENKO, “Intellectual Repercussions of the Council of Florence,” ChH 24 (1955), 306–312; M. CHERNIAVSKY, “The Reception of the Council of Florence in Moscow,” ChH 24 (1955), 347–359; J. MEYENDORFF, “Was There an Encounter between East and West at Florence?” in Christian Unity: The Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438/39 – 1989) (ed. G. Alberigo; Leuven, 1991), 169–174. 4 For a detailed presentation and analysis of Byzantine lists of Latin errors, see T. M. KOLBABA, The Byzantine Lists: Errors of the Latins (Urbana and Chicago, 2000). 5 In Symeon’s days, the Filioque was considered by far the most significant doctrinal issue that separated East and West. For a recent, comprehensive historical treatment of the Filioque, see A. E. SIECIENSKI, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford, 2010). 6 For a succinct treatment of Gregory Palamas’s theology, see R. E. SINKEWICZ, “Gregory Palamas,” in La théologie byzantine et sa tradition, II (eds. C. G. Conticello and V. Conticello; Turnhout, 2002), 130–188.

The Holy Spirit in St. Symeon of Thessalonica

223

by participating in God’s energies one is participating in God himself. With this theology, Gregory intended to safeguard both the transcendence of God and his communion with human beings. Divine grace is an energy of God and is uncreated. Its bestowal upon human beings brings about their deification, which is the aim of the Christian life. The Latin Church, and its sympathizers in the East, were charged with the denial of this distinction. This denial was understood to mean that either divine essence is accessible to human beings, which is pantheistic, or that it is not, which cuts humanity off from God. If we do away with this distinction, divine grace will have to be created, which would also preclude humanity’s participation in the life of God. Since the Holy Spirit is so closely related to the distribution of sanctifying grace to Christians, Symeon frequently refers to the Spirit in connection with the palamite disctinction between divine essence and divine energies, which by his time had become a more or less standard doctrine of the Eastern Church. The third point of disagreement between the Latins and the Greeks concerned the role of the Holy Spirit in the Liturgy. The Latin Mass contained no epiclesis – that is, no invocation of the Spirit for the transformation (µεταβολή) of the bread and the wine into the body and the blood of Christ. According to scholastic theology, this transformation (transubstantiatio) was made possible thanks to the priest’s recitation of Christ’s words of institution (“take, eat, this is my body” and “drink of this all of you; this is my blood”), to the exclusion of a pneumatological invocation.7 Orthodox theologians have seen this, in conjunction with the Filioque, as one more instance of the devaluation of the Spirit, which is coupled with a one-sided emphasis on the Son.8 Symeon supports the doctrines and practices of his Church with abundant evidence from the New Testament. What I intend to do in the remainder of this article is to present and briefly comment on the quotations that he uses in order to support his theology of the Holy Spirit. This will reveal how the New Testament shapes his Pneumatology and, vice versa, how his Pneumatology shapes the way in which he approaches and interprets the New Testament.

7 Cf. Matt 26:26–28. For more on this, see R. F. TAFT, “Ecumenical Scholarship and the Catholic-Orthodox Epiclesis Dispute,” in OS 45, (Würzburg, 1996), 201–226, reprinted in R. F. TAFT, Divine Liturgies – Human Problems in Byzantium, Armenia, Syria and Palestine (Aldershot, 2001). 8 See, for instance, B. BOBRINSKOY, “Le Saint-Esprit dans la Liturgie,” StLi 1 (1962), 48. W. RORDORF, “La liturgie et le problème du ‘Filioque’,” in Le Christ dans la liturgie (Conférences Saint-Serge 1980; eds. A. M. Triacca and A. Pistoia; Rome, 1981), 203–215.

224

Demetrios Bathrellos

2. The Filioque Symeon refers to the Filioque repeatedly and extensively, considering it a significant doctrinal aberration. He sticks to what the original form of the Creed reads with regard to the Holy Spirit: “and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver or life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke through the Prophets”. For Symeon, the name of the “Holy Spirit” is derived from Scripture.9 The word “Lord” is applied to the Spirit in accordance with Paul’s statement, “now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom”.10 The Spirit is the giver of life, as is mentioned in John: “it is the Spirit who gives life”.11 For Symeon, the life-giving power of the Spirit is also shown in Genesis: “God […] breathed into his face a breath (πνοήν) of life, and the man became a living being.”12 The Spirit, moreover, spoke through the Prophets, in whom his presence is obvious, albeit in a nebulous manner.13 Likewise, Symeon points out that the key phrase of the Creed, “who proceeds from the Father”, is taken verbatim from the New Testament: “the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father”.14 Symeon insists on the biblical foundations of the Orthodox faith. In fact, one of his works consists of biblical quotations that aim to prove that all the statements of the Creed are based on Scripture – and especially on the New Testament.15 Furthermore, in this context, Symeon will emphasize the role of the Holy Spirit in revelation. The Spirit enables a human being to receive the revelation of God. Therefore, the truth about the Spirit is accessible only through the Spirit itself. This is so, “for the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God” and “no one comprehends the depths of God except the Spirit of God”.16 Symeon’s conclusive admonition to his Latin literary interlocutor will be not to attempt to go beyond what God himself has revealed through the Holy Spirit. As Paul put it, “these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit”, and therefore, we should move no further.17 If we wished to re9

Psalm 51:11 and Matt 28:19. 2 Cor 3:17. For all biblical quotations, I have used the English Standard Version, unless otherwise noted. 11 John 6:63. 12 Exposition of the Sacred Creed, PG 155:784B–C and Genesis 2:7. Translation taken from A. Pietersma and B. G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford, 2000), 7. 13 Exposition of the Sacred Creed, PG 155:793C–D. In this work, Symeon refers to further instances of the Spirit’s action in the Old Testament. 14 John 15:26; Dialogue in Christ against all Heresies, 25 (PG 155:128A–B). 15 See his Another Exposition of the Creed, PG 155:804A–817C. 16 1 Cor 2:10, 11. 17 1 Cor 2:10; Dialogue, 25 (PG 155:129B–D). 10

The Holy Spirit in St. Symeon of Thessalonica

225

construct Symeon’s argument, we would say that God has revealed to us the truth through the Holy Spirit. This truth is written down by the Apostles in the New Testament. We should stick to what God has given us in his revelation. No one should attempt to go beyond this. The Latins, by adding the Filioque clause to the Creed, have done precisely this – namely, they have added something of their own invention to what God himself has revealed. This has led to the distortion of the teaching of the Bible and the Church about the Holy Spirit. Symeon, however, is aware of some biblically-grounded arguments in favor of the Filioque and tries to counter them. For instance, he argues that the expressions “the Spirit of truth”18 (where, for Symeon, truth stands for Christ),19 “the Spirit of God”20, “the Spirit of the Father”21, “the Spirit of Christ”22, “the Spirit of the Son”23 have nothing to do with the Filioque; they only indicate that the Son and the Spirit have the same essence, will, origin, energy, and power.24 Moreover, Symeon interprets Christ’s promise, “whom I will send to you from the Father”25, on the basis of the traditional distinction between theology and economy. In his opinion, this phrase refers to the economical sending of the Spirit, which has nothing to do with his eternal procession.26 Moreover, Symeon interprets Christ’s phrases, “he will take what is mine and declare it to you”27 and “receive the Holy Spirit”28, in a way that is in accordance with Eastern doctrine. For Symeon, the former quotation simply refers to the fact that revelation has taken place through the Spirit, as is also confirmed by 1 Cor 2:10 (“these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit”) and Psalm 51:6 (“the unclear and secret parts of your wisdom you have made clear to me”)29 and 11 (“take not your Holy Spirit from me”).30 As for John 20:22, Symeon explains that the Holy Spirit did not come into existence when Christ gave it to his disciples but pre-existed along with the Father and the Son. Therefore, the phrase “receive the Holy Spirit” merely indicates

18

John 15:26. On this, see John 15:26. 20 Rom 8:9, 14; 1 Cor 7:40; 12:3; etc.; cf. 1 Cor 2:11; 1 John 4:2; etc. 21 Matt 10:20. 22 Rom 8:9. 23 Gal 4:6. 24 Dialogue, 25 (PG 155:129D). See also Exposition of the Sacred Creed, PG 155:788D–789A. 25 John 15:26. 26 Exposition of the Sacred Creed, PG 155:789D–793A. 27 John 16:14. 28 John 20:22. 29 Translation taken from Pietersma and Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint, 572 (n.12). 30 Dialogue, 25 (PG 155:132A–B). 19

226

Demetrios Bathrellos

Christ’s bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the apostles, without this implying that he brings it forth eternally.31 Furthermore, for Symeon, what Christ gives to the Apostles is merely a gift of the Holy Spirit, but not the Holy Spirit itself; namely, it is not its hypostasis or nature.32 The verse that follows (“if you forgive the sins of anyone, they are forgiven”) indicates that Christ refers here to the gift of forgiving sins.33 In order to strengthen his point that what the Apostles received was not the hypostasis or the nature of the Spirit but merely a gift34, Symeon quotes, somewhat inaccurately, some of Paul’s references to the gifts of the Holy Spirit: “God has appointed in the Church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers … and various kinds of tongues …. Do all work miracles?”35 Further down, Symeon quotes one more passage from Paul: to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit … to another the ability to distinguish between spirits … to another the interpretation of tongues. All these are empowered36 by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.37

To say, however, that Christ gave to his disciples not the hypostasis or the nature of the Holy Spirit but only a gift, presupposes the palamite distinction between divine essence and divine energies, and it is to this that we will now turn.38

3. The Essence – Energies Distinction and the Holy Spirit St. Symeon points out that neither the Father nor the Spirit, but only the Son, became incarnate. However, Christ bore in his human nature all the energies of the Father and the Spirit, for the divine energies are shared by all the persons of the Trinity. Given that Christ’s humanity bears the energies and the gifts of the Spirit, we are able, through it, to participate in the Spirit’s grace. 31 Symeon is unwilling to move too quickly from the economic Trinity to the immanent Trinity. 32 For more on this, see the following section. 33 Dialogue, 25 (PG 155:132B). See also Exposition of the Sacred Creed, PG 155:789C and 793A. 34 Exposition of the Sacred Creed, 155:792D. For more on the meaning of “gift” for Symeon, see the last paragraph of this section. 35 1 Cor 12:28–30. 36 Paul uses here the word “ἐνεργεῖ”, which has the same root as the word “ἐνέργεια” (=energy), which brings to mind the palamite distinction between the essence and the energies of God. The energies of God are relevant to God’s gifts. 37 1 Cor 12:8, 10–11; Exposition of the Sacred Creed, PG 155:792D–793A. 38 For more on this distinction, see also Exposition of the Sacred Creed, PG 155:789A– C.

The Holy Spirit in St. Symeon of Thessalonica

227

This, however, does not mean that we may participate in the Spirit’s nature, for, according to Symeon, no one is able to participate in the nature of God.39 No one is capable of participating in the hypostasis of the Spirit, either. The only exception with regard to participating in a divine hypostasis is the humanity of Christ. But this is due to the mystery of the incarnation, which involves, strictly speaking, the human nature of Christ alone. Therefore, in the case of the bestowal of the Holy Spirit on the apostles, there is no sharing in the Spirit’s hypostasis (for this would entail a kind of incarnation of the Spirit), but only a distribution of the Spirit’s gifts.40 So, what we have received is grace, as the Gospel according to John says: “And from his fullness we have all received and grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.”41 Symeon points out that the Spirit was given to the Church at Pentecost, as Joel had foretold.42 The Church is built up by the Spirit. As Paul put it, “in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit”.43 This concerns two aspects of the Church. First, the confession of the true faith,44 for according to Paul’s famous statement, “no one can say that ‘Jesus is Lord’ except in the Holy Spirit”.45 The second aspect of the life of the Church for which the presence of the Spirit is crucial, is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which is, in some sense, constitutive of, and identical to, the Church. But this leads us to the following section.

4. The Holy Spirit and the Eucharist Before we examine the way in which Symeon understands the relation of the Spirit to the Eucharist, we have first to describe briefly how he conceives the relation of the Spirit to Christ. The Son of God became a human being through the Holy Spirit. Moreover, Jesus became “Christ” by being anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism. Symeon refers to Isa 61:1, quoted in Luke 4:18: “the Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me”.46 A little later he refers to Jesus’s baptism as “ordination” by the Father through the Spirit.47

39

Dialogue, 25 (PG 155:132C–133A). Dialogue, 25, (PG 155:133A–B). 41 John 1:16–17; Dialogue, 25 (PG 155:133B). 42 Joel 3:1–5; see also Acts 2:17–21. 43 Eph 2:22. 44 Dialogue, 25, (PG 155:133D). 45 1 Cor 12:3; Dialogue, 25 (PG 155:136A). 46 On the Sacraments, 42 (PG 155:185C–D). 47 On the Sacraments, 45 (PG 155:189D). 40

228

Demetrios Bathrellos

Symeon moves on to argue that the aforementioned relationship between Christ and the Spirit that is described in the New Testament is also reflected in the sacraments. Thus, he understands baptism not only Christologically but also Pneumatologically, since it brings about humanity’s regeneration by the Holy Spirit. For this reason, when referring to baptism, Symeon quotes Christ’s statement that “unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God”.48 Conversely, he understands chrismation not only Pneumatologically, but also Christologically, and this is why he calls it “a seal of Christ”.49 The close relationship between Christ and the Spirit is also manifest in the Eucharist. The scholastic interpretation of the Latin Mass had a strong, onesided Christological bent and assumed that the sanctification of the gifts was accomplished exclusively through the words of institution recited by the priest.50 Symeon underlined the importance of the words of institution, but he additionally emphasized the indispensable role of the Holy Spirit for the efficacy of the Sacrament. For Symeon, as the Spirit took active part in Jesus’s incarnation and ministry, likewise it takes part, alongside Christ, in the celebration of the Eucharist. He who acts in the Eucharist is “Christ in the Holy Spirit”.51 But let us see some of his arguments, and how they relate to the New Testament. Symeon argued that by ignoring the crucial role of the Spirit for the transformation of the gifts, the Latins in fact deny its power. However, they should remember, he adds, that priesthood itself depends on the Spirit. The grace of the Spirit ordained the Apostles on the day of the Pentecost. Their successors, priests and bishops, share the same priestly grace. Without this grace, the recitation of the words of Christ cannot bring about the sanctification of the gifts. By lacking this Pentecostal-priestly grace, lay people are unable to effect the sanctification of the gifts, even if they repeatedly recite the words of institution.52 Moreover, Symeon refers to Matthew 26:29. The fact that

48

John 3:5. Exposition of the Sacred Creed, 155:797d. On the Sacraments, 34–35 (PG 155:177B–C). On the above, see also Ibid., 61–70 (PG 155:212B–237B). Symeon characterizes chrismation also as the “seal of th Spirit” and as the “seal of Christ in the Spirit” (Ibid. 188A and C). For more on this, see Exposition of the Sacred Creed, 796D–800A; BATHRELLOS, Orthodox Dogmatics at the End of Byzantium, 158–159 (n. 1); J. GETCHA, “Christology and Pneumatology in Symeon of Thessalonica’s Commentary on Baptism,” StPatr 48 (2010), 253–258. 50 For more on the relevant debate and its significance, see TAFT, “Ecumenical Scholarship and the Catholic-Orthodox Epiclesis Dispute,” passim. 51 Exposition of the Divine Temple, 88 (PG 155:737C). 52 In this context, Symeon relates Pentecost to the sacrament of ordination, which is relevant to the clergy, and not to the sacrament of Chrismation, which confers the grace of the Holy Spirit to all baptized Christians. For Symeon, chrismation is different from ordination 49

The Holy Spirit in St. Symeon of Thessalonica

229

Christ at the last supper “gave thanks” is, for him, somehow equivalent to the epiclesis of the Eastern Liturgy.53 For Symeon, the presence of the Spirit is apparent, as already mentioned, also in other sacraments, for instance in baptism, which is also implied in Christ’s command: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”54 This Trinitarian context, within which Christ and the Spirit cooperate for the celebration of the sacraments and of the Eucharist in particular, forms an essential aspect of Symeon’s theology.55

5. Conclusions From this brief examination of the ways in which Symeon presents his Pneumatology and supports it by references to the Scriptures, we may come to the following conclusions. First, for Symeon, both Pneumatology and its biblical foundations matter. His references to the Spirit, and to the New Testament’s testimonies to it, are abundant. Symeon not only quotes numerous New Testament passages that refer to the Spirit, but he is also able to grasp some aspects of New Testament Pneumatology, such as the relationship and interdependence between the Spirit and the Son, to which the New Testament bears ample witness. Second, Symeon insists that we should not move beyond the testimony of the Scriptures precisely because they were inspired by the Spirit, of which, therefore, they speak in a reliable way. Symeon emphatically rejects any attempt to move beyond the New Testament and invent new theologies of the Holy Spirit or, even worse, to contradict the testimony of the New Testament, as is plainly the case with the Filioque, which, for Symeon, runs counter to John 15:26. Third, the observations above do not mean that the New Testament references to the Spirit are always straightforward and in no need of interpretation. As we have seen, Symeon argues that various references to the Spirit must be understood in different ways, and he explains which interpretation we should give to this or to that New Testament passage.

(On the Sacraments, PG 155:229D–232A). For more on this, see BATHRELLOS, Orthodox Dogmatics at the End of Byzantium, 237–238 (n. 1). 53 However, Symeon emphasizes that Christ did not have to pray to God, as we do in the Liturgy, for he was God. 54 Matt 28:19. For the above, see Exposition of the Divine Temple, 88 (PG 155:733B– 740B). 55 For Symeon’s emphasis on the Spirit in contradistinction to Cavasilas, see BATHRELLOS, Orthodox Dogmatics at the End of Byzantium, 167–169 (n. 1).

230

Demetrios Bathrellos

But what are the principles of Symeon’s interpretation? For Symeon, the New Testament references to the Spirit are to be interpreted within the context of the liturgy, the theology, and, in general, the life of the Church, which in turn are dependent on these testimonies. There seems to be a hermeneutical circle here. The Church follows the teaching of the New Testament, which, however, is understood on the basis of the life, the liturgy, and the doctrine of the Church. Symeon does not approach the New Testament as a disinterested scholar. He is a pastor of the Church and feels responsible for defending its faith and feeding his spiritual children. For him, the New Testament is a living book, which stands at the centre of the life of the Church, outside of which it would make very little and very bad sense. His Church’s life and theology, however, were at that time preoccupied with, and shaped by, theological polemics. This inevitably conditioned Symeon’s approach – and not always in a positive way. In his writings, there are many certainties and very few questions. In turning to the New Testament, Symeon often finds what he is looking for. He is looking for scriptural justifications of his Church’s pneumatological doctrine and practice, and this is exactly what he finds. There is little room for a Pneumatology that is not restricted to the specific questions raised by the theological polemics of his time. So, even if Symeon’s pneumatological beliefs are on the right doctrinal track – as I believe they are – the New Testament in his writings is often reduced to theological weaponry, from which he draws arguments in order to attack his Latin opponents’ heretical doctrines. We will be able to understand, and sympathize with, Symeon if we take into consideration both the desperate conditions of his times and the fact that he was not an aggressor but rather a guardian of his Church’s faith against various kinds of assaults. We may even wish to praise him for trying to hold together the Bible, theology, and the liturgy of the Church. But his method is not always the best way for producing a creative, scripturally-based Pneumatology, which, inter alia, will have to take sufficiently into account the richness and diversity of New Testament Pneumatology, without being polemical or defensive.56 In my opinion, those who imitate Symeon in trying to read the New Testament primarily as a book of the Church are to be praised and encouraged. But those who reduce theology and New Testament interpretation to the polemical and defensive aspect of Symeon’s theological method in the context of today’s different theological, ecumenical, and cultural challenges render very poor service to the New Testament, to theology, and to the Church.

56 It is noteworthy that David Balfour characterizes Symeon as a polemical hesychast in his article, “St Symeon of Thessalonica: A Polemical Hesychast,” Sobornost 4 (1982), 6– 21.

Augustine and His Predecessors Interpreting the New Testament on the Origin of the Holy Spirit The Question of filioque Katharina Bracht

1. Introduction The Western perspective on the Holy Spirit in patristic approaches to the New Testament is currently heavily influenced by the interest in and the ecumenical efforts surrounding the question of filioque. The subject of this essay takes us to the origin of the so-called filioque controversy, “which after 1054 became the symbol of the schism between the Christian churches in East and West”.1 In the last 15 to 20 years, major scholarly publications on church history and systematics as well as statements by church authorities have addressed this issue.2 Therefore, any discussion of the patristic reception 1

M. BÖHNKE, A. E. KATTAN, and B. OBERDORFER, “Einführung” in Die FilioqueKontroverse. Historische, ökumenische und dogmatische Perspektiven 1200 Jahre nach der Aachener Synode (QD 245; Freiburg, 2011), 7–12, 7: “… die nach 1054 zum Symbol der Spaltung zwischen den christlichen Kirchen in Ost und West geworden ist.” 2 For publications paying special attention to the aspect of ecclesiastical history, see R. SIMON, Das Filioque bei Thomas von Aquin. Eine Untersuchung zur dogmengeschichtlichen Stellung, theologischen Struktur und ökumenischen Perspektive der thomanischen Gotteslehre (Kontexte 14; Frankfurt a.M., 1994); B. OBERDORFER, Filioque. Geschichte und Theologie eines ökumenischen Problems (FSÖTh 96; Göttingen, 2001); P. GEMEINHARDT, Die Filioque-Kontroverse zwischen Ost- und Westkirche im Frühmittelalter (Berlin, 2002); Ökumenisch den Glauben bekennen. Das Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum von 381 als verbindendes Glaubensbekenntnis (ed. Amt der VELKD; Stellungnahmen der VELKD 139, 2007); T. ALEXOPOULOS, Der Ausgang des thearchischen Geistes. Eine Untersuchung der Filioque-Frage anhand Photios’ “Mystagogie”, Konstantin Melitiniotes’ “Zwei Antirrhetici” und Augustins “De Trinitate” (Göttingen, 2009); A. E. SIECIENSKI, The Filioque. History of a Doctrinal Controversy (Oxford, 2010); Die FilioqueKontroverse. Historische, ökumenische und dogmatische Perspektiven 1200 Jahre nach der Aachener Synode (eds. M. Böhnke, A. E. Kattan, and B. Oberdorfer QD 245; Freiburg, 2011); M. SEEWALD, “Das ‘filioque’ - gedeutet als christologisches Axiom. Ein Versuch zur ökumenischen Verständigung ausgehend von Tertullians ‘Adversus Praxean’,” MThZ 62 (2011), 303–328. For publications from the point of view of dogmatics, see M.-H.

232

Katharina Bracht

of biblical pneumatology seems incomplete if it does not consider the filioque problem from the perspective of the filioque controversy of the Middle Ages. Following the Western tradition, I define the period of time which is subject to patristic studies as extending until Isidore of Seville (died 636 C.E.) in the West and John of Damascus (died ca. 750 C.E.) in the East.3 However, in this essay I concentrate on Augustine of Hippo (354–430 C.E.) and his predecessors. Ever since Photius, Augustine has been regarded as the spiritual father of the filioque in the Orthodox Churches.4 In the Western theological tradition he is even regarded as the Church Father who influenced Western tradition as a whole and particularly impacted the Western perspective on the notion of the Holy Spirit. A prominent German patristics scholar has described Augustine’s importance as follows: “Latin theology to date is merely a footnote to Augustine.”5 Augustine’s doctrine of the Spirit proceeding not solely from the Father but also from the Son first found reception in Spain and was finally accepted and introduced into the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (NC) by the 3rd Council of Toledo in the year 589 C.E.6 This marked the origin of the GAMILLSCHEG, Die Kontroverse um das Filioque. Möglichkeiten einer Problemlösung auf Grund der Forschungen und Gespräche der letzten hundert Jahre (Das östliche Christentum N.F. 45; Würzburg, 1996); D. GURETZKI, Karl Barth on the filioque (Farnham, 2009). For an assessment of the actual ecumenical discussion from an Orthodox point of view, cf. A. VLETSIS, “Filioque. Ein unendlicher Streitfall? Aporien einer Pneumatologie in Bewegung,” in Orthodoxe Theologie zwischen Ost und West. In Honour of Prof. Theodor Nikolaou (ed. K. Nikolakopoulos et al.; Frankfurt a.M., 2002), 353–371. 3 Cf. B. ALTANER and A. STUIBER, Patrologie. Leben, Schriften und Lehre der Kirchenväter (Freiburg, 1978/1993), 7. By contrast, in the Orthodox tradition patristic studies cover a span of time until the 15th century (Fall of Constantinople in the year 1453 C.E.); cf. the essay by D. BATHRELLOS on “The Holy Spirit and the New Testament in St. Symeon of Thessalonica (†1429),” in this volume, 221–230. 4 Cf. R. KANY, Augustins Trinitätsdenken. Bilanz, Kritik und Weiterführung der modernen Forschung zu “de trinitate” (STAC 22; Tübingen, 2008), 332. 5 W. GEERLINGS, “Augustinus,” LACL (ed. S. Döpp and W. Geerlings; Freiburg; 3rd ed; 2010), 78–98, 96: “Die lat[einische] Theologie ist bis heute nur eine Fußnote zu A[ugustin].” 6 Cf. H. DENZINGER, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals (ed. P. Hünermann for the original bilingual edition and R. Fastiggi and A. Englund Nash for the English edition; San Francisco, 43rd ed.; 2012; in the following abbreviated DH), 470: … Spiritus aeque Sanctus confitendus a nobis et praedicandus est a Patre et a Filio procedere et cum Patre et Filio unius esse substantiae; tertiam vero in Trinitate Spiritus Sancti esse personam, qui tamen communem habeat cum Patre et Filio divinitatis essentiam … However, the editor explains that the phrase might have been inserted later into the text because it is not contained in some earlier manuscripts. As early as 447 C.E., the 2nd synod of Toledo authorised a modified creed of an earlier synod (the 1st synod of Toledo 400/ 405 C.E.). The synod inserted the term filioque twice into the article on the Holy Spirit: “... spiritum quoque Paracletum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse, nec

Augustine and His Predecessors on the Holy Spirit

233

well-known creed that is still common in the West to this day:7 Credimus … in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem, qui ex Patre Filioque procedit …8 It includes an addition over against the original phrasing of the Council of Constantinople which passed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in 381 C.E., reading: Πιστεύοµεν … εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον καὶ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόµενον …9 This is of ecumenical importance, since the NC is the only text regarded liturgically and canonically authoritative in three main confessions.10 At the beginning of the 9th century, Emperor Charlemagne supported the usage of this version of the NC, thereby further promoting the unity of his empire through a uniform Christian doctrine and liturgy of worship as well as distinguishing his empire from the Byzantine Empire.11 In November 809 C.E., a synod held in Aachen after exhaustive preparation12 passed a decree substantiating the doctrine of filioque with quotes from the Church Fathers Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus Pater, genitus Filius, non genitus Paracletus, sed a Patre Filioque procedens”. (Libellus in modum symboli by Pastor of Palencia, i.e. the longer version of the Toletanum I accredited in 447; DH 188). In the year 589 C.E. the 3rd synod of Toledo employed the filioque terminology in order to position themselves against Arianism, thereby intending to express that Jesus Christ was coequal with the Father. Consequently, it became necessary to develop a systematic trinitarian theology. Later, this formula was taken up and developed further in the West (cf. OBERDORFER, Filioque, 133–135 [n. 2]). 7 For the German context, see, for example, the text according to the Missale Romanum (DH 150); the German Protestant hymnbook: Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirche in Bayern, ed., Evangelisches Gesangbuch. Ausgabe für die Evangelisch-Lutherischen Kirchen in Bayern und Thüringen (München, without year), 1550–1552, 1552 (EG 904); Reformierte Liturgie. Gebete und Ordnungen für die unter dem Wort versammelte Gemeinde: im Auftrag des Moderamens des Reformierten Bundes erarbeitet (eds. Peter Bukowski et al; Wuppertal, 1999), 190. 8 DH 150. 9 The article on the Holy Spirit in total states, Πιστεύοµεν … εἰς τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον, τὸ κύριον καὶ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορευόµενον, τὸ σὺν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ συµπροσκυνούµενον καὶ συνδοξαζόµενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν προφητῶν (Credimus … in spiritum sanctum, dominum et vivificatorem, ex patre procedentem, cum patre et filio coadorandum et conglorificandum, qui locutus est per prophetas); cf. Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta: Editio critica: vol. I: The Oecumenical Councils From Nicaea I to Nicaea II (325–787): Curantibus Giuseppe Alberigo et al. (CChr; ed. G. Alberigo; Turnhout, 2006), 57. 10 Cf. OBERDORFER, Filioque, 13 (n. 2). 11 For a thorough study of the role of the filioque in theology during the so-called Carolingian renaissance, cf. GEMEINHARDT, Die Filioque-Kontroverse, 107–164 (n. 2). SIECIENSKI, The Filioque, 98 (n. 2), points out that according to the Council of Aachen “the West acted correctly in adding it [sc. the filioque]”, while “the East was in error by omitting it.” 12 Cf. M. KERNER, “Karl der Große – Gestalter des Glaubens?” in Die FilioqueKontroverse, 14–29, 23 (n. 1).

234

Katharina Bracht

and arguing for its usage in the creed. This became known as the Decretum Aquisgranense.13 Ever since, the so-called filioque – though not undisputed, but in its core statement recognized even by critics14 – has thus been essential for the notion of the Holy Spirit in the West.15 The reasoning of the Decretum Aquisgranense rests on only a few quotations from Augustine’s De trinitate (399–419 C.E.)16 which significantly shaped the Western perspective on the notion of the Holy Spirit. All quotations deal with the distinction within the trinitarian unity of Father, Son, and Spirit in regard to the relationship of the Spirit with the Father and the Son, which is one of the fundamental trinitarian questions about unity and distinction of the three divine “persons”. In the analysis that follows, I choose a specific Western perspective by taking the Augustine-reception of the Decretum Aquisgranense as the point of departure. Furthermore, due to the subject given I will not deal with the

13 See the critical edition by H. WILLJUNG, Das Konzil von Aachen 809 (MGH.Conc II, Suppl. 2; Hannover, 1998), 233–412. 14 The contemporary pope Leo III already refused to incorporate the filioque doctrine into the creed, although he accepted it with regard to its content; cf. e.g. KERNER, Karl der Große, 24f (n. 12); P. GEMEINHARDT, “Hoc canit unanimi vox pia corde patrum. Die Väterhermeneutik des Decretum Aquisgranense aus westlicher Sicht,” in Die FilioqueKontroverse, 97–113, 112 (n. 1). 15 The Byzantine Church objects for various reasons until today against the introduction of the filioque into the NC (OBERDORFER, Filioque, 13 [n. 2]), whereas the longer version with filioque is regarded in the Western Churches as the correct form of the creed (cf. e.g. EG 904 and DH 150). Yet, representatives of both points of view call upon the patristic tradition. However, in the course of the 2nd Vaticanum, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople declared on December 7, 1965 that the memory of the mutual excommunications in the year 1054 C.E. should be extinct (DH 4430–4435). In the Lutheran Churches, due to the agreements of the ecumenical dialogues, it is possible by way of exception to leave out the filioque in ecumenical services; cf. the “Resolution über das ‘Filioque’ des Nizänischen Glaubensbekenntnisses,” in Ich habe das Schreien meines Volkes gehört. Curitiba 1990. Offizieller Bericht der Achten Vollversammlung des Lutherischen Weltbundes (= LWB-Report No. 28/29, Dec. 1990), 159, and the “Wort der Kirchenleitung der Vereinigten Evangelischen Lutherischen Kirche Deutschlands (VELKD) zum ‘filioque’” (i.e., the official statement of VELKD), in Ökumenisch den Glauben bekennen. Das Nicaeno-Constantinopolitanum von 381 als verbindendes Glaubensbekenntnis cf. Amt der VELKD, ed., Stellungnahmen der VELKD 139/2007 (Hannover, 2007), 3f. For a detailed presentation of the ecumenical discussion about the filioque in the 20th century, cf. GEMEINHARDT, Die Filioque-Kontroverse, 3–27 (n. 2). 16 The passages from Augustine that are used in the Decretum Aquisgranense are the common denominator of two opinions, which were furnished by Arn of Salzburg and Theodulf of Orléans in the process of preparing the Aachen synod; cf. GEMEINHARDT, Hoc canit, 109 (n. 14). According to GEMEINHARDT (p. 109), Augustine turns out to be “a canon within the canon” (“Kanon im Kanon”). Gemeinhardt refers to six quotes, but specifies only five passages in the related note; cf. l.c., note 41.

Augustine and His Predecessors on the Holy Spirit

235

filioque problem in general but focus on patristic interpretations and uses of the New Testament in a selection of writings of the Fathers on the Holy Spirit and its origin. I begin with Augustine’s pneumatology after his De trinitate, specifically with his reception of New Testament texts (2). For comparison, I then explore the references to biblical texts in earlier writings from East and West and their discourses on the Holy Spirit in order to elucidate the theological positions concerning the Holy Spirit that preceded Augustine: Firstly, Tertullian as a representative of the Western tradition and Origen as a representative of the Eastern one before the councils of Nicaea (325 C.E.) and Constantinople (381 C.E.) (3);17 secondly, Athanasius, a go-between for the East and West, and Gregory of Nazianzus, who belongs to the East, as representatives of the time between the councils, that is, after Nicaea but before Constantinople (4). I will close with a summary (5).

2. Augustine, De trinitate In the 15 books of his work De trinitate, his “main work of philosophy of religion”,18 written over a period of 20 years (399–419 C.E.,19 book XV even later, between 420 and 427 C.E.20), Augustine undertakes an interpretation of the Nicene Creed. He demonstrates “the rightness of saying, believing, understanding that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are of one and the same substance or essence” (Trin. I 2,4)21 – herein referring to the Latin translation of the creed.22 However, he also includes the Spirit among these, 17 SEEWALD, Das “filioque,” 323f (n. 2) shows that this aspect is neglected in current research, since most studies dealing with the early history of the filioque commence with Augustine. He mentions Gemeinhardt (2002), Oberdorfer (2001) and Gamillscheg (1996) as examples, and criticizes that even Siecienski (2010), who intends to meet “the need for a complete and balanced presentation of the history [of the filioque]” (cf. SIECIENSKI, The Filioque, vii [n. 2]), dedicates only “half a page” to Tertullian (cf. SIECIENSKI, The Filioque, 52 [n. 2]). 18 J. KREUZER, “Einleitung” in Aurelius Augustinus, De trinitate (Bücher VIII–IX, XIV– XV, Anhang: Buch V): Neu übersetzt und mit Einleitung herausgegeben von Johann Kreuzer: Lateinisch-deutsch (ed. Johann Kreuzer; Philosophische Bibliothek 523; Hamburg, 2001), VII–LXXVII, VII. For extensive information on Augustine Trin. and its treatment in modern research cf. KANY, Augustins Trinitätsdenken (n. 4). 19 Cf. GEERLINGS, “Augustinus,” 78–98, 92 (n. 5). Cf. Augustine, Retract. II 15. 20 Cf. KANY, Augustins Trinitätsdenken, 529 (n. 4). 21 Quam recte pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unius eiusdemque substantiae uel essentiae dicatur, credatur, intellegatur; Augustine, Trin. I 2,4 (CChr.SL 50 Mountain/Glorie 31,4–6). 22 N: unius substantiae cum patre; NC: eiusdem cum patre substantiae; cf. Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta I, 19; 57. Furthermore, Augustine interprets the term substantia in the sense of essentia.

236

Katharina Bracht

even though the Nicene Creed solely refers to the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father, thereby determining the main subject of this entire writing: the notion of the unity of the three Trinitarian persons. From the extensive writing concerning the relationship of the Holy Spirit with God the Father and the Son, the council fathers of Aachen concentrated in their deliberations mostly on passages from two books: on a longer passage from Book IV (Trin. IV 20,2923) focusing especially on fundamental biblical principles, and on some shorter passages on the role of the Holy Spirit within the Holy Trinity towards the end of the last book (Trin. XV 26,45–27,48).24 In these passages, Augustine draws upon a fixed catalogue of Bible verses in an Old Latin translation, mainly from the Gospel of John – John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7 and 20:22. Featured repeatedly and always cited together are Matt 10:20 and Gal 4:6, while other textual evidence appears only once.25 As the latter evidently are less important for Augustine, I will not dwell on them further.26 Instead, I will focus on the passages that he often cites. (1) The pairing of Matt 10:20 and Gal 4:6: Augustine employs these two passages repeatedly to demonstrate that the Holy Spirit is proceeding not solely from the Father – an unchallenged notion – but also from the Son.27 He does so by combining the important phrases spiritus Patris from Matt 10:20 and spiritus Filii from Gal 4:6 into phrases of his own, for instance spiritus et patris et filii28 or spiritus amborum.29 At times, he provides a source for his 23

In the decree referred to as: in libro IIII de trinitate, XXI capitulo; cf. WILLJUNG, Konzil, 244,16 = Decretum Aquisgranense 15. 24 For the disposition of the writing, cf. J. BRACHTENDORF, “De trinitate,” in Lexikon der theologischen Werke (eds. Michael Eckert et al.; Stuttgart, 2003), 208–210. For an overview on current research on Augustine’s pneumatology in De trinitate, also considering the filioque, cf. KANY, Augustins Trinitätsdenken, 216–227 (n. 4). 25 Since the critical edition of the Vetus Latina, which is prepared by the archabbey Beuron under the direction of Roger Gryson, does not yet comprise John 14–20 (the fascicles that have appeared up to now cover only John 1:1–9:41), Matt 10 and Gal 4, quotes from the Latin New Testament are given according to the Vulgate. 26 This concerns the following passages: 1 Cor 2:11; 3:16 (Trin. IV 20,29 [CChr.SL 50 Mountain/Glorie 200,112]); Luke 6:19 (Trin. XV 26,45 [525,16f CChr.SL 50A Mountain/Glorie]); John 5:26 (Trin. XV 26,47 [528,87–89 CChr.SL 50A Mountain/Glorie). 27 Augustine, Trin. IV 20,29 (199,102f Mountain/Glorie): Nec possumus dicere quod spiritus sanctus et a filio non procedat; neque enim frustra idem spiritus et patris et filii spiritus dicitur. 28 Augustine, Trin. IV 20,29 (199,104f Mountain/Glorie): “It is not without point that the same Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father and of the Son” (neque enim frustra idem spiritus et patris et filii spiritus dicitur; translation by Hill). 29 Augustine, Trin. XV 26,45 [524,1–8 Mountain/Glorie]: … quoniam scriptura sancta spiritum eum dicit amborum. Ipse est enim de quo dicit apostolus: Quoniam autem estis filii, misit deus spiritum filii sui in cordia nostra, et ipse est de quo dicit idem filius: Non enim uos estis qui loquimini, sed spiritus patris uestri qui loquitur in uobis (“… seeing that the holy scripture calls him the Spirit of them both. It is he, after all, of whom the apostle

Augustine and His Predecessors on the Holy Spirit

237

quotation in the form of a citation formula (“the apostle says”; “the Son says”30); at other times, he lets a simple passivum divinum “dicitur” stand for itself.31 The phrase spiritus patris et filii for Augustine is a short version of the testimony professing that the Spirit proceeds from the Father as well as from the Son – a twofold origin that is evidenced in Matt 10:20 and Gal 4:6.32 The inclusion of the terminology of Matt 10 and Gal 4 serves for Augustine as a way to express his thesis in accordance with scripture. (2) The passages in John: The scriptural evidence from the Gospel of John is located in the fundamental passages of Augustine’s argument. (i) Firstly, we turn to Augustine Trin. IV 20,29: After defining the Spirit as et patris et filii spiritus, Augustine cites John 20:22, the narrative of Jesus appearing to his disciples, breathing on them, and saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit!” (accipite spiritum sanctum). In Augustine’s interpretation, through these words and this deed Jesus provides a sign (significatio) proving that the Holy Spirit proceeds not solely from the Father but also from the Son.33 Subsequently, Augustine weaves further quotes from John into his argument: On the one hand he quotes the saying of Jesus about the Paraclete “whom I shall send to you from the Father” (quem ego mittam uobis a patre) (John 15:26a).34 According to this verse, Augustine implies that the Son is the one who sends the Paraclete. Nevertheless, the Paraclete originates from the Father (a patre), thereby showing the Spirit to be from the Father as well as from the Son.35 On the other hand Augustine adds the saying of Jesus from John 14:26 as further textual proof: the Paraclete, “whom the Father will send” (quem mittet pater). He very delicately spells out the similarities and differences with John 15:26. In both cases, the Holy Spirit is sent; only according to John 14:26 it is not the Son (as in John 15:26), but the Father who sends the Paraclete. Only by combining both passages (John 15:26 and John

says, But because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts (cf. GalVulg 4:6); and it is he of whom the Son says, For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you (Matt 10:20)” (translation by Hill). 30 Augustine, Trin. XV 26,45 (524,1–8 Mountain/Glorie). 31 Augustine, Trin. IV 20,29 (199,104f Mountain/Glorie; see quotation above). Here a passivum divinum is present, because the Holy Scripture or even God resp. Christ are to be assumed as agent. 32 Cf. e.g. also Augustine, Trin. IV 20,29 (200,113; 200,118 Mountain/Glorie). For further evidence, cf. the index of CChr.SL 50A. 33 Augustine, Trin. IV 20,29 (199,105–200,114 Mountain/Glorie). 34 Augustine, Trin. IV 20,29 (200,116–118 Mountain/Glorie) quoting John 15:26. 35 Augustine, Trin. IV 20,29 (200,116–118 Mountain/Glorie): Quod ergo ait dominus: Quem ego mittam uobis a patre, ostendit spiritum et patris et filii (“By saying then, Whom I will send you from the Father (John 15:26), the Lord showed that the Spirit is both the Father’s and the Son’s”; translation by Hill).

238

Katharina Bracht

14:26) could they serve as evidence for the assertion that the Spirit is sent from the Father and from the Son. Augustine, however, draws attention to the fact that these two Johannine passages do not correlate perfectly: While in John 15:26 the Son proclaims that the Spirit “quem ego mittam … a patre”, John 14:26 does not read – as one would expect – “quem mittet pater a me”, but rather “quem mittet pater in nomine meo”. Augustine interprets this difference as an expression of the fact that the Father is the origin (principium) of all divinity, that is, of the Son as well as the Spirit. At the same time, he emphasizes that Scripture does not express that the Spirit was originating in the same sense from the Son, as the Son does from the Father. Through this fine differentiation in phrasing, the Spirit therefore is ultimately being attributed to God the Father, although he is said to be immediately originating from the Son.36 Yet, a certain ambiguity remains. (ii) Many years later, after the publication of the first eleven books of De trinitate,37 Augustine returns to this thought in Book XV. However, now he expresses it in a more distinct manner, which probably explains why the council fathers of Aachen added passages from Trin. XV to their decree. Therefore, we turn secondly to Augustine Trin. XV, to which the council fathers of the Aachen Synod resorted and from which they introduced other passages into the Decretum Aquisgranense. In this passage Augustine argues very similarly in proving the Spirit’s origin in the Father and the Son, quoting John 14:26; 15:26 and 20:22 as “further evidence of divine diction” (Trin. XV 26,45).38 As a new thought he postulates that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son outside of time (sine tempore), as also the Son is born from the Father sine tempore. Augustine develops this notion of the twofold origin of the Spirit, quoting John 5:26 as further textual evidence and interpreting it by way of an analogy: Just as the Father, who according to the saying of Jesus has life in himself, has lent it to the Son to have life in him, in just this way the Father, in whom the Holy Spirit originates, has lent this to

36 Augustine, Trin. IV 20,29 (200,122f Mountain/Glorie): Qui ergo ex patre procedit et filio ad eum refertur a quo natus est filius. Augustine weaves the intertextual references rather tightly, as can be seen from his quote of John 15:26 (paracletus … qui a patre procedit), which he employs in a modified and amended way within his interpretation of John 14:26, namely: qui ex patre procedit et filio (Augustine, Trin. IV 20,29; 200,122f Mountain/Glorie). Only the edition of the Maurists, published 1688, reads deviating a patre …; possibly the editors adjusted the Augustine text in this respect to the Vulgate version. See the reference to John 15:26 in Augustine, Trin. XV 27,48 (529,9 Mountain/Glorie) with a further modification: Cur filius dixit: de patre procedit? 37 Augustine, Retract. II 15. 38 Augustine, Trin. XV 26,45 (524,1–525,18 Mountain/Glorie). In addition, Augustine in this passage alludes to Luke 6:19.

Augustine and His Predecessors on the Holy Spirit

239

the Son, so that the Holy Spirit originates in him as well.39 As these events occur sine tempore, the assertion that the Spirit originates in the Father implies in a certain way that he also originates in the Son. However, at this point Augustine also emphasizes the difference between Son and Spirit in their relationship of origin to the Father: Solely the Son is born from the Father (de patre natus), but the Spirit proceeds from the Father (de patre principaliter procedit), or, in regard to the timeless manner of events, originates both in the Father and the Son (communiter de utroque; Trin. XV 26,47).40

Before summarizing the results of this section, I would like to emphasize that – due to the specifically Western “glasses” of Augustine’s reception by the Council of Aachen – my choice of textual sources merely offers a small excerpt of the multi-faceted Augustinian pneumatology. In other instances, Augustine defines the relationship of the Trinitarian persons by way of other categories, such as reciprocal love (dilectio; caritas).41 Bypassing the Decretum Aquisgranense, these facets have equally influenced Western pneumatology and the doctrine of the trinity, for instance in Thomas Aquinas and others.42 It is important to note that our reading of Trin. IV 20,29 and Trin. XV 26,45–27,48 has produced results with regard to content as well as methodology. Regarding content we have seen Augustine, in reference to Matt 10:20 and Gal 4:6, impressively further identifying and differentiating his thesis that the Spirit is Spirit from the Father and from the Son. He does so through close juxtaposition and interpretation as well as intertextual references to his fundamental textual evidence in John. As far as methodology is concerned, we must state that Augustine employs the aforementioned New Testament passages in a twofold manner. On the one 39 This idea is repeated in the recapitulatory passage Augustine, Trin. XV 27,48 (529,9– 530,10 Mountain/Glorie), which is quoted in the Decretum Aquisgranense (cf. GEMEINHARDT, Hoc canit, 109 with note 41 [n. 14]). 40 Augustine, Trin. XV 26,47 (528,85–113 Mountain/Glorie). For comments on this passage and its reception in patristic research cf. KANY, Augustins Trinitätsdenken, 222– 224 (n. 4), who also mentions that the term processio only occurs here in Trin. XV, i.e. very late in Augustin’s complete works (223). The Decretum Aquisgranense quotes in extracts (528,87–89 and 528,103–106 Mountain/Glorie); cf. GEMEINHARDT, Hoc canit, 109 with note 41 (n. 14). 41 Cf. Augustine, Trin. XV 16,26–18,32 (500,18–508,32 Mountain/Glorie). Augustine is the first to identify the Spirit with love, cf. B. STUDER, Augustinus. De Trinitate: Eine Einführung (Paderborn, 2005), 94. 42 Cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologica I q. 37,2; cf. G. EMERY, “The Trinity,” in The Oxford Handbook of Aquinas (ed. B. Davies and E. Stump; Oxford, 2012), 418–427, 422, who points out that “it is the property of Love that Aquinas emphasizes in order to manifest the personal identity of the Spirit”; cf. also SIMON, Filioque, 111–114 (n. 2) on Thomas’ interpretation of Augustine’s De trinitate VIII–XV.

240

Katharina Bracht

hand he quotes entire parts of passages and identifies them through reference to their individual authors in a citation formula. On the other hand he incorporates biblical collocations and phrases into his sentences as freely as though they had flown from his own pen, leaving it to the well-versed reader of the Bible to recognize the scriptural allusions. While the explicit quotations either take advantage of their author’s authority in order to gain higher validity as scriptural evidence or rather serve as the focus of interpretation, Augustine subtly engrosses the biblical passages he uses in intertextual allusions for his argumentative purposes.

3. Before Nicaea (325 C.E.): Tertullian and Origen 3.1 Tertullian, Adversus Praxean It is impossible to talk about the Holy Spirit in patristic Bible reception, especially from a Western perspective, without looking at the Western church father Tertullian and his Adversus Praxean (about 213 C.E.43). Tertullian has been referred to as the “first theologian of the trinity”.44 Living around the turn of the third century in Carthage, he is the first Latin Christian author.45 Compared to Augustine’s highly developed doctrine of trinity, his Adversus Praxean exhibits a very early form of a tentative attempt to think about the trinity and the unity of the divine together.46 Nowhere in this writing is the Holy Spirit of special interest. Rather, Tertullian concentrates on the relationship of God the Father and the Son. This is due to his adversary, Praxeas (Prax. 1,3), who, coming from Asia Minor, was according to Tertullian the first to bring “this kind of perversity” to Rome (Prax. 1,4), namely the doctrine of monarchianism.47 Praxeas is said to accuse Tertullian and others of 43

Cf. H.-J. SIEBEN, “Einleitung,” in Tertullian, Adversus Praxean: Gegen Praxeas. Im Anhang: Contra Noetum. Gegen Noet. Übersetzt und eingeleitet von Hermann-Josef Sieben (FC 34; Freiburg, 2001), 7–94, 27; E. SCHULZ-FLÜGEL, “Tertullian,” LACL (ed. S. Döpp and W. Geerlings; Freiburg; 3rd ed.; 2010) 668–672, 669 dates the writing 210/211 C.E. 44 W. A. BIENERT, Dogmengeschichte (Grundkurs Theologie 5,1 = UB 425,1; Stuttgart, 1997), 128. According to C. MUNIER, “Tertullien,” DSp 15: 271–295, 275, the writing Adversus Praxean can be regarded as the oldest theological treatise on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. However, see the careful judgement by SIEBEN, “Einleitung,” 52 (n. 43). 45 SCHULZ-FLÜGEL, Tertullian, 668 (n. 43). 46 Cf. Tertullian, Prax. 31,1: Quod opus evangelii … si non exinde Pater et Filius et Spiritus, tres crediti, unum Deum sistunt? (“What need is there of the Gospel … unless thereafter Father and Son and Spirit, believed in as three, constitute one God?”; translation by Evans). 47 The term “monarchianism” goes back to Tertullian, who reports that Praxeas and his supporters referred to themselves as those who “maintain [God’s] monarchy” (“monarchiam, inquiunt, tenemus”, Prax. 3,2).

Augustine and His Predecessors on the Holy Spirit

241

preaching two or three different gods (Prax. 3,1), namely the Father, the Son and the Spirit. In contrast, Praxeas claimed to teach the one and only God (unicum Dominum; Prax. 1,1; cf. 3,1). According to Tertullian, he focuses upon the Father and the Son, maintaining that the Father himself would have descended into the Virgin, would have been born out of her, would have suffered – to put it in a nutshell, would be Christ himself (Prax. 1,1; cf. 1,5). In the Early Church this kind of teaching was branded as “patripassianism”.48 Tertullian opposes Praxeas by expressing the idea of “unity in triplication”: He thinks about God as one substance differentiated in three persons.49 Tertullian explains his ideas with the help of metaphors that he learned from his precursor Hippolytus, who just a few years earlier in his work Contra Noetum argued against the heretic Noetus, whose teachings were very similar to those of Praxeas.50 Hippolytus, however, following Noetus’ argument only discusses the relationship between the Son and the Father, without considering the Spirit at all. Tertullian probably takes the Spirit into consideration in addition to the relationship between Father and Son as a result of his sympathies for Montanism. Therefore, when he talks about the Holy Spirit, he does so merely in the midst of his discourse on the relationship of God the Father and the Son.51 As mentioned above, Tertullian argues for the trinity against his monarchian opponent Praxeas while at the same time adhering to the unity of the divine. In proving that the three divine “persons” are one he invokes John 10:30 (Ego et Pater unum sumus). However, beyond the biblical passage, he incorporates the Holy Spirit.52 He emphasizes the fact that the passage reads “one thing” (unum) and not “one person” (unus), thus demonstrating the unity of

48

Cf. K. BRACHT, “Product or Foundation? The Relationship between the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity and Christlogy in Hippolytus’ and Tertullian’s Debate with Monarchianism,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 18 (2007), 14–31, 17f. 49 Cf. Tertullian, Prax. 2,4 in connection with Prax. 11,10. 50 See BRACHT, “Product or Foundation,” 15f (n. 48) for a discussion of current research concerning the dating of the two writings by Hippolytus and Tertullian; cf. pp. 18– 21 for Hippolytus’ argument in Contra Noetum and pp. 21–24 for Tertullian’s doctrine of the Holy Trinity as a whole. 51 In his elucidating essay “Das ‘filioque’ – gedeutet als christologisches Axiom” (2011) Michael Seewald takes this fact as the starting point of his thesis that the filioque is, historically seen, also a christological axiom (328). He takes this as a hermeneutical key in order to interpret the filioque as an aspect of Christology, intending this to be beneficial for the ecumenical discourse since there exists a greater consensus among Eastern and Western churches on Christology than on Pneumatology (326f). However, Seewald does not pay any attention to Tertullian’s approaches to the New Testament or to his usage of textual proofs from the Bible. 52 By mentioning the Spirit Tertullian alludes to 1 John 5:8: … Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt.

242

Katharina Bracht

substance as opposed to a singularity of number (Prax. 25,1).53 Tertullian even refers to the Holy Spirit as God (Prax. 13,6).54 Tertullian follows a different path than Augustine after him, not only in regard to the differentiation between the three divine persons within this unity of nature – which does not imply any form of division!55 – but especially regarding the position of the Spirit. Employing three metaphors without biblical evidence56 he argues: The Spirit is professed to be the third one in a derivation from the Father via the Son (tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo ex Filio, Prax. 8,7), analogous to the fruit in the threefold series root – tree – fruit, or analogous to the stream in the threefold series fountain – river – stream, or analogous to the apex (which was thought in antiquity to be at the tip of a ray of light) in the threefold series sun – ray – apex.57 The Spirit here stands in a direct relationship of origin with the Son, but in a derived relationship of origin with the Father, thus in regard to his relationship with the Father, the Spirit is subordinate to the Son.58 Tertullian emphasizes the ever-lasting connection of even the third with its origin – using the term gradus which I translate with “derivative”, others with “sequence”.59 Tertullian expresses this in the following way: “I reckon the Spirit from nowhere else than from the Father through the Son” (a Patre per Filium; Prax.

53

Tertullian, Prax. 25,1: ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem. Tertullian, Prax. 13,6: duos tamen deos et duos dominos numquam ex ore nostro proferimus, non quasi non et Pater et Filius Deus et Spiritus Deus, et Dominus unusquisque … Cf. F. DÜNZL, Pneuma. Funktionen des theologischen Begriffs in frühchristlicher Literatur (JAC.E 30; Münster, 2000), 25–28, esp. 26, note 79. 55 Cf. Tertullian, Prax. 9,1: “not however that the Son is other than the Father by diversity, but by distribution, not by division but by distinction” (non tamen diversitate alium Filium a Patre sed distributione, nec divisione alium sed distinctione; translation by Evans). 56 Cf. F. J. DÖLGER, “Sonne und Sonnenstrahl als Gleichnis in der Logostheologie des christlichen Altertums,” in AuC (Kultur- und Religionsgeschichtliche Studien 1; Münster, 1929; 2nd ed.; 1974) 271–290, 277f. The two-part metaphors concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son possibly go back to a montanistic oracle, cf. P. DE LABRIOLLE, Les sources de l'histoire du Montanisme: Textes grecs, latins, syriaques (CF. NF 15; Fribourg, 1913), 45. 57 Tertullian, Prax. 8,7. Augustine knew Tertullian’s comparisons and commented on them in fid. et symb. 9,17 (CSEL 41, Zycha 18,23–20,20), but did not make use of them in De trinitate. 58 In a later passage in the same writing Tertullian characterizes the Christian belief in the triune God consisting of Father, Son, and the Spirit, who is subordinate to the Son, as the main difference to Judaism, cf. Tertullian, Prax. 31,1: ceterum Iudaicae fidei ista res, sic unum Deum credere, ut Filium adnumerare ei nolis et post Filium Spiritum (Moreover this matter is of Jewish faith, so to believe in one God as to refuse to count in with him the Son, and after the Son the Spirit; translation by Evans). 59 Cf. e.g. the translation of Prax. 4,1 by Evans; cf. my following footnote. 54

Augustine and His Predecessors on the Holy Spirit

243

4,1).60 This instance is the very earliest evidence of the notion of a twofold origin of the Spirit61 – however, revealing an entirely different model of thought than Augustine.62 Against the background of our specific question regarding the Holy Spirit in the patristic reception of the Bible we must state our negative findings for this highly significant and early instance in the development of the doctrine of trinity: In regard to the Holy Spirit, Tertullian in his Adversus Praxean only rarely draws upon Biblical material. Instead, he often employs nonBiblical metaphors.63 It is remarkable that from the catalogue of New Testament passages used some 200 years later by Augustine, Tertullian does not use one single quote,64 even though he dedicates a good half of his work (Prax. 11–26) to scriptural exegesis.65

60 Tertullian, Prax. 4,1: … Spiritum non aliunde puto quam a Patre per Filium (translation by Evans). Cf. the typical montanistic passages Prax. 30,5: Hic interim acceptum a Patre munus effudit, Spiritum sanctum, tertium nomen divinitatis et tertium gradum maiestatis … (This is he [sc. the Son] who meanwhile has poured forth the gift which he has received from the Father, The Holy Spirit, the third name of the deity and the third sequence of the majesty …; translation by Evans), and Prax. 29,7: quando nec nos pati pro Deo possumus nisi Spiritus Dei sit in nobis qui et loquitur de nobis quae sunt confessionis (since neither can we suffer on behalf of God exept there be in us the Spirit of God, who also speaks out of us the things which belong to confession …; translation following Evans with modifications) – the suffering alluding to martyrdom, which during the persecution follows the confession of belonging to Christ in the trial. 61 Cf. Septimii Florentis Tertulliani Adversus Praxean Liber: Tertullian’s Treatise Against Praxeas: The Text edited, with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (ed. E. Evans; London, 1948), 203: “There seem to be no precedents for this statement of the ‘double procession’”; as to the passage Prax. 4,1, cf. W. BENDER, Die Lehre über den Heiligen Geist bei Tertullian (MThS II 18; München, 1961), 91–94. 62 In contrast to Augustine, Tertullian does not yet reflect on a possible difference in the way of proceeding. According to Prax. 27,6 the Spirit was born together with the Word by the Father’s will (… Spiritus qui cum sermone de Patris voluntate natus est). Augustine however does not approve of using the phrase “natus est” with reference to the Son, cf. Augustine, Trin. XV 26,47 (528,108–110 Mountain/Glorie). Cf. the critical discussion of these metaphors by Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 31,31–33. Cf. Gregor von Nazianz, Orationes theologicae: Theologische Reden. Übersetzt und eingeleitet von Hermann Josef Sieben (FC 22; Freiburg, 1996), 334 note 98 for references to other Christian writings using these metaphors. 63 Other comments about the Spirit or his attributes, which are made by Tertullian in Prax. and other writings can be deduced from John 14:16f, 26; 15:26; 16:13 and Rom 15:16 as well as Luke 14:16–24par., cf. DÜNZL, Pneuma, 25–28, for references cf. l.c. 25, note 77 (n. 54). 64 Except Matt 10:20, to which Tertullian refers in Prax. 29,7, however in a different context. 65 That is, 16 of 31 chapters on the whole. For the disposition of the writing, cf. SIEBEN, “Einleitung,” 52–71, esp. 54–60 (n. 43).

244

Katharina Bracht

3.2 Origen, De principiis We turn to Origen as a representative of the Eastern tradition before the Council of Nicaea (325 C.E.). Out of his rich body of work I have chosen a passage from De principiis (shortly after 220 C.E.66), a systematical treatment of the Holy Spirit. In this writing he pursues a double intention: He wants to defend the Christian truth against the Gnostic and Marcionite heresies, and at the same time he endeavours to overcome the ecclesiastical-biblical traditionalism in favour of an academic scientific-philosophical theology.67 Therefore, in agreement with Helmut Saake, the pertinent passage princ. I 3 can be characterized as a “Tractatus pneumatico-philosophicus”.68 After presenting in the introduction the knowledge of the Holy Spirit as something specifically Christian (princ. I 3,1) over against the knowledge of God and his Logos, also known to the Greeks and Barbarians, Origen sets out to prove the existence of the Holy Spirit through Scripture (I 3,2). For this purpose he cites (verbatim or in paraphrase69) two passages from the Old Testament and seven from the New Testament and describes these as “proofs in abundance”.70 I here will only emphasize John 20:22, as this passage later in Augustine will belong to the significant evidence from John. In a second step of his argument, Origen discusses whether the Holy Spirit is created by the Father. Having not found any corresponding Bible passage at the date of composing princ. I 3, he reaches a negative conclusion (I 3,4). It becomes evident that Origen attaches great importance to substantiating his systematic displays through scriptural evidence.

66 Cf. H. GÖRGEMANNS and H. KARPP, “Einführung” in Origenes, Vier Bücher von den Prinzipien (ed. H. Görgemanns and H. Karpp; Darmstadt, 31992), 1–69, 6. 67 Cf. GÖRGEMANNS and KARPP, “Einführung,” 17 (n. 66). 68 H. SAAKE, “Der Tractatus pneumatico-philosophicus des Origenes in Περὶ ἀρχῶν I 3,” Hermes 101 (1973), 91–114. According to Saake, Origen was the first Christian theologian to understand that it would be necessary to develop and present a systematic concept of pneumatology, cf. H. SAAKE, “Beobachtungen zur athanasianischen Pneumatologie,” NZSTh 15 (1973), 348–364, 359; cf. H. ZIEBRITZKI, Heiliger Geist und Weltseele. Das Problem der dritten Hypostase bei Origenes, Plotin und ihren Vorläufern (BHTh 84; Tübingen, 1994), 200–203, who shows that Origen treats the doctrine of the Holy Spirit in each of the four parts of De principiis: In the preface of his writing Origen states the problem that the apostolic tradition does not hand down any metaphysics of the Holy Spirit, in princ. I 3,1–8, which is in question here, he searches for a solution for this problem, in princ. II 7,1–4 he focuses (against Marcion) on the argument that the Holy Spirit speaks in the Old Testament as well as in the New Testament, and in princ. IV 4,1–10 he recapitulates the results of I 3 in the context of the doctrine of the Father and the Son. 69 OT: Ps 50 (51):13; DanTh 4:6; NT: Matt 3:16par; 12:32; 28:19; Luke 1:35; John 20:22; 1 Cor 12:3; Acts 8:18. 70 Origen Princ. I 3,2: In novo vero testamento abundantibus testimoniis edocemur … (“But in the New Testament we have proofs in abundance …”; translation by Butterworth).

Augustine and His Predecessors on the Holy Spirit

245

Even more extensively, in a third step of his argument Origen determines71 that the Holy Spirit, just as the Son, functions as revelator of knowledge of God the Father. To argue this he cites as evidence a composite quote from John 16:12f; John 14:26 and John 15:26.72 Here, these passages, which will later become essential for Augustine and his Western reception, already appear increasingly accumulated. After clarifying fundamental issues of the Holy Spirit itself, in a fourth step of his argument Origen focuses on the soteriological function of the Spirit. For him, soteriology is the place where he locates the issue of the trinitarian unity73 – again in a different manner than later Augustine, who will concentrate on the identification of the inner-trinitarian relationship between God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Origen differentiates between the work of the Father and of the Son on the one hand, which extends to saints and sinners alike,74 and the work of the Holy Spirit on the other hand, which applies exclusively to saints.75 As evidence Origen cites two Old Testament passages (Gen 6:3 and Ps 103 [104]:29f), adding a cluster of New Testament quotations (mostly parts of verses) and compiling them without 71 Origen argues with a passage from the song of Habakkuk (Hab 3:2), which he employs as textual proof for the observation that not only in the New Testament – as others before him had rightly observed – but also in the Old Testament the Holy Spirit is thought of when only the word “spirit” is employed. 72 Origen Princ. I 3,4: Sed et rursus in evangelio de divinis ac profundioribus doctrinis commemorans salvator quae nondum capere poterant discipuli sui, ita ait ad apostolos: “Adhuc multa habeo (John 16:12) quae vobis dicam, sed non potestis (John 16:12) illa modo (John 16:12) capere; cum autem venerit (Joh 16:13) paraclitus (John 15:26) spiritus sanctus (John 14:26), qui (John 15:26) ex patre procedit (Joh 15:26), ille vos docebit omnia (John 14:26), et commonebit vos omnia, quae dixi vobis (cf. John 14:26).” (“Again, when in the gospel the Saviour is referring to the divine and deeper doctrines which his disciples could not yet receive, he speaks to the apostles as follows: ‘I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot receive them now; howbeit when the comforter is come, even the Holy Spirit, who preceedeth from the Father, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said unto you’”; translation by Butterworth). 73 SAAKE, Beobachtungen, 361 (n. 68), calls this “funktional relativierten Ökonomismus.” 74 Origen uses some lengthy literal quotes from the New Testament as textual proofs for this: Rom 10:6–8; John 15:22; Jas 4:17; Luke 17:20f (princ. I 3,6). 75 The introductory passage princ. I 3,5 is extant in Greek (fr. 9, Just. Ep. ad Menam [p. 208, 26–32 Schwartz]) and in a modified Latin version by Rufinus; cf. the editio minor by GÖRGEMANNS/ KARPP, 168 (n. 66). The two versions differ in the way they characterize the work of the Father and the Son, which, however, is not of importance with regard to the question discussed in this essay. I follow the Rufinus version but refrain from a judgement about whether Rufinus altered Origen’s text on purpose or whether we are dealing with a version differing by chance. For a thorough discussion of this question and its implications for Origen’s doctrine of the Holy Spirit, cf. ZIEBRITZKI, Heiliger Geist und Weltseele, 205–225 (n. 68).

246

Katharina Bracht

any citation formula into a new text of his own (I 3,7). A closer look reveals partial phrases from Col 3:9; Rom 6:4 (2x), Acts 8:18 (2x); Titus 3:5; 2 Cor 5:17; Eph 2:15; Col 1:18 and Matt 9:17par. Only the saying of Jesus from John 20:22 is quoted in its entirety, thus emphasizing its significance in Origen’s notion of the Holy Spirit.76 Summarizing the results from Origen: Unlike Tertullian, who in the year 213 C.E. in his Adversus Praxean treated the Holy Spirit merely in the midst of his discourse on the relationship of God the Father and the Son, Origen – in his almost contemporary writing De principiis (ca. 220 C.E.) – dedicates a complete tractate to this topic. He attributes great importance to substantiating all of his propositions on the Holy Spirit with scriptural evidence, if not deducing them argumentatively through scriptural interpretation. In doing so, he refers to the Gospels as well as Acts and the Pauline letters. The passages from John that were later preferred by Augustine in the context of the origin of the Spirit are already found in Origen.

4. After Nicaea (325 C.E.), But Before Constantinople (381 C.E.): Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianzus 4.1 Athanasius, Letters to Serapion The Council of Nicaea provided a new foundation for the notion of the Holy Spirit, although the creed of Nicaea itself did not further define the Holy Spirit. It merely professed succinctly: πιστεύοµεν … καὶ εἰς τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦµα.77 But as soon as the question of the relationship between the Son and the Father is clarified by the creed, stating that the Son was not created (οὐ ποιηθέντα), but is rather consubstantial with the Father (ὁµοούσιος τῷ πατρί), the same problem resurfaces, albeit in a different garb. How does the notion of the Spirit fare? Is the Spirit to be regarded as a creation of the Father? This perception, dismissed by Origen for lack of scriptural evidence (princ. I 3,3),78 is proposed around the middle of the fourth century (about 100 years later) by a group in Egypt, the so-called Pneumatomachi or Tropici, 76

Origen makes use of a lengthy quote of 1 Cor 12 in order to relate the works of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to each other and to thereby emphasize the trinitarian unity. Origen wants to evade the possible consequence that he would ascribe a higher dignitas to the Holy Spirit than to the Father and the Son (princ. I 3,7). 77 Conciliorum oecumenicorum generaliumque decreta I, 19. 78 Origen Princ. I 3,3: Verum tamen usque ad praesens nullum sermonem in scripturis sanctis invenire potuimus, per quem spiritus sanctus factura esse vel creatura diceretur … (“But up to the present we have been able to find no passage in the holy scriptures which would warrant us in saying that the Holy Spirit was a being made or created …”; translation by Butterworth).

Augustine and His Predecessors on the Holy Spirit

247

who denied the divinity of the Spirit,79 thereby repealing the entire doctrine of the trinity of God. At request of his friend Serapion, Bishop of Thmuis in Egypt, Athanasius in the years 358–60 compiles his teachings and arguments in four letters80 against those challenging the doctrine of the trinity.81 In the second and third letters, he argues against the Tropici that the Holy Spirit is not a creature.82 After determining the relationship between Son and Father as consubstantiality – in the Nicene sense – he effectively projects the nature of the relationship of the Son and the Father onto the relationship of the Spirit and the Son, thus establishing a parallel conception of the Spirit and the Son.83 Athanasius states, “As the Son … is not a creature, but consubstantial with the Father, thus also the Holy Spirit is not a creature” (Ep. Serap. 2,10,4 [553,30–32 Savvidis]).84 This thesis then is carefully substantiated with an intricately compiled series of arguments, every one being carefully corroborated with 79

Athanasius calls the supporters of this doctrine Pneumatomachi (πνευµατοµάχοι), i.e. “combators of the Spirit”, or (ironically) Tropici, because they tended to interprete Scripture tropologically; see W. D. HAUSCHILD, “Pneumatomachen,” RGG4 6 (2003): 1413f. Therefore, according to V. H. DRECOLL, Die Entwicklung der Trinitätslehre des Basilius von Caesarea. Sein Weg vom Homöusianer zum Neunizäner (FKDG 66; Göttingen, 1996), 140, the Tropici can be regarded as a conservative form of the EusebianOrigenistic tradition. However, they cannot be identified as Neo-Arianists since their doctrine concerning the Son is orthodox. Drecoll compares Athanasius’ Letters against Serapion with Basil of Caesarea’s Adversus Eunomium; see DRECOLL, Entwicklung, 138– 140. 80 In modern patristic research the numbering of the letters has undergone revision; cf. SAAKE, Beobachtungen, 358: ep. Ser. 1,1–33 (old) = Ep. Serap. 1 (new); ep. Ser. 2 und 3 (old) = Ep. Serap. 2 (new), ep. Ser. 2 (old) corresponding with Ep. Serap. 2,1–9 (new) and ep. Ser. 3 (old) corresponding with Ep. Serap. 2,10–16 (new); ep. Ser. 4,1–7 (old) = Ep. Serap. 3 (new); ep. Ser. 4,8–23 (old) = Ep. Serap. 4 (new); cf. H. SAAKE, “Das Präskript zum ersten Serapionsbrief des Athanasios von Alexandreia als pneumatologisches Programm,” VigChr 26 (1972), 188–199, 188f. The new numbering was adopted by K. SAVVIDIS, Epistulae I–IV ad Serapionem: Edition (Athanasius Werke vol. I,1, 4; Berlin, 2010), who introduces the new abbreviation Ep. Serap. (instead of the old abbreviation ep. Ser.) for the new numbering; cf. esp. 385. 81 As to Athanasius’ doctrine of the Holy Spirit in his earlier writings, cf. C. KANNENGIESSER, “Athanasius of Alexandria and the Holy Spirit between Nicea I and Constantinople I,” IThQ 48 (1981), 166–180 (there 177f concerning the letters to Serapion). Kannengiesser emphasizes the relationship between Ep. Serap. and Athanasius, C. Ar. I–III. 82 Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 2,10,4 (553,31f Savvidis); 2,11,2 (554,14 Savvidis); 2,12,6 (556,31f Savvidis); 2,13,4 (557,25 Savvidis); 2,14,1 (558,1f Savvidis); 2,16,1 (562,5f Savvidis); 3,4,1 (571,1 Savvidis). 83 Cf. SAAKE, Beobachtungen, 364 (n. 68). 84 Athanasius, Ep. Serap. 2,10,4 (553,30–32 Savvidis): οὐκοῦν εἰ ὁ υἱὸς … οὐκ ἔστι κτίσµα, ἀλλ᾽ ὁµοούσιος τοῦ πατρός· οὕτως οὐκ ἆν εἶη οὐδὲ τὸ πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον κτίσµα. In other contexts Athanasius can speak explicitely of the Spirit’s consubstantiality with the Son (Ep. Serap. 1,27,3; 519,20f).

248

Katharina Bracht

New Testament evidence.85 Firstly – and for lack of space I can only explore this here further – he argues that Father, Son, and Spirit belong together. Gal 4:6 and John 15:26 hereby function as significant scriptural evidence, which later in Augustine and in the reception of his works by the council fathers of Aachen are of great importance. Athanasius quotes both passages verbatim. Unlike Augustine, however, he understands the genitive spiritus filii in Gal 4:6 not with regard to the relationship of origin (of the Spirit from the Son), but rather in the sense of a relationship of belonging – just as the Son belongs to the Father (Origen refers to Matt 3:17, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I take delight”), the Spirit belongs to the Son. And as everything that the Son has also belongs to the Father, which Athanasius postulates in a free inversion of John 16:15: “All that the Father has is mine”, so the Spirit also belongs to the Father. Athanasius demonstrates this by quoting John 15:26, despite the fact that this verse does not deal with a relationship of belonging but rather of origin. Using the category of belonging, Athanasius is thus able to express what Tertullian before him set out to illustrate with the help of metaphors of origin, namely the lasting connection of the Spirit with the Father.86 Like Origen, he attaches higher importance to biblical evidence, with the significance of John 15:26 and Gal 4:6 already evident.87 But in contrast to Origen, who treated pneumatology as part of soteriology, Athanasius locates it within theology.88 4.2 Gregory of Nazianzus, 5th Theological Oration I will now examine a second post-Nicene church father, namely Gregory of Nazianzus, who in the year before the Council of Constantinople (between July and November 380) held a series of five theological orations in the local Anastasia Chapel, the fifth concerning the Holy Spirit.89 Like Athanasius, Gregory turns against those who deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Against 85 KANNENGIESSER, Athanasius, 178 (n. 81) mentions that the scriptural basis of Athanasius’ doctrine of the Holy Spirit in Ep. Serap. calls for investigation. 86 Cf. Prax. 4,1: … quomodum possum de fide destruere monarchiam quam a Patre Filio traditam in Filio servo? 87 SAAKE, Beobachtungen, 364 (n. 68) speaks of a “oft biblizistische Schriftexegese in apologetischer Abwehr (prä-)heterodoxer Lehrmeinungen” in Athanasius and emphasizes the common features of Athanasius and Origen with regard to their close affinity to Scripture. 88 Cf. SAAKE, Beobachtungen, 362 (n. 68), who emphasizes the importance of pneumatology as an identifying feature of orthodoxy in Athanasius. 89 Cf. H.-J. SIEBEN, “Einleitung,” in Gregor von Nazianz, Orationes theologicae, 7–63, 18–41 (n. 62). C. A. BEELEY, “The Holy Spirit in the Cappadocians: Past and Present,” Modern Theology 26 (2010), 90–119, 104 appreciates Gregory of Nazianzus as the theologian among the three Cappadocians who taught “the strongest and most comprehensive doctrine of the Spirit.”

Augustine and His Predecessors on the Holy Spirit

249

those who “combat the Spirit” (Or. 31,3), Gregory explains his belief in the divinity of the Spirit (Or. 31,3).90 Reasoning that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son (ὁµοούσιος, Or. 31,10),91 he concludes that by virtue of their divinity the three are one (ἕν τὰ τρία θεότητι),92 of one nature and of one dignity (ἐν τῇ µιᾷ φύσει τε καὶ ἀξίᾳ τῆς θεότητος, Or. 31,9). Gregory’s opponents, however, tenaciously want to know the difference between the Son and the Spirit.93 They want to grasp the inner-trinitarian distinction in regard to the Holy Spirit – precisely the question Augustine dealt with in the passages quoted in the Decretum Aquisgranense. Gregory responds by demonstrating the distinction in the three persons’ relationship with each other.94 God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit differ in their relation of origin, the specific character (ἰδιότης) of the Father being the unbegotten (τὸ µὴ γεγεννῆσθαι), that of the Son being the begotten (τὸ γεγεννῆσθαι, analogous to the Augustinian natus est), and that of the Spirit being the proceeding one (τὸ ἐκπορεύεσθαι, in Augustine Procedere; Gregory of Nazianzus Or. 31,9). Gregory had developed this notion shortly before by means of quotation and exegesis of John 15:26 (τὸ Πνεῦµα τὸ ἅγιον95 ὅ παρά τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευέται), thereby anticipating the Augustinian argument.96 He 90 He substantiates his doctrine with a “swarm of testimonies” from the Bible (ὁ τῶν µαρτυρίων ἐσµός; Or. 31,29). After Tertullian, Prax. 13,6 (cf. DÜNZL, Pneuma, 26 [n. 54]) Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea are the first to state the divinity of the Spirit explicitely. Cf. Basil of Caesarea, De spiritu sancto (written 375/ 376), spir. 23,54 (τὸ θεῖον τῇ φύσει, “he who is divine by nature”), who, however, avoids calling the Spirit “consubstantial” (ὁµοούσιος) with Father and Son, or even “God” (θεός); cf. H.-J. SIEBEN, “Einleitung,” in Basilius von Caesarea, De spirito sancto: Über den heiligen Geist. Übersetzt und eingeleitet von Hermann Josef Sieben (FC 12; Freiburg, 1993), 7–63, 42. Gregory of Nazianzus expresses the divinity of the Holy Spirit from the very beginning of his public appearance, that is, already at the time when Basil wrote his Contra Eunomium (sc. 364 C.E.), cf. BEELEY, Holy Spirit, 99 (n. 89); A. MEREDITH, “The Pneumatology of the Cappadocian Fathers and the Creed of Constantinople,” IThQ 48 (1981), 196–211, 197 (dealing just shortly with Gregory of Nazianzus). 91 Cf. BEELEY, Holy Spirit, 101 (n. 89). In his monograph Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the Knowledge of God: In Your Light We Shall See Light (OSHT; Oxford, 2008), Beeley points out that Gregory in these passages wants “to show that it is not logically impossible for the Spirit to be God and consubstantial with the Father, even though the Bible does not explicitly say that it is” (168; italics K.B.). 92 Cf. Tertullian, Prax. 25,1: Qui tres unum sunt … (“these three are one”), referring to 1 John 5:8 and John 10:30. 93 Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 31,9: Τί οὖν ἐστί, φησίν, ὃ λείπει τῷ Πνεύµατι, πρὸς τὸ εἶναι Υἱόν; Εἰ γὰρ µὴ λεῖπόν τι ἦν, Υἱὸς ἂν ἦν. 94 διάφορον τῆς ἄλληλα σχέσεως, Or. 31,9. 95 Cf. however NA28: τὸ Πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας. 96 Because of the limitations of human mind, Gregory would not approve of further reflection on these divine mysteries, cf. Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 31,8 with allusion to John 20:11.

250

Katharina Bracht

emphasizes the difference in the relations of origin – the Spirit, however, having the same origin as the Son, namely God the Father. For Gregory, assuming different origins of Son and Holy Spirit would imply polytheism (Or. 31,30).97 By introducing this difference concerning the relation of origin of the Son and the Spirit, characterizing the generation of the Spirit as “proceeding” from the Father and the generation of the Son as being “begotten“, Gregory “makes an important contribution to Trinitarian terminology”.98

5. Summary For our investigation of the Holy Spirit in patristic approaches to the New Testament, I have deliberately approached the Decretum Aquisgranense from a specifically Western perspective. The decree shows the central importance of Augustine for Western pneumatology in history and to this day. Ever since Augustine, Western theology sees the distinction within the trinitarian unity in categories of relations between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. These relations are significantly but not exclusively thought of as relations of origin. The patristic regression to other important exemplary authors from East and West that preceded Augustine has made clear that passages concerning the Spirit, or rather the Paraclete from the Gospel of John, were received at an early stage – since Origen, by Augustine and beyond – and remained essential to the Western notion about the trinitarian relations of the Spirit. At the same time, we must state that these passages from John are each perused together with many other, different New Testament passages. Because of this, two manners of Bible reception can be discerned: Firstly, one can recognize that the quotation or composite quote – often identified through a citation formula – served as a form of interpretation or scriptural evidence. Secondly, biblical phrases, intertextual references, and extensive cluster formations were used in a new text. In patristic times, the philosophical-theological struggle about the notion of the Holy Spirit and his position in the trinitarian unity is invariably carried out in the exegesis of the biblical tradition and in its legitimation.

97 According to Gregory, textual proofs from the Bible that seem to imply a subordinate role of the Spirit refer to the first origin (i.e., the Father), in order to show from whence the Spirit comes and to omit a doctrine of three different origins (Or. 31,30). 98 Cf. BEELEY, Gregory of Nazianzus, 168 (n. 91).

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy A “Western Perspective” Harald Buchinger Discussion of “The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy” from Eastern and Western perspectives leads into the centre both of a century-old division and of recent ecumenical understanding’s interacting with liturgical renewal.1 For a long time, the western churches stressed the efficacy of Christ’s Words of Institution, whether perceived in accordance with scholastic theology as consecratory words uttered by a priest exercising his power, or as words of no less efficacious promise in the Reformation’s reaction to this clerico-centric view of medieval theology. Eastern churches, notably Byzantine Orthodoxy, attributed the crucial role in the sacramental action to the Holy Spirit invoked in the epiclesis at the heart of the anaphora, the Eucharistic prayer. One of the greatest achievements of twentieth-century liturgical and ecumenical renewal is to have widened these narrow perspectives, which since the late Middle Ages had become issues of confessional separation. A new 1

For a recent assessment of the broader question, see the rich volume, T. Berger and B. D. Spinks, eds., The Spirit in Worship – Worship in the Spirit (Collegeville, 2009); of lasting importance is the thorough dissertation of J. MCKENNA, Eucharist and Holy Spirit: The Eucharistic Epiclesis in Twentieth Century Theology (1900–1966) (ACC 57; Great Wakering, 1975), an updated extract of which has recently been republished as The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern Era (Chicago, 2009), and the masterly synthesis of R. F. TAFT, “From Logos to Spirit: On the Early History of the Epiclesis,” in: Gratias agamus. Studien zum eucharistischen Hochgebet (Pastoralliturgische Reihe in Verbindung mit der Zeitschrift “Gottesdienst”; eds. A. Heinz and H. Rennings; FS Balthasar Fischer; Freiburg, 1992), 489–502; further key bibliography is given by R. MESSNER, Einführung in die Liturgiewissenschaft (Paderborn, 22009 [cf. 12001]), 212f. On the ecumenical dimension, cf. most recently R. F. TAFT, “Problems in Anaphoral Theology: ‘Words of Consecration’ versus ‘Consecratory Epiclesis’,” SVTQ 57 (2013) 37– 65, taking up his earlier article, “The Epiclesis Question in the Light of the Orthodox and the Catholic Lex Orandi Traditions,” in: New Perpectives on Historical Theology. Essays in Memory of John Meyendorff (ed. B. Nassif; Grand Rapids, 1996), 210–237. References in the following can therefore limit themselves to the exemplary primary sources discussed. My thanks go to John Nicholson, Vienna, for the revision of the English text.

252

Harald Buchinger

appreciation of the liturgical texts as sources of sacramental theology has drawn attention to the whole Eucharistic prayer as being constitutive of the Eucharistic action, thus resolving false alternatives of constricted theological focuses that were exclusive in both content and effect. The rediscovery of the Eucharistic prayer had a profound impact on the practice of all western churches, which in the last generation reformed their liturgical orders, and it may be noted that as a consequence of this insight, the call for the anaphora to be recited aloud can now also be heard in Orthodox circles. Though the importance of these developments is well known and past controversies need not be reiterated, it is relevant to ask how key sources of the liturgical Tradition in the plurality of representative Rites articulate the truism that the operation of the Holy Spirit is fundamental to any action of the Church. This conviction is of course manifest in many sacramental prayers; hence, an investigation of the Holy Spirit and the Church in liturgy might consider various celebrations from Baptism to ordination and from the blessing of the waters at Epiphany to the rites of matrimony. For purely pragmatic reasons, this paper shall concentrate on the Eucharist in exemplary sources, asking first how the Spirit is addressed in the earliest available evidence from the period before the emergence of liturgical texts in the proper sense of the word (which from a liturgical perspective can thus be labelled “pre-historic”), then briefly reviewing the epicleseis of some developed rites, before discussing the problematic case of the Roman liturgy in the light of other evidence. Finally, the renewal of the Eucharistic prayer in western churches shall be evaluated in the light of historical and ecumenical research. Regarding the “Western perspective” that I am invited to articulate, the second half of the paper is the most relevant one.

1. “Pre-historic” Evidence 1.1 Patristic Hints Although the Eucharist is already called “spiritual food and drink” (πνευµατικὴ τροφὴ καὶ ποτός, cf. 1 Cor 10:4) in the earliest existing Eucharistic prayers, given in the Didache,2 clear evidence for a Spirit-epiclesis cannot be found in early patristic writing on the Eucharist.3 (By contrast,

2

Didache 10,3 (SC 248, 180 Rordorf and Tuilier). The still oft-quoted notion that Cyril (or rather John II?) of Jerusalem, Myst. 5, 7 (SC 126, 154 Piédagnel), is the first witness to a Spirit-epiclesis has to be relativized on the one hand by the testimony of the Acts of Thomas, on the other hand by the appearance of the mid-fourth-century Barcelona/Montserrat papyrus reedited by M. ZHELTOV. Idem, “The Anaphora and the Thanksgiving Prayer from the Barcelona Papyrus: An Underestimated 3

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

253

Tertullian [d. ca. 220?] probably alludes to an invocation of the Spirit over the water of Baptism.4) Testimonies from the first three centuries either point to an invocation of the Logos rather than the Spirit5 or use the term ἐπίκλησις indiscriminately for the whole prayer and not for a particular element at all.6 Only Origen (d. after 250), who otherwise is likely to be counted among the witnesses of a Logos-epiclesis, once mentions the “Bread, over which the name of God and of Christ and the Holy Spirit was called upon (ἐπικέκληται)”, thus perhaps referring to a Trinitarian epiclesis or at least a prayer invoking the Trinity, including the Spirit.7 1.2 Early Syrian Evidence The earliest evidence therefore comes from the Acts of Thomas ([Eastern] Syria? 3rd c.?), which quote elaborate invocations over both the oil of initiation (which in this source is more important than the water) and the Eucharistic elements (which mostly are bread and water, and never include wine); in fact, some sacramental prayers of this source appear as a mere series of petitions, being totally epicletic (and not Eucharistic in the proper sense) in genre and content. Recent scholarship no longer regards the apocryphal writings as deviant minority traditions of disputed orthodoxy but takes them seriously as witnesses to the multifaceted liturgical life of the early Church in which they were written, transmitted, translated, and adapted.8 Although the prayers are variegated in addressee, content, and literary form, it is likely that they were not only utilized a posteriori in later liturgical tradition (as is the case in a palimpsest sacramentary of 7th century Irish provenance that was later kept in Regensburg’s Benedictine abbey of St. Emmeram9), but mirror liturgical practice, which at least cannot have been absurd at the time and place of origin.

Testimony to the Anaphoral History in the Fourth Century,” VigChr 62 (2008), 467–504, esp. 484f: P.Monts.Roca inv. 155a. 4 Tertullian, Bapt. 4 (CChr.SL 1, 279f Borleffs). 5 TAFT, logos, 494f (n. 1). 6 Irenaeus, Haer. 4, 18, 5 (SC 100bis, 610 Hemmerdinger, Doutreleau, and Mercier); cf. also 1, 13, 2 (SC 264, 191 Rousseau and Doutreleau). 7 Origen on 1 Corinthians. III, Jenkins, JThS 9 (1908), 500–514, Fragm 34 on 1 Cor 7:5 (502, 13f); cf. H. BUCHINGER, “Early Eucharist in Transition? A Fresh Look at Origen,” in Jewish and Christian Liturgy and Worship: New Insights into its History and Interaction (Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 15; eds. A. Gerhards and C. Leonhard; Leiden, 2007), 207–227, esp. 218f. 8 Cf. H. BUCHINGER, “Liturgy and Early Christian Apocrypha,” in Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Apocrypha (eds. C. Tuckett and A. Gregory; Oxford, 2015, forthcoming). 9 Das irische Palimpsestsakramentar im Clm 14429 der Staatsbibliothek München (TAB 53/54; eds. A. Dold and L. Eizenhöfer; Beuron, 1964), 44.

254

Harald Buchinger

Remarkably, one epiclesis over the oil (in ch. 27) and one over the “bread of blessing” (in ch. 49 [46]f) correspond closely. Furthermore, literary-critical observations can be made as the section addressed to the Spirit interrupts a prayer that is also directed to Christ as an “invocation of his holy name” (ἐπικαλεῖσθαί σου τὸ ἅγιον ὄνοµα) and that appeals immediately to him to “come and have communion with us (ἐλθὲ καὶ κοινώνησον ἡµῖν)”:

Syriac version

significant variants of the Greek version

Jesus, who has deemed us worthy to draw near to your holy body and to partake of your life-giving blood … we are bold and draw near and invoke your holy name … we beg of you that you would come and communicate with us … Come, gift of the Exalted, come, perfect mercy, come, holy Spirit, come, revealer of the mysteries of the chosen among the prophets, come, proclaimer by his Apostles of the combats of our victorious Athlete, come, treasure of majesty, come, beloved of the mercy of the Most High, come, (you) silent (one), come, utterer of hidden things, and shewer of the works of our God,

Jesus, who has deemed us worthy to partake of (or: have communion in κοινωνῆσαι) the Eucharist of your holy body and blood …

come, Giver of life in secret, and manifest in your deeds, come, giver of joy and rest to all who cleave to you, come, power of the Father and wisdom of the Son, for you are one in all, [originally directed to Christ?] come, and communicate with us in this Eucharist which we celebrate and in the offering which we offer, and in the commemoration which we make.10

[absent]

come, participant in all contests of the noble athlete [absent] [absent]

holy dove which gives birth to twin chicks come, hidden mother

… which we celebrate upon your name [sic] …

10 Syriac Text: Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (ed. W. Wright; London, 1871), 1, ‫ܪ‬f ; Greek Text: AAAp 2/2, 165f Bonnet; English translation: A. F. J. KLIJN, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text and Commentary (NT.S 108; 2nd, rev. ed.; Leiden, 2003), 123– 125.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

255

Brief remarks have to suffice in the present context: 1) Though diachronic hypotheses are by definition disputable, one may speculate that the invitation to Christ to “come” – as guest, not as host, let alone object of the meal, though the celebration is clearly identified as “the Eucharist of your body and blood” – was the most primitive notion of epicletic praying, which perhaps only in a second stage may also have been transferred to the Spirit, who is then likewise asked to “come”.11 What is clear anyway is that the present prayer consists of a series of quite direct petitions in the form of an anaphora (in the stylistic rather than the liturgical sense) of imperatives; only in a later stage will the Spirit be called upon the Eucharistic elements as such and ultimately be integrated into prayers that are directed to God the Father. An intermediary status may be reflected by the epiclesis of Acts of Thomas 133, which in its first part is startlingly directed to the bread, then (at least in the Syriac version) takes the form of a Trinitarian invocation, and in the end asks in the third person for the coming of the “power of blessing”, which most likely has pneumatological implications and definitely foreshadows features of later epicleseis – namely, requests that the Spirit may come upon the Eucharist in view of effects upon the communicants: Syriac

Living bread … We name the name of the Father upon you; we name the name of the Son upon you; we name the name of the Spirit upon you, the exalted name that is hidden from all … In your name, Jesus, may the power of the blessing and the understanding come and abide upon this bread that all the souls which take of it may be renewed and their sins may be forgiven them. 12

11

significant variants of the Greek version We call (upon?) you the name of the Mother, ruler of ineffable mystery and of hidden powers, we call upon you your name, (that of) Jesus. May the power of blessing come (ἐλθάτω) and abide …

The abundant bibliography of earlier scholarship is quoted in G. ROUWHORST, “Die Rolle des heiligen Geistes in der Eucharistie und der Taufe im frühsyrischen Christentum,” in Liturgie und Trinität (QD 229; eds. B. Groen and B. Kranemann; Freiburg, 2008), 161– 184, and R. MESSNER, “Grundlinien der Entwicklung des eucharistischen Gebets in der frühen Kirche,ˮ in Prex Eucharistica. Volumen III: Studia. Pars prima: Ecclesia antiqua et occidentalis (SpicFri 42; eds. A. Gerhards, H. Brakman, and M. Klöckener; Fribourg, 2005), 3–41. S. E. MYERS, Spirit Epicleses in the Acts of Thomas (WUNT II.281; Tübingen, 2010), is eclectic both in content and bibliography. 12 Wright 1, ; AAAp 2/2, 240 (the Greek text is difficult and potentially corrupt); KLIJN, Acts, 133 (n. 10).

256

Harald Buchinger

2) Not least in light of the baptismal epiclesis in chapter 27, Pneumatology and Christology appear very fluid in the tradition represented by the Acts of Thomas, and to some extent even interchangeable. The extremely rich and colourful terminology for the Spirit is complex, and its attributes consist of biblical elements, esoteric allusions, and cosmological speculations; they also comprise female imagery, and not only in the Syriac version with its obvious Semitic linguistic background. Regarding the Holy Spirit and the Church, it can be summarized that the earliest place where the connection between Spirit and Eucharist takes the literary form of an explicit epiclesis is Syria; the suspicion that the Spiritepiclesis originated in this region is further corroborated by the testimony of the Didascalia Apostolorum (3rd c.?), according to which “the Eucharist is accepted and sanctified through the Holy Spirit”.13

2. The Epiclesis in Developed Eastern Liturgies The quest for doctrinal, disciplinary, and ritual conformity in the postConstantinian period furthered tendencies not only towards codification and standardization of liturgical traditions, but also led to significant development: the rule of directing sacramental prayers to God the Father became almost universally accepted;14 standard literary patterns coagulated in political and ecclesial centres, thus forming the core of the later “Rites” and characteristic types of anaphoral layouts; doctrinal formulations were integrated into liturgical texts in order to keep pace with conciliar clarifications and to firmly implant them along with the basics of Christian belief (such as the Christological creed as formulated in the anamnetic part of the Eucharistic prayer) in the regular worship of the immense masses of those who had joined the Church (probably not always for reasons of deep personal piety alone) in the era of the “imperial church”, which at the same time was a period of intense theological disputes.15 It has been argued that the evolution of a 13 Didasc. 26 (Syriac text: CSCO 407=CSCO.S 179, 256; English translation: CSCO 408=CSCO.S 180, 239 Vööbus). 14 Exceptions to that rule, however, are more frequent than earlier scholarship tended to assume; cf. B. D. SPINKS, “The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: What Jungmann Omitted to Say,” in The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer: Trinity, Christology, and Liturgical Theology (ed. B. D. Spinks; Collegeville, 2008), 1–19. The most notable later exception is the Egyptian anaphora attributed to Gregory of Nazianzus: A. GERHARDS, Die griechische Gregoriosanaphora. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Eucharistischen Hochgebets (LQF 65; Münster, 1984); more curious is the Ethiopic Anaphora of St. Mary addressed to the Virgin. 15 Cf. R. F. TAFT, “Anton Baumstark’s Comparative Liturgy Revisited,” in Comparative Liturgy Fifty Years after Anton Baumstark (1872–1948). Acts of the International

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

257

consecratory Spirit-epiclesis was enhanced by the heyday of pneumatological developments in the later fourth century,16 and creedal formulae can indeed be recognized in some prayer texts. As for Logos-epicleseis, they in turn vanish at that time; one of the surviving examples is the somewhat idiosyncratic anaphora of the Euchologion attributed to Sarapion of Thmuis (d. after 362).17 Although the epicletic character of the Eucharistic prayer may not be reduced to the epiclesis in the terminological sense of the word,18 the structural place and the content of the latter is the key to understanding the relation that various liturgies express between the Spirit and the Church. 2.1 East Syrian The famous anaphora of the apostles Addai and Mari of the East Syrian tradition bears archaic traits: it is composed of several units, one part is directed to Christ, and – most famously – the historical text does not have an Institution Narrative.19 It does contain, however, a developed Spirit-epiclesis, which gives a detailed account of the expected effects especially upon the congregation, but at the same time may be considered relatively primitive insofar as it asks for the Spirit to “come” (and not yet to be sent) and “rest”: May your Holy Spirit, Lord, come and rest on this offering of your servants, and bless and sanctify it, that it may be to us, Lord, for remission of debts, forgiveness of sins, and the great hope of resurrection from the dead, and new life in the kingdom of heaven, with all who have been pleasing in your sight.20

Congress. Rome, 25–29 September 1998 (OCA 265; eds. R. F. Taft and G. Winkler; Roma, 2001), 191–232; W. KINZIG, “Glaubensbekenntnis und Entwicklung des Kirchenjahres,” in Liturgie und Ritual in der Alten Kirche. Patristische Beiträge zum Studium der gottesdienstlichen Quellen der Alten Kirche (Studien der Patristischen Arbeitsgemeinschaft 11; eds. W. Kinzig, U. Volp, and J. Schmidt; Leuven, 2011), 3–41. 16 TAFT, Logos, 496 (n. 1), with bibliography of earlier key literature in n. 27. 17 TAFT, Logos, 495f (n. 1); M. E. JOHNSON, The Prayers of Sarapion of Thmuis: A Literary, Liturgical, and Theological Analysis (OCA 249; Roma, 1995), 48f; cf. also 54f, 233–253. 18 MESSNER, Grundlinien, 34 (n. 11). 19 Most recently, cf. C. Giraudo (ed.), The Anaphoral Genesis of the Institution Narrative in Light of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. Acts of the International Liturgy Congress Rome 25–26 October 2011 (OCA 295; Roma, 2013). 20 W. F. MACOMBER, “The Oldest Known Text of the Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari,” OCP 32 (1966), 335–371: 368f; English translation : R. C. D. JASPER and G. J. CUMING, Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed (Collegeville, 31987 [cf. 11975]), 43; on the notion and terminology of “come and rest” (or “be rested”: ‫) ܬ‬, cf. Sebastian P. BROCK, “Invocations to/for the Holy Spirit in Syriac Liturgical Texts: Some Comparative Approaches,” in: Comparative Liturgy (n. 15), 377–406 [repr.: S. BROCK, Fire from Heaven. Studies in Syriac Theology and Liturgy (CStS 863; Aldershot, 2006, N° IX). The controversy triggered by E. C. RATCLIFF, “The Original Form of the Anaphora of

258

Harald Buchinger

2.2 Egyptian (Alexandrian) The Egyptian evidence is so heterogeneous that it cannot be reviewed exhaustively in the present context. It must suffice to say that papyri bear fragmentary – and therefore often disputed – witness to a flourishing tradition with diverse patterns of Eucharistic praying;21 the anaphora of (Pseudo-) Sarapion’s euchologion has already been mentioned. Later, “Antiochene”type prayers also came to the region and developed significant variants. A distinctive feature of certain Egyptian prayers – most notably the Liturgy of Saint Mark, the development of which can be traced from early fragments to the medieval Greek and Coptic manuscripts – is a double epiclesis. The first flows from the Sanctus with its adapted quotation from Isa 6:3, “Heaven and (sic) earth are full of your (sic) glory”, and prays: Full in truth are heaven and earth of your holy glory through (the appearing of) our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ: fill, O God, this sacrifice also with the blessing from you through (the descent) of your (all-) Holy Spirit.22

Whereas in the first epiclesis the variants between the earlier (sixth and eighth centuries) and later (from the tenth century on) testimonies are rather minor, the differences become particularly revealing in the second epiclesis, which complements the anamnesis and offering after the Institution Narrative and leads into the concluding doxology: earlier text We pray and beseech you to send your Holy Spirit and your power on these [your?] [gifts] set before you, on this bread and this cup,

developed text … and we pray and beseech you, for you are good and love man, send out from your holy height, from your prepared dwelling place, from your unbounded bosom, the Paraclete himself, the Holy Spirit (of truth), the Lord, the life-giver, who spoke through the Law and the prophets and the Apostles, who is present everywhere and fills everything, who on

Addai and Mari: A Suggestion,” JThS 30 (1929), 23–32, about the epiclesis potentially being a secondary interpolation (29) cannot be followed here in detail. 21 J. HAMMERSTAEDT, Griechische Anaphorenfragmente aus Ägypten und Nubien (PapyCol 28; Opladen, 1999); J. HENNER, Fragmenta Liturgica Coptica. Editionen und Kommentar liturgischer Texte der Koptischen Kirche des ersten Jahrtausends (STAC 5; Tübingen, 2000). The absence of an epiclesis need not necessarily be significant in mutilated texts such as the Papyrus Strasbourg gr. 254. 22 Greek Text: G. J. CUMING, The Liturgy of St Mark Edited from the Manuscripts with a Commentary (OCA 234; Roma, 1990), 39 (with commentary Ibid. 120–122); English translation: JASPER and CUMING, Prayers, 64 (n. 20). Omissions of certain witnesses are indicated cumulatively and not comprehensively.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

earlier text

259

developed text his own authority and not as a servant works sanctification on whom he wills, in your good pleasure; single in nature, multiple in operation, the fountain of divine endowments, consubstantial with you, sharing the throne of the kingdom with you and your only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour, Jesus Christ; (look) upon us and upon these loaves and these cups; send your Holy Spirit to sanctify and perfect them, (as almighty God),

and to make the bread the body and [the cup the blood of the] new [covenant] of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,

and make the bread the body and the cup the blood of the new covenant of our Lord and God and Saviour and King of all, Jesus Christ,

that [they may be to all of us who] receive for faith, for sobriety, [for healing, for joy, for sanctification,] for renewal of soul, body, [and spirit, for sharing in eternal life,] for self-control and of (sic) immortality

that they may become to all of us who partake of them for faith, for sobriety, for healing, (for temperance, for sanctification), for renewal of soul, body, and spirit, for fellowship in eternal life and immortality, for the glorifying of your (all-) holy name, for forgiveness of sins;

for … [that] in this also as in all [may be glorified …] … your name23

that in this as in everything may be glorified … your name24

For the relation between Spirit, Liturgy, and Church, it is noteworthy that in spite of the first epiclesis, the second and more extensive epiclesis intrinsically combines the petition for the changing of the gifts and of those who receive them: the Spirit is to change the gifts not in view of themselves but for the benefit of those who receive them. The precise and detailed directions given to the Spirit with regard to the requested effects on both are typical of developed epicleseis, as is the appeal to God to “send” his Spirit; the enrichment with doctrinal formulae and biblical quotations are typical cases of Baumstark’s “laws” of liturgical development.25 23

English translation: JASPER and CUMING, Prayers, 56 (n. 20), according to the John Rylands Parchment fragment gr. 465 (HAMMERSTAEDT, Anaphorenfragmente, 79–81 [n. 21]) and the sahidic British Museum Tablet 54 036 (H. QUECKE, “Ein saïdischer Zeuge der Markusliturgie (Brit. Mus. Nr. 54 036),” OCP 37 [1971], 40–54: 44). 24 Greek Text: CUMING, Liturgy, 46–48 (n. 22; commentary Ibid. 125–129); English translation: JASPER and CUMING, Prayers, 65f (n. 20). Variants and omissions abound in the various testimonies. 25 Cf. TAFT, Comparative Liturgy (n. 15).

260

Harald Buchinger

It can only be mentioned that the characteristically Egyptian feature of a double epiclesis, one concentrating on the bread and cup between Sanctus and Institution Narrative, and the other between the latter and the doxology, explicating the Eucharistic communion, is attested as early as the 4th century in the Barcelona/Montserrat papyrus codex, which has only recently been edited in its entirety. The text, however, does not fit into the pedigree of the liturgy of Saint Mark and combines allegedly more recent developments, such as the request to “send” the Spirit or clear biblical allusions, with rather archaic elements.26 2.3 West Syrian (Antiochene) The large family of West-Syrian liturgies includes the church of Jerusalem with the venerable tradition of the liturgy of Saint James and the Byzantine rite with the liturgies traditionally attributed to Saint Basil and Saint John Chrysostom. The basic structure of these Eucharistic prayers is relatively uniform: The epiclesis grows organically out of the anamnesis and offering, which themselves follow, actualize, and implement the iteration command of the Institution Narrative. Common to all of them is, again, the intimate connection between the effects of the Spirit on the gifts and on the communicants, thus expressing the immediate impact of the Eucharistic action on the Church. In the most prominent prayers of Byzantine Orthodoxy, the Spirit is told in an astonishingly precise manner what he is supposed to do. Especially the anaphora of Saint John Chrysostom is almost dogmatic in its terminology: … we pray and beseech and entreat you, send down your Holy Spirit on us and on these gifts set forth; and make this bread the precious body of your Christ, changing it (µεταβαλών) by your Holy Spirit, Amen; and that which is in this cup the precious blood of your Christ, changing it by your Holy Spirit, Amen; so that they may become to those who partake for vigilance of soul, for fellowship with the Holy Spirit, for the fullness of the kingdom (of heaven), for boldness toward you, not for judgement or condemnation.27

26

ZHELTOV, Anaphora (n. 3). Greek text: A. Hänggi and I. Pahl (eds.), Prex Eucharistica. Volumen I: Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus selecti (SpicFri 12; 3rd ed. eds. A. Gerhards and H. Brakmann; Freiburg/Schweiz, 1998 [cf. 11968]), 226; English translation: JASPER and CUMING, Prayers, 133 (n. 20). Differences from the closely related Syriac Anaphora of the 12 Apostles that may betray historical developments (especially the reference to the central action: “to change” instead of “to show forth”: ‫ ;ܬ‬cf. the terminology of the Liturgy of St. Basil, etc., mentioned immediately below) cannot be discussed here; cf. R. F. TAFT, “St. John Chrysostom and the Byzantine Anaphora that Bears His Name,” in: Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers (ed. P. F. Bradshaw; Collegeville, 1997), 195–226 (synopsis: 202; commentary: 222f); Syriac text ed. A. Raes in Anaphorae Syriacae 1/2 (Roma, 1940), 218. 27

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

261

Less technical is the formerly dominant liturgy of Saint Basil, quoted below in its allegedly most primitive Alexandrian version; bidding that the Spirit may “come” has been noted as a remnant of the oldest epicletic imagination.28 Instead of “changing” the gifts, they shall be “shown forth” – an old and remarkable concept of sacramental efficiency that recurs also in other contexts such as the blessing of the baptismal font in the Byzantine liturgy.29 And we, sinners and unworthy and wretched, pray you, our God, in adoration that in the good pleasure of your goodness your Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon these gifts that have been set before you, and may sanctify them and show them forth as (ἀναδεῖξαι) holy of holies, and make us all worthy to partake of your holy things for sanctification of soul and body, that we may become one body and one spirit, and may have a portion with all the saints who have been pleasing to you from eternity.30

3. The Problematic Case of the Roman Liturgy 3.1 A Spirit-Oblivious Rite? It is a commonplace to diagnose Roman theology and liturgy with amnesia of the Spirit or at least deficiencies in its Pneumatology. Of course, explicit Spirit-epicleseis do exist in sacramental prayers of the Roman rite, most prominently in the liturgy of Initiation – that is, in the blessing of the font and consecration of the chrism – but also in the ordination prayers. Even with respect to the Eucharist, pope Gelasius (d. 496?) casually asserts that “at the consecration of the divine mystery the heavenly Spirit shall come when he is

28 In addition to the commentaries mentioned below (n. 30), cf., among many others, R. MESSNER, "Prex Eucharistica. Zur Frühgeschichte der Basilios-Anaphora: Beobachtungen und Hypothesen,“ in Sursum Corda. Variationen zu einem liturgischen Motiv. Für Philipp Harnoncourt zum 60. Geburtstag (eds. E. Renhart and A Schnider; Graz, 1991), 121–129, esp. 127; Idem, Grundlinien (n. 11); see above the Acts of Thomas, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. 29 L’Eucologio Barberini gr. 336 (BEL.S 80; eds. S. Parenti and E. Velkovska; Roma, 2 2000), 128; cf. E. PETERSON, “Die Bedeutung von ἀναδείκνυµι in den griechischen Liturgien,” in: Festgabe für Adolf Deissmann zum 60. Geburtstag. 7. November 1926 (Tübingen, 1927), 320–326; TAFT, Epiclesis Question, 219–221 (n. 1); further references: Lampe, PGL 101. The earliest application of the term to the Eucharistic epiclesis is Basil of Caesarea, Spir. 27, 66 (SC 17bis, 481 Pruche). 30 Synoptic edition: A. BUDDE, Die ägyptische Basilios-Anaphora. Text – Kommentar – Geschichte (Jerusalemer Theologisches Forum 7; Münster, 2004), 160–165 (text); 378–430 (commentary); English translation adapted from JASPER and CUMING, Prayers, 133 (n. 20); cf. also G. WINKLER, Die Basilius-Anaphora. Edition der beiden armenischen Redaktionen und der relevanten Fragmente. Übersetzung und Zusammenschau aller Versionen im Licht der orientalischen Überlieferungen (Anaphorae Orientales 2 = Anaphorae Armeniacae 2; Roma, 2005), 775–830.

262

Harald Buchinger

invoked” and that the priest is “the one who calls for his presence”31, which can hardly be understood otherwise than as referring to an explicit Spiritepiclesis. Nonetheless, it must be admitted that the absence of any reference to the Holy Spirit (apart from the concluding Trinitarian doxology) is one of the peculiarities of the Roman Canon, the only Eucharistic prayer of the Roman rite from its earliest Latin testimonies to the latest reforms of the postVatican era. Other features include the lack of thanksgiving (i.e., “Eucharistic”) elements beyond the Preface and an excessive accumulation of offering and intercessory prayers that led to its radical curtailing and ultimate abolishment in the churches of the Reformation. The absence of an epiclesis is widely taken as a trait of primitivity (or, to put it more cautiously, at least as a consequence of the conservative character of the Roman liturgy), leading back into the time before the later-fourth-century developments in pneumatology; and the core of the text is indeed attested as early as the time of Ambrose of Milan (d. 397), who quotes a prayer which in his day may well already have been traditional.32 3.2 The Received Text of the Roman Canon The extant liturgical books of the Roman rite date only from the early Middle Ages (as is also the case of other traditions such as the Byzantine liturgy), and its Eucharistic prayer (the “Roman Canon”) has been preserved almost unchanged since the earliest existing testimonies, namely, the sacramentaries of the Carolingian era.33 Since it seems to be constructed concentrically around a core with the Institution Narrative at its centre, the traditional understanding takes these Words as being the key to the text and in consequence understands the preceding section as leading towards that alleged climax. In fact, the received text beseeches God “to make this offering wholly blessed, approved, ratified, reasonable, and acceptable, that it may become to us the body and blood of your dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord”. The petition asks in classical and biblical terminology for the acceptance of the Eucharistic offering, at the same time alluding to the Pauline theologoumenon of

31 Gelasius I. (492–496), ep. fragm. 7 (ed. Thiel 1, 486 = PL 59, 143 A): quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus invocatus adveniet, si sacerdos, et qui eum adesse deprecatur, criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur. 32 Ambrosius, Sacr. 4, 5f § 21f 27 (CSEL 73, 55–57 Faller). 33 Hänggi and Pahl, Prex Eucharistica 1, 424–438 (n. 27); English translation: JASPER and CUMING, Prayers, 163–166 (n. 20). Among the few later additions, the interpolation vel pro quibus offerimus in the Memento reflects a significant shift in Eucharistic theology and ecclesiology in the Carolingian era. Only in the twentieth century did a Pope dare to tamper with the text on the basis of his personal piety, when John XXIII inserted Joseph to the list of saints. Minor changes occurred in the post-Vatican reformulation of the Institution Narrative and the insertion of an anamnetic acclamation.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

263

the oblatio … rationabilis (cf. Rom 12:1: θυσία ζῶσα … λογικὴ λατρεία), which with its metaphorical use of cultic categories is fundamental to every Christian theology of liturgy. Since the text aims at the crucial effect of the prayer, “that the oblation (of bread and wine) may become … the body and blood of … Jesus Christ”, it has widely been taken as equivalent to the epicleseis of other rites, which ask for similar effects. The focus of this passage, which appears as a final clause (ut … fiat), is on the change of the elements; the Eucharistic communion of the Church is specified in other parts, such as the intercessions before and after the core of the prayer, but also towards the end of this core where supplication is made that “all of us who have received the most holy body and blood of your Son by partaking at this altar may be filled with all heavenly blessing and grace”. Even though one could discern implicit Pneumatology in the reference to “blessing” and “grace”, all in all one must admit that the Spirit is not featured prominently in the Eucharistic prayer of the Roman rite. The Church, however, in its many dimensions is a paramount concern of the text, though addressed predominantly in her quality as subject of the offering in the first stanzas of the prayer. Yet it remains a riddle why the benefits of the blessing for the communicants and the prayer for the change of the gifts should appear to be separated. 3.3 A Double Epiclesis? A certain analogy to this structural peculiarity of the Roman Canon can be seen in the Egyptian tradition of double epicleseis, both after the Sanctus and after the anamnesis. The possibility of a clearly consecratory epiclesis is meanwhile corroborated by several papyrological testimonies, including the famous Deir Balayzeh papyrus and the more recently discovered Barcelona/Montserrat anaphora.34 Nevertheless, notwithstanding striking parallels in wording, recent scholarship no longer considers the relationship between the Roman and the Alexandrian liturgy to be as close as once was thought. 3.4 The Core of the Roman Canon in the Light of Other Western Evidence A remarkable alternative explanation has been proposed by Hans-Joachim Schulz and explicated by Reinhard Messner in the light of Western evidence that is closer to the Roman Canon than the ancient Egyptian texts.35 A fresh

34 HAMMERSTAEDT, Anaphorenfragmente, 174–176 (n. 21); English translation: JASPER and CUMING, Prayers, 80f (n. 20); ZHELTOV, Anaphora (n. 3). 35 H.-J. SCHULZ, Ökumenische Glaubenseinheit aus eucharistischer Überlieferung (KKTS 39; Paderborn, 1976), 56–72; R. MESSNER, “Einige Probleme des eucharistischen Hochgebets,” in: Bewahren und Erneuern. Studien zur Meßliturgie: Festschrift für Hans Bernhard Meyer SJ zum 70. Geburtstag (IThS 42; eds. R. Messner, E. Nagel, and R. Pacik; Innsbruck, 1995), 174–201.

264

Harald Buchinger

look at the textual history of what has been understood as equivalent to the first, consecratory epiclesis shows that the petition for an effect upon the gifts is not the earliest identifiable understanding of this part. Consequently, the equivalent for an epiclesis is to be sought after the Institution Narrative, anamnesis, and offering – that is to say, exactly where the Antiochene tradition collocates it – and it can plausibly be found exactly there. 3.4.1 Quam oblationem: equivalent to an epiclesis? It is not clear if Ambrose of Milan quotes an early version of the Roman Canon for which manuscript evidence comes only four centuries later, or if he testifies to a related tradition. In his text, however, the parallel section to the Quam oblationem is definitely not consecratory but merely a prayer for the acceptance of the offering, which is described in a relative or rather causal subordinate clause as the “figure of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ”, whereas the received text of the Roman Canon appears to ask for their change into the latter in a final clause.36 The notion is therefore clearly explicatory and not consecratory, stating an inherent quality of the Eucharistic gifts rather than an intended effect upon them. An intermediate state is attested by the “Gaulish” recension of the Roman Canon which is attested by Irish and Ambrosian manuscripts: The syntactic structure is that of a relative clause (as, it may be noted, in a prayer from the old-Spanish “Mozarabic” tradition37) and therefore rather explicatory than final, but a final notion is introduced by the subjunctive (as in the received text of the Roman sacramentaries): “… which may become to us the body and blood …”. On the basis of this undisputable textual evidence, Reinhard Messner has developed the intriguing hypothesis that even the received text may be understood in an explanatory and not in a final sense, as ut may have both functions. The ut-clause would then state a quality of the gifts, and the intention of the whole passage would be to ask for the acceptance of the Church’s offering and not primarily for its change. Although the existing testimonies should not be pressed into a monolinear history, they insinuate that the scholastic hermeneutic of the Roman Canon in the version of its received text, interpreting the Quam oblationem-passage as consecratory in function and form, probably does not match the earliest sense of this prayer and that the equivalent of an epiclesis is to be sought elsewhere.

36

Cf. the synopsis given in appendix 1. Cf. appendix 1; text: M. Férotin (ed.), Le Liber Ordinum en usage dans l’Église wisigothique et mozarabe d’Espagne du cinquième au onzième siècle (MELi 5; Paris, 1904), 321f, N° 17 = Idem (ed.), Le Liber mozarabicus sacramentorum et les manuscrits mozarabes (MELi 6; Paris, 1912), 641, N° 161 § 1440. 37

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

265

3.4.2 Supplices: equivalent to an epiclesis! As in almost all developed Eucharistic prayers, the section following the Institution Narrative links up with the iteration command to “do this in my memory”: “therefore, remembering … we offer …” leading into a petition (“… and pray”), which in virtually all other traditions is explicitly epicletic, asking for the Spirit to operate an effect both on the Eucharistic gifts and on those who partake of them. The effect upon the gifts is articulated as some kind of consecration (explicitly so in the liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom) or some other sort of change (in the terminology of the liturgy of Saint Basil, “to show forth as holy of holies”). The specifically Roman conception of this change would then be that the gifts may be “transferred by the hand of your angel to your altar on high”, a somewhat cryptic notion and all the more so since the identity of that angel remains enigmatic (it is implausible to suppose an angel-Christology because parallel texts speak of angels in the plural). What would correspond to other epicleseis is that the requested change of the elements, which consequently are addressed as the body and blood of Christ, aims at an immediate effect upon the communicants: “that all of us who have received the most holy body and blood of your Son by partaking at this altar may be filled with all heavenly blessing and grace” – terminology which may have pneumatological implications. The Spirit, the Church, and the Eucharist would thus be intrinsically linked even in the Roman tradition. The interpretation of this section as equivalent to an epiclesis upon both the gifts and the communicants is strongly corroborated by comparison with texts from non-Roman Western liturgical traditions, which show that the Roman Canon is not a unique, one-off phenomenon but part of a larger and multifaceted tradition. In fact, both the Mozarabic and the Gaulish tradition do have prayers that are clearly related to the passage following the Institution Narrative in the Roman Canon but are formulated as Spirit-epicleseis.38 Nonetheless, one does no injustice to the Roman tradition of Eucharistic praying by stating (and not only comparatively speaking) that it displays a pneumatological deficit, which has been remedied only in the post-Vatican liturgical reform.

38 Cf. appendix 1; text: Férotin (ed.), Liber mozarabicus sacramentorum, 262, N° 69 § 627 (n. 37); English translation: cf. JASPER and CUMING, Prayers, 158 (n. 20), and L. C. Mohlberg (ed.), Missale Gothicum (Vat. Reg. lat. 317) (RED.F 5; Roma, 1961), 120, N° 77 § 527.

266

Harald Buchinger

4. Modern Renewal as an Ecumenical Achievement 4.1 The Renewal of the Eucharistic Prayer in the West The rediscovery of the Eucharistic prayer is one of the most significant elements of modern ecumenical and liturgical renewal, which has led to the reception of Eastern texts by Western churches, as well as to the composition of numerous new prayers in the last third of the twentieth century. The most important achievement of these reforms is certainly the restoration of a Spiritepiclesis (not only in all new Eucharistic prayers, it may be noted, but also in other sacramental prayers such as the nuptial blessing, etc.), a step which was also followed by Churches of the Reformation.39 Since it can frankly be admitted that the inspiration came from the Christian East, the renewal of the epiclesis is of universal ecumenical importance. Perhaps the most prominent example of this renewal is the Eucharistic prayer of the alleged “Apostolic Tradition”. Its ascription to the Roman presbyter and – anachronistically speaking – first antipope Hippolytus even seemed to give the Antiochene-type anaphora a place in the early, Greekspeaking history of the Roman liturgy, an assumption now obsolete since the historical classification of the anonymous text has become doubtful.40 Nevertheless, the reception of its Eucharistic prayer by many non-Roman-Catholic churches has almost made it into an “anaphora oecumenica”.41 The extremely concise and beautiful text was updated through the insertion of certain elements that in the course of history have become standard in most Eucharistic prayers, notably the Sanctus and intercessions. Furthermore, the authorities behind the Roman reform obviously found it problematic to ask for the change of the gifts after the Institution Narrative which they considered consecratory in light of scholastic Eucharistic theology.42 Therefore, they simply split the epiclesis, inserting the petition for the change of the gifts before the Institution Narrative, which was thus isolated from the thanksgiving of which it was part in the historical model. Only the prayer for the

39 P. F. BRADSHAW, “The Rediscovery of the Holy Spirit in Modern Eucharistic Theology and Practice,” in: Berger and Spinks, Spirit in Worship (n. 1), 79–96, with reference to earlier literature. 40 See, among innumerable others, M. SMYTH, “L’anaphore de la prétendue ‘Tradition apostolique’ et la prière eucharistique romaine,” RevSR 81 (2007), 95–118. 41 See the contribution of M. E. JOHNSON, “Imagining Early Christian Liturgy: The traditio apostolica – A Case Study,” in the 2014 Yale Liturgy Conference volume Liturgy’s Imagined Pasts (Collegeville, forthcoming). 42 Cf. the General Institution of the Roman Missal 1969–1975 edition N° 55 / 2003 edition N° 79: “Institution Narrative and Consecration”. Consecratory effect is, however, also associated with the Epiclesis.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

267

communicants was left in the original place after the Institution Narrative, special anamnesis, and offering (“Remembering therefore … we offer …”).43 Not only did many other churches follow the example of the Roman reform in this respect, but the split or double epiclesis also became a standard feature of all other Eucharistic prayers that were created for the renewed liturgical books of the Roman Catholic Church and for many sources beyond that.44 4.2 Open Questions from a Roman Perspective Apart from ecumenically problematic passages about the object of the Church’s Eucharistic offering,45 the most debated feature of the new Eucharistic prayers is exactly the place and shape of the epiclesis. Breaking up the epiclesis separates the filling of the gifts with the Spirit from filling those who partake of them with the same Spirit. This separation not only destroys the unity of Spirit, Church, and Liturgy in the central part of that liturgy, but it also divides the two aspects of the body of Christ which since 1 Cor 10:16f is the reference point of every Eucharistic theology: the inseparable unity of both the ecclesial and the Eucharistic body of Christ. Shaping the Eucharistic prayer in accordance with a scholastic understanding of the Words of Institution obfuscates this double reality of the body of Christ, to the detriment of the liturgical text’s ecclesiology. From the point of view of Spirit, Church, and Liturgy, the balance of recent liturgical renewal remains ambiguous: while the rediscovery of the epiclesis was a remarkable step forward, its splitting was a fatal decision. But since in the last two or three generations the Western churches have let themselves be inspired by the liturgical traditions of the East (and forgotten treasures of non-Roman Western rites) to restore the epiclesis in the Eucharistic prayer and have thus become alert to the constitutive action of the Spirit in the celebration that expresses and constitutes the Church as Christ’s body, one can now also hope that they will likewise learn the ensuing lesson about the inseparable connection between the invocation of the Spirit over the Eucharistic elements and the filling of those who partake in them with the same 43

Cf. the synopsis in appendix 2. For a survey of achievements and problems, see A. MCGOWAN, “The Epiclesis in Eucharistic Praying Reconsidered: Early Evidence and Recent Western Reforms,” in: A Living Tradition: On the Intersection of Liturgical History and Pastoral Practice. Essays in Honor of Maxwell E. Johnson (eds. D. A. Pitt, S. Alexopoulos, and C. McConnell; Collegeville, 2012), 230–255, and Eadem, Eucharistic Epiclesis, Ancient and Modern Speaking of the Spirit in Eucharistic Prayer (Collegeville, 2014). 45 MESSNER, Probleme, 191–199 (n. 35); H.-C. SERAPHIM, “Messopfer und Eucharistie. Wege und Irrwege der Überlieferung,” in: Gottesdienst leben. 60 Jahre Lutherische Liturgische Konferenz in Bayern (eds. C. Schmidt and T. Melzl; Nürnberg, 2011), 283–324. 44

268

Harald Buchinger

Spirit.46 Although the Roman Canon does not mention the Spirit at all, it has been shown that its early history stands as witness against the newly created prayers, the problematic structure of which is meanwhile taken by many as an irremovable rule of prayer.

5. Conclusion Though the rediscovery of the Eucharistic prayer in its epicletic character is one of the great achievements of the ecumenical movement in the twentieth century, it is historically implausible that the intimate relationship between Church, Spirit, and Liturgy was expressed by Spirit-epicleseis in the earliest period. Such an epiclesis most likely originated in Syria as an invitation to the Spirit to “come”, an invitation which originally may have been addressed to Christ himself as guest of the Eucharistic meal. Only in the wake of the pneumatological clarifications in the era of the Imperial Church does a standard form of epiclesis spread widely, beseeching God the Father to send the Spirit upon the Eucharistic gifts in order to operate a change not only in them, but ultimately in those who partake in them. Consecration is not a goal in itself, but aims at the communion, which fills the congregation with the Spirit. It has been argued that even the Roman Canon, the core of which may antedate the establishment of such an epiclesis, has an equivalent to this conjunct petition. It is therefore somewhat tragic that – notwithstanding early precedents for such a separation in the Egyptian tradition – the literary link between Spirit, Church, and Liturgy as expressed by the epicletic prayer upon both gifts and congregation jointly has been dissolved in the Roman tradition (and others following her example) by exactly the reform that introduced epicleseis into its Eucharistic prayers in order to articulate that constitutive link between Spirit, Church, and Liturgy.

46

Though efforts of the 1970s to create an ecumenically accepted anaphora on the basis of the most beautiful and allegedly primitive Egyptian version of the liturgy of Saint Basil failed, the validity of these prayers is fully acknowledged by the Roman church, which decided, however, not to adopt their structure in the post-Vatican reform – unlike, for example, the Anglican Church; cf. L. L. MITCHELL, “The Alexandrian Anaphora of St. Basil of Caesarea: Ancient Source of ‘A Common Eucharistic Prayer’,” AThR 58 (1976), 194–206, and “Prayer F” modelled on the anaphora of St. Basil in Common Worship: Services and Prayers for the Church of England (London, 2000), 198–200.

269

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

Appendix 1: The Core of the Roman Mass Canon and Some Early Parallels DE SACRAMENTIS 5f.

Fac nobis

hanc oblationem

MOZARABIC POST PRIDIE

LIBER ORDINUM N° 17 / LIBER MOZARABICUS SACRAMENTORUM N° 1440



quorum oblationem

benedictam scriptam, rationabilem acceptabilem

ratam rationabilemque facere digneris:

quod est figura corporis et sanguinis

domini nostri iesu christi,

que est imago et similitudo corporis et sanguinis

iesu christi filii tui ac redemptoris nostri.

GAULISH (= IrishAmbrosian) RECENSION

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version)





Quam oblationem tu deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam adscriptam ratam rationabilemque facere digneris (v. l.: dignare) quae nobis

Quam oblationem tu deus in omnibus quaesumus benedictam adscriptam ratam rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris ut nobis

corpus et sanguis

corpus et sanguis

fiat dilectissimi filii tui

fiat dilectissimi filii tui

(domini) dei nostri iesu christi.

domini dei nostri iesu christi,

270

DE SACRAMENTIS 5f.

qui pridie cum pateretur,

in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem,

respexit ad caelum ad te, sancte pater omnipotens aeterne deus, gratias agens benedixit, fregit, fractumque apostolis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens: accipite et edite ex hoc omnes; hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro multis confringetur. Similter etiam calicem, postquam cenatum est, pridie quam pateretur, accepit,

respexit ad caelum, ad te, sancte pater omnipotens aeterne deus, gratias agens benedixit,

Harald Buchinger

MOZARABIC POST PRIDIE

GAULISH (= IrishAmbrosian) RECENSION

(the rest is mostly equal)

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version)

qui pridie quam pateretur,

accepit panem in sanctas et venerabiles manus suas elevatis oculis in caelum, ad te deum patrem suum omnipotentem, tibi gratias agens benedixit, fregit, dedit discipulis suis dicens: accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes; hoc est enim corpus meum.

Simili modo posteaquam cenatum est

accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in sanctas et venerabiles manus suas,

item tibi gratias agens benedixit,

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

DE SACRAMENTIS 5f.

MOZARABIC POST PRIDIE

GAULISH (= IrishAmbrosian) RECENSION

271

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version)

apostolis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens: accipite et bibite ex hoc omnes;

dedit discipulis suis dicens accipite et bibite ex eo omnes;

hic est enim sanguis meus.

hic est enim calix sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti – mysterium fidei – qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissione peccatorum Haec quotienscumque feceritis in mei memoriam facietis.

Quotiescumque hoc feceritis, totiens commemorationem mei facietis, donec iterum adveniam.

Haec quotienscumque feceritis in mei memoriam faciatis passionem meam praedicabitis, resurrectionem meam annuntiabitis, adventum meum sperabitis, donec iterum veniam ad vos de caelis. LIBER MOZARABICUS SACRAMENTORUM

Ergo memores

N° 627 Hoc agentes apud te, pater sancte, … nuntiamus

MISSALE GOTHICUM

post secreta N° 527 Memores

offerimus tibi

Hanc quoque oblationem

hanc immaculatam hostiam, rationabilem hostiam

offerimus tibi, domine

hanc inmaculatam hostiam racionalem hostiam incruentam hostiam hunc panem sanctum

incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum

et calicem vitae aeternae

see below

GAULISH (= IrishAmbrosian) RECENSION

et calicem salutarem

ut accepto habeas et benedicas supplices oramus, sicut habuisti accepto munera abel pueri tui iusti, et sacrificium patriarchae patris nostri abrahe, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus melchisdech.

et petimus et precamur

Descendat hic queso invisibiliter benedictio tua, sicut quondam in patrum hostiis visibiliter descendebat.

obsecrantes,

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version) sed et in caelis gloriosae ascensionis offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis hostiam puram hostiam sanctam hostiam inmaculatam panem sanctum vitae aeterne et calicem salutis perpetuae. Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, et accepta habere

sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti abel, et sacrificium patriarchae nostri abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus melchisedech, sanctum sacrificium inmaculatam hostiam. Supplices te rogamus omnipotens deus

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

DE SACRAMENTIS 5f.

uti hanc oblationem suscipias

in sublime altare tuum per manus angelorum tuorum,

sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti abel et sacrificium patriarchae nostri abrahae et quod obtulit summus sacerdos melchisedech.

47

MOZARABIC POST PRIDIE

Ascendat odor suavitatis in conspectu divine maiestatis tue ex hoc sublimi altario tuo per manus angeli tui: et deferatur in ista solemnia spiritus tuus sanctus, qui tam adstantis quam offerentis populi et oblata pariter et vota sanctificet. Ut quicumque ex hoc corpore libaverimus, sumamus nobis medelam anime ad sananda cordium vulnera, … ut vere hic sanguis sacer filii tui domini nostri, ita peccata nostra diluat potatus, sicut quondam nos redemit effusus.

GAULISH (= IrishAmbrosian) RECENSION ut infundere digneris spiritum tuum sanctum,

273

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version) iube haec perferri

per manus angeli tui in sublime altare tuum

edentibus nobis

vitam aeternam regnumque perpetuum conlatura potantibus: per:

in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae, ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione47 sacrosanctum filii tui corpus et sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur. Per christum dominum nostrum. s. o.

In some witnesses of the gaulish (= irish-ambrosian) recension: … ex hoc altari sanctificationis

274

Harald Buchinger

The Core of the Roman Mass Canon and Some Early Parallels DE SACRAMENTIS 5f.

MOZARABIC POST PRIDIE

GAULISH (= Irish-Ambrosian) RECENSION

LIBER ORDINUM N° 17 / LIBER MOZARABICUS SACRAMENTORUM N° 1440

Make for us this offering

of our Lord Jesus Christ;



Vouchsafe, we beseech you, to make their offering

Vouchsafe, we beseech you, o God, to make this offering wholly blessed, approved, ratified, and reasonable

blessed,

reasonable, acceptable, because it / which is the figure of the body and blood



approved, ratified, and reasonable which is the image and likeness of the body and blood

of Jesus Christ

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version)



which may become to us the body and blood

Vouchsafe, we beseech you, o God, to make this offering wholly blessed, approved ratified, reasonable, and acceptable; that it may become to us the body and blood

of your dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ (our Lord and) God.

of your dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord;



who, the day before he suffered

your Son and our redeemer. who, the day before he suffered took bread in his holy hands, looked up to heaven to you, holy Father, almighty, eternal God,

took bread in his holy and reverend hands, lifted up his eyes to heaven to you, his almighty God and Father,

275

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

DE SACRAMENTIS 5f.

gave thanks, blessed and broke it, and handed it to his apostles and disciples, saying: Take and eat from this, all of you, for this is my body, which will be broken for many. Likewise also after supper, the day before he suffered, he took the cup, looked up to heaven, to you, holy Father, almighty, eternal God, and gave thanks, blessed,

and handed it to his apostles and disciples, saying: Take and drink from this, all of you, for this is my blood.

MOZARABIC POST PRIDIE

GAULISH (= Irish-Ambrosian) RECENSION

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version) gave thanks to you, blessed, broke, and handed it to his disciples, saying: Take and eat from this, all of you; for this is my body.

Likewise after supper,

taking also this glorious cup in his holy and reverend hands,

again he gave thanks to you, blessed, and handed it to his disciples, saying: Take and drink from it, all of you; for this is the cup of my blood of the new and eternal covenant, the mystery of faith, which will be shed for you and for many for vorgiveness of sins.

276

DE SACRAMENTIS 5f.

Harald Buchinger

MOZARABIC POST PRIDIE

As often as you do this, so often you will make remembrance of me until I come again

LIBER MOZARABI-

Therefore, remembering

GAULISH (= Irish-Ambrosian) RECENSION

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version)

As often as you do this, you will do it for my remembrance. you will proclaim my passion, announce my resurrection, hope for my coming, until I shall come again to you from heaven.

As often as you do this, you will do it for my remembrance.

MISSALE GOTHI-

CUS

CUM

SACRAMENTORUM N° 627 Doing this, we proclaim … …

we offer to you

This offering also,

we offer to you, Lord,

this spotless victim, reasonable victim, bloodless victim, this holy bread

this spotless victim, reasonable victim, bloodless victim, this holy bread

and cup of eternal life:

and the cup of salvation.

Therefore also, Lord, we your servants, and also your holy people, have in remembrance the blessed passion of your Son Christ our Lord, likewise his resurrection from the dead, and also his glorious ascension into heaven; we offer to your excellent majesty from your gifts and bounty a pure victim, a holy victim, an unspotted victim, the holy bread of eternal life and the cup of everlasting salvation.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

DE SACRAMENTIS 5f.

MOZARABIC POST PRIDIE

GAULISH (= Irish-Ambrosian) RECENSION

we beseech and entreat you

and we pray and beseech you

to receive this offering

on your altar on high by the hands of your angels,

277

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version)

the gifts of your righteous servant Abel,

Vouchsafe to look upon them with a favourable and kindly countenance and accept them as you vouchsafed to accept the gifts of your righteous servant Abel,

and the sacrifice of the patriarch Abraham our father,

and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham,

and that which your high-priest Melchizedek offered to you.

and that which your high-priest Melchizedek offered to you, a holy sacrifice, an unblemished victim We humbly beseech you, almighty God,

to accept and bless, as you accepted

Let your blessing, I pray, descend here invisibly, as once it used to descend visibly on the victims of the fathers. Let a sweetsmelling savour ascend to the sight of your divine majesty by the hand of your angel. And let your Holy Spirit be borne down upon those solemn things, to sanctify both the offerings and the prayers alike of the people who stand here and offer, that all who taste of this body may

imploring you

that you would vouchsafe to pour out your Holy Spirit,

to bid them be borne by the hand of your angel to your altar on high,

in the sight of your divine majesty,

which shall confer unto us who eat and

that all of us who have received the

278

DE SACRAMENTIS 5f.

Harald Buchinger

MOZARABIC POST PRIDIE receive healing for our souls … so that really this holy blood of your Son our Lord may, as drunk, wash away our sins, as once, as shed, it redeemed us.

as you vouchsafed to receive the gifts of your righteous servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham, and that which the high-priest Melchizedek offered to you.

GAULISH (= Irish-Ambrosian) RECENSION

CANON ROMANUS (Sacramentary Version)

drink

most holy body and blood of your Son by partaking at this altar* may be filled with all heavenly blessing and grace; through Christ our Lord.

eternal life and everlasting kingdom through (Christ our Lord …)

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

279

Appendix 2: The Eucharistic Prayer of the “Apostolic Tradition” and the Eucharistic Prayer II of the Roman Missal 197048 “Apostolic Tradition” D(omi)n(u)s vobiscum. Et cum sp(irit)u tuo. Susum corda. Habemus ad dom(inum). Gratias agamus d(omi)no. Dignum et iustum est. Gratias tibi referimus d(eu)s, per dilectum puerum tuum Ie(su)m Chr(istu)m, quem in ultimis temporibus misisti nobis salvatorem et redemptorem et angelum voluntatis tuae, qui est verbum tuum inseparabile[m], per quem omnia fecisti et beneplacitum tibi fuit, misisti de caelo in matricem virginis, quiq(ue) in utero habitus incarnatus est et filius tibi ostensus est, ex sp(irit)u s(an)c(t)o et virgine natus, qui voluntatem tuam conplens et populum sanctum tibi adquirens extendis manus cum pateretur, ut a passione liberaret eos qui in te crediderunt, qui cumque traderetur voluntariae passioni, ut mortem solvat et vincula diabuli dirumpat, et infernum calcet et iustos inluminet, et terminum figat et resurrectionem manifestet,

Eucharistic Prayer II Dominus vobiscum.. Et cum spiritu tuo. Sursum corda. Habemus ad Dominum. Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro. Dignum et iustum est. Vere dignum et iustum est, aequm et salutare, nos tibi, sancte Pater, semper et ubique gratias agere per filium dilectionis tuae Iesum Christum,

verbum tuum per quod cuncta fecisti:

quem misisti nobis Salvatorem et Redemptorem, incarnatum de Spiritu Sancto et ex Virgine natum. Qui voluntatem tuam adimplens et populum tibi sanctum acquirens, extendit manus cum pateretur, (cf. below) ut mortem solveret et resurrectionem manifestaret.

Et ideo cum Angelis et omnibus Sanctis gloriam tuam praedicamus, una voce dicentes: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua.

48 Didache. Zwölf-Apostel-Lehre / Traditio Apostolica. Apostolische Überlieferung (eds. G. Schöllgen and W. Geerlings; FC 1; Freiburg, 1991), 222–227. Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli pp. VI promulgatum. Editio typica (Vatican, 1970), 456–460.

280

Harald Buchinger

“Apostolic Tradition”

(cf. above) accipiens panem gratias tibi agens dixit: Accipite, manducate, hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis confringetur , similiter et calicem dicens: Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis effunditur. Quando hoc facitis, meam commemorationem facitis.

Memores igitur mortis et resurrectionis eius, offerimus tibi panem et calicem, gratias tibi agentes quia nos dignos habuisti adstare coram te et tibi ministrare, et petimus ut mittas sp(iritu)m tuum s(an)c(tu)m in oblationem sanctae ecclesiae: in unum congregans des omnibus qui percipiunt sanctis in repletionem sp(iritu)s s(an)c(t)i ad confirmationem fidei in veritate,

Eucharistic Prayer II Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini. Hosanna in excelsis. Vere Sanctus es, Domine, fons omnis sanctitatis. Haec ergo dona, quaesumus, Spiritus tui rore sanctifica, ut nobis Corpus et sanguis fiant Domini nostri Iesu Christi. Qui cum passioni voluntarie traderetur, accepit panem et gratias agens fregit, deditque discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite et manducate ex hoc ommnes: hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. Simili modo, postquam cenatum est, accipiens et calicem, iterum gratias agens dedit discipulis suis, dicens: Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et aeterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc facite in meam commemorationem. Mysterium fidei: Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias. Memores igitur mortis et resurrectionis eius, tibi, Domine, panem vitae et calicem salutis offerimus, gratias agentes quia nos dignos habuisti astare coram te et tibi ministrare. Et supplices deprecamur ut Corporis et Sanguinis Christi participes a Spiritu Sancto congregemur in unum.

Recordare, Domine, Ecclesiae tuae toto orbe diffusae, ut eam in caritate perficias una cum Papa nostro N. et Episcopo nostro N. et universo clero. Memento etiam fratrum nostrorum, qui in spe resurrectionis dormierunt, omniumque in tua miseratione defunctorum, et eos in lumen vultus tui admitte. Omnium nostrum, queasumus, miserere, ut cum beata Dei Genitrice Virgine Maria, beatis Apostolis et omnibus Sanctis, qui tibi a saeculo placuerunt, aeterne vitae mereamur esse con-

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

281

“Apostolic Tradition”

Eucharistic Prayer II

ut te laudemus et glorificemus per puerum tuum Ie(su)m Chr(istu)m, per quem tibi gloria et honor patri et filio cum s(an)c(t)o sp(irit)u in sancta ecclesia tua et nunc et in saecula saeculorum.

sortes, et te laudemus et glorificemus per Filium tuum Iesum Christum. Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum.

Amen.

Amen.

282

Harald Buchinger

The Eucharistic Prayer of the “Apostolic Tradition” and the Eucharistic Prayer II of the Roman Missal 197049 “Apostolic Tradtion” The Lord (be) with you. And with your spirit. Up (with your) hearts. We have (them) to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord. It is worthy and just.

We render thanks to you, God, through your beloved Child Jesus Christ, whom in the last times you sent to us as savior and redeemer and angel of your will, who is your inseparable word, through whom you made all things and it was well pleasing to you, you sent from heaven into the virgin’s womb, and who conceived in the womb was incarnate and manifested as your Son, born from the Holy Spirit and the virgin; who fulfilling your will and gaining for you a holy people stretched out (his) hands when he was suffering, that he might release from suffering those who believed in you; who when he was being handed over to voluntary suffering, that he might destroy death and break the bonds of the devil, and tread down hell and illuminate the righteous, and fix a limit and manifest the resurrection,

49

Eucharistic Prayer II The Lord be with you. And also with you. Lift up your hearts. We lift them up to the Lord. Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give him thanks and praise. Father, it is our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

He is the Word through whom you made the universe, the Savior you sent to redeem us. By the power of the Holy Spirit he took flesh and was born of the Virgin Mary.

For our sake he opened his arms on the cross; he put an end to death and revealed the resurrection. In this he fulfilled your will and won for you a holy people. (cf. below)

P. F. BRADSHAW, M. E. JOHNSON, and L. E. PHILLIPS, The Apostolic Tradition: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, 2002), 38–40. The Sacramentary: The Roman Missal Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and Published by Authority of Pope Paul VI. English Translation Prepared by the International Committee on English in the Liturgy (Collegeville, 1985), 509–512.

The Holy Spirit and the Church in Liturgy

“Apostolic Tradtion”

(cf. above) taking bread (and) giving thanks to you, he said: “Take, eat, this is my body that will be broken for you.” Likewise also the cup, saying: “This is my blood that is shed for you. When you do this, you do my remembrance.”

Remembering therefore his death and resurrection, we offer to you the bread and cup, giving thanks to you because you have held us worthy to stand before you and minister to you. And we ask that you would send your Holy Spirit in the oblation of (your) holy church, (that) gathering (them) into one you will give to all who partake of the holy things (to partake) in the fullness of the Holy Spirit, for the strengthening of faith in truth,

283

Eucharistic Prayer II And so we join the angels and the saints in proclaiming your glory as we say: Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might, heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest. Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks. He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and eat it: this is my body which will be given up for you. When the supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said: Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. it will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me. Let us proclaim the mystery of faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again. In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you.

May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love, together with N. our pope, N. our bishop, and all the clergy.

284

Harald Buchinger

“Apostolic Tradtion”

that we may praise and glorify you through your Child Jesus Christ, through whom (be) glory and honor to you, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in your holy church, both now and to the ages of ages. Amen.

Eucharistic Prayer II Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ. Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.

Amen.

Part Three: Contributions from the Seminars

THE HOLY SPIRIT IN ANCIENT JUDAISM

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon and its Old Testament Background Rodoljub S. Kubat

1. Introduction The Wisdom of Solomon (Σοφία Σαλωµῶνος) may be the youngest Old Testament text. Scholars tend to agree that it originated in the HellenisticEgyptian metropolis Alexandria, which was one of the centers of the ancient world. One piece of evidence that the text originated in Egypt is the criticism of the cult of animals (compare 11:15; 12:23–27; 13:10; 15:18–19),1 as well as the emphasis on the Egyptian phase of the exodus. The date of composition cannot be ascertained. It is usually assumed to have originated in the first century B.C. The issue of authorship is also a complex one. The writer is anonymous and presents himself as the wise King Solomon. The text does not name any specific characters. Of toponyms, Pentapolis is mentioned once (Πενταπόλεως: 10:6) and the Red Sea twice (10:18; 19:7). One gets the impression that the writer is mature, even an old man who is looking back to his youth as if it is something that has passed. One can conclude, judging by the text, that its author was very educated (ἐγκύκλιος παιδεία). Analysis of the literary style and the author’s education imply that the author knew well the Hellenistic culture in which he lived, as well as the Old Testament theological heritage to which he belonged. Some were of the opinion that the book was the work of redactors because of its multiple literary genres and the fact that it consists of three parts (1:1–6:21; 6:22–11:1; 11:2–19:22). New research, however, shows that it is the work of one author.2 This is shown by 1

A. SCHMITT, Das Buch der Weisheit (Würzburg, 1986), 9. SCHMITT, Buch der Weisheit, 12 (n. 1); H. ENGEL, Das Buch der Weisheit (NSK.AT 16; Stuttgart, 1998), 30; S. SCHROER, “Das Buch Weisheit,ˮ in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (eds. E. Zenger et al.; 6th ed.; Stuttgart, 2006), 400. 2

288

Rodoljub S. Kubat

the vocabulary, structure, basic theological ideas, and so forth. The text was probably not written all at once but is rather the product of a longer period of reflection on the Bible.3 It is possible that the text is a literary version of a collection of lectures that the author had given in one of the Jewish schools,4 because he was almost certainly a Sadducee. He wrote for a Jewish community with a Hellenistic education. Both the author and this community knew the biblical texts in the Greek translation. The book is, for the most part, written in poetic form. It is written in an elegant and rich Greek.5 Numerous stylistic techniques used by the author reveal his familiarity with Greek texts.6 In several instances, the author uses expressions from the world of sport (ἆθλον – 4:2; ἀγών – 4:2; 10:12), politics (πρυτάνεις – 13:2), and mythology (ᾅδης – 1:14; 2:1; 16:13; 17:4).7 In one instance, he compares manna to ambrosia, the food of the gods of Olympus (ἀµβροσίας – 19:21). The depth of the linguistic influence is apparent in the use of constructions characteristic of Greek literary language (2:3–9; 13:11–15), as well as a certain similarity with Greek lyric (2:6–9; 5:9–13). The writer, using rhetorical figures such as διατριβή and σύγκρισις or praise sermons (ἐγκώµιον), which were usual in that time period, resembles CynicStoic philosophers. The writing, however, is not composed in one of the contemporary Hellenistic meters such as hexameter, iambs, or elegies, as was the case with Ezekiel the Tragedian, who rendered the story of the exodus in iambic trimeter.8 In his interpretation of the biblical text, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon did not apply allegory. In this, he differed from his compatriots Philo and Aristobulus, as well as the Stoic exegetes. In terms of literary genre, the Wisdom of Solomon as a whole most resembles the ancient literary form λόγος προτρεπτικός.9 This genre is suggestive of a sophistic way of preaching. The basic characteristic of the form is the promotion of a certain worldview (Weltanschauung) and a certain way of living. The narrator implicitly presents himself as a teacher of the devotion 3

Cf. ENGEL, Buch der Weisheit, 34 (n. 2). Cf. D. GEORGI, Weisheit Salomos (JSHRZ III.4; Gütersloh, 1980), 393. 5 J. M. REESE, Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and its Consequences (AnBib 41; Rom, 1970), 3. 6 SCHROER, Buch Weisheit, 375 (n. 2). 7 Cf. SCHMITT, Buch der Weisheit, 11 (n. 1). 8 The church historian Eusebius of Cesarea, in his work Praep. ev. (PG 21:737–738.), cites some parts of a text by Ezekiel the Tragedian, a Jewish writer who is only partly known to contemporary scholarship. Ezekiel was a Hellenistic Jewish writer who lived, probably, in the middle of the second century B.C. He adapted some biblical texts into dramas. He wrote, in iambic trimeter, the tragedy, ᾿Εξαγωγή (“The Exodus from Egypt”), of which only 269 verses remain today. Cf. J. WIENEKE, Ezechielis Judaiepoetae Alexandrini fabulae, quae inscribitur ᾿Εξαγωγή, fragmenta (Münster, 1931). 9 Cf. REESE, Hellenistic Influence, 90–121 (n. 5). 4

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

289

that is gained through the adoption of wisdom. Wisdom comes from God, and it is to be striven for. Without wisdom, a human being surely falls into perdition. Such antithetic elements are framed by an accentuated, paraenetic prologue and epilogue. The writer often uses the traditionally Semitic parallelismus membrorum10 and parataxis. Parallelismus membrorum is a style specific to ancient oriental poetry, including biblical poetry. Some parts of the biblical text were written in this form (Prov, Pss, Job, and some prophetic texts). The writer, in this regard, remains close to the earlier wisdom tradition. The book, however, does not represent a collection of sayings but is conceived as a thematically connected text. The author also incorporates midrash; in the spirit of this Jewish approach to interpretation, he reinterprets events described in the Bible and applies them to his contexts (11–19).11 The book is intended for Hellenized Jews, for the “inner need” of the community. Even though the writer, in many respects, participates in the contemporary Hellenistic culture, his main preoccupation is his own biblical tradition. There are many allusions to the narratives from the Torah, particularly in the third part of the book, in which he subsequently contemplates the presence of wisdom in Israel. Furthermore, he relies heavily on the prophetic texts, especially Isaiah. Wisdom 2:10–20 and 4:20–5:7 draw on the fourth Servant Song (Isa 52:13–53:12) and Isa 59:6–14. Furthermore, the author often uses motifs that can be found in the Psalms. Biblical texts serve to verify and strengthen the opinions that he presents. The writer does not discuss, nor does he address, those outside – that is, adherents of other religious or philosophical convictions. He addresses the Israelites, and Scripture is an important foundation for his arguments. This commitment to the biblical tradition would suggest that he used important theological expressions in a

10 Parallelism is a semantic or structural repetition of sentences or certain parts of sentences. Repetition of the sentences according to their meaning (Parallelismus membrorum) is the fundamental feature of poetic biblical language. Semantic parallelism in biblical poetry is enhanced by syntactic parallelism – the word order in one verse corresponds to the word order and word meaning in the next verse. The purpose of parallelism is to transform the common perception of an object by a unique semantic expression. The equivalent elements strengthen the mutual relationship of the verses and intensify the meaning. The most common types of parallelisms are the following: 1) synonymous – when both members of the couplet express the same thought through different words (Ps 2:10–11; Prov 26:27; Wis 1:2.4); 2) antithetic – when both members of the couplet express the same message through opposite statements (Ps 1:6; Prov 10:1; 13:3; Wis 2:11); 3) synthetic – when the second member of the couplet further develops and expands on the concept from the first one (Ps 96:1; Prov 18:10–11; Wis 2:1b–d, 8–9b). Thus, structured parallelisms make the boundaries between sentences less certain and more open to multiple meanings. Parallelisms can be found in prose texts, as well. 11 Cf. W. HARRINGTON, Uvod u Stari Zavjet: Spomen obećanja (Record of the Promise: The Old Testament) (2nd ed.; KS; Zagreb, 1987), 298.

290

Rodoljub S. Kubat

way that is consistent with their meaning in the Old Testament. So it is also with his understanding and use of the word πνεῦµα.

2. The Spirit in the Old Testament The Hebrew equivalent to the Greek word πνεῦµα is ‫רוח‬. The word ‫ רוח‬is mentioned in the Old Testament, in total, 389 times (378 Hebrew, 11 Aramaic).12 Etymologically related terms can be found in other Semitic languages.13 The basic meanings of the word ‫ רוח‬are “wind” and “spirit”. However, a more detailed examination of the Old Testament texts reveals different uses of the word in different kinds of texts and at different times.14 Hitherto, all attempts to determine the semantic evolution of this term more clearly have not provided adequate results. There are several reasons for this. One is the difficulty of establishing a reliable chronology of the Old Testament texts in which the word ‫ רוח‬appears. Secondly, there are multiple textual-theological traditions that differ in many regards. Finally, the term itself is such that it is hard to fix and give a more concrete meaning. Such words have a metaphorical dimension, because they express an elusive, spiritual reality. In the Old Testament, the use of this word and its semantic purview are rich. Beside the basic meanings “wind” and “spirit”, ‫ רוח‬can, in different conceptual and linguistic contexts, mean: blowing, breath, meaning, reason, will (bearer of will), the personal pronoun “I”, and so forth.15 12

152.

Cf. D. LYS, Ruach: Le souffle dans l´Ancien Testament (EHPhR 56; Paris, 1962),

13 An appropriate word for the Hebrew ‫( רוח‬wind, spirit) can be found in all westernSemitic languages. In Ugarit, rḥ means “wind, smell, mistˮ. In Punic, also, rḥ means “the windˮ. In Aramaic, rwḥ means “wind, spiritˮ. The Arabian ruhi means “the breath of lifeˮ, and riḥ means “the windˮ. In Ethiopic, rôha means “to waveˮ. The lack of similar words in east-Semitic languages is noteworthy. For example, the Akkadian word for “breathˮ or “windˮ is šâru. Cf. J. HEHN, “Zum Problem des Geistes im Alten Orient und im Alten Testament,” ZAW 43 (1925), 210–225. 14 S. TENGSTRÖM, “ ‫ – רוח‬rûaḥ,” ThWAT 7: 394. 15 For more on the use and meaning of the word “spiritˮ in the Old Testament, see C. A. BRIGGS, “The Use of ‫ רוח‬in the OT,” JBL 19 (1900), 132–145; P. VOLZ, Der Geist Gottes und die verwandten Erscheinungen im Alten Testament und im anschließenden Judentum (Tübingen, 1910); J. HEHN, Zum Problem, 210–225 (n. 13); P. VAN IMSCHOOT, “L’esprit de Jahvé, source de vie, dans l’Ancien Testament,” RB 44 (1935), 481–501; F. BAUMGÄRTEL, “ πνεῦµα, πνευµατικός. Geist im Alten Testament,” ThWNT 6: 357–366; A. BENSON, Spirit of God in the Didactic Books of the Old Testament (Washington, 1949); G. GERLEMAN, “Geist und Geistesgaben im Alten Testament,” RGG3 2: 1270–1272; D. LYS, Rûach (n. 12); O. SCHILLING, Geist und Materie in biblischer Sicht (SBS 25; Stuttgart, 1967); C. WESTERMANN, “Geist im Alten Testament,” EvTh 41 (1981), 223–230; P. SCHÄFER, “Geist/Heiliger Geist/Geistesgaben II. Judentum,” TRE 12: 173–178.

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

291

The term ‫ רוח‬is pronouncedly ambivalent. It is a word that often connotes the power of God, as well as dynamism and activity in general. Not having ‫ רוח‬means deadness and absence of movement and, with that, not having true existence. Other gods are said not to possess the spirit: “Everyone is stupid and without knowledge; goldsmiths are all put to shame by their idols; for their images are false, and there is no breath in them (‫( ”)ולא רוח בם‬Jer 10:14 NRSV; cf. 51:17). Thus, the speaker emphasizes their insignificance and nonexistence, which is due to their lack of spirit. In certain instances, however, the very term ‫ רוח‬can mean nothingness, when talking about idols. This can be seen in Isa 41:29: “No, they are all a delusion; their works are nothing; their images are empty wind (‫( ”)רוח ותהו נסכיהם‬NRSV). The same phenomenon can be observed on the anthropological level. Thus, ‫רוח‬ often means “life, energy”. The breath of life is a characteristic of living things as opposed to the dead (Gen 6:17). The spirit brings to life and gives life energy (Gen 45:27; Judg 15:19; 1 Sam 30:12; 1 Kgs 21:5). On the other hand, ‫ רוח‬can point to humanity’s insignificance (Ps 62:10). The false prophets are like ‫רוח‬, which is, in this context, understood as something transient, unstable, and mendacious. Uncertain knowledge is formulated as ‫רוח‬-‫( דעת‬Job 15:2) or vain speech as ‫רוח‬-‫( דברי‬Job 16:3).16 Ecclesiastes also uses it in a negative context 1:14: “and see, all is vanity and a chasing after wind (‫( ”)והנה הכל הבל ורעות רוח‬NRSV). In these semantic constellations, the word ‫הבל‬, which mainly means “breath” or “nothingness”, usually accompanies it. Of course, the word ‫ רוח‬appears significantly less often with this meaning. Nonetheless, the term has a broad range of possible meanings. In the Old Testament, ‫ רוח‬is a theo-anthropological expression.17 The word often expresses subtle theological ideas by which the relationship between human beings and God is described. At the very beginning of the Bible, ‫ רוח אלהים‬hovers (blows) above the face of the waters – the cosmic ocean of Gen 1:2 – the same as the hovering eagle (Deut 32:11). Often, ‫רוח‬ is a manifestation of Yahweh’s action. The advent of the spirit is mysterious, because it does not appear as a real, existing “element”, but as a gust of wind or breath that carries force, but where it comes from and where it settles remains puzzling.18 It is not the air as such, but the air that is in motion, that is blowing.19 So on the one hand, we have the meanings, “the breath, the wind”; and on the other hand, we have “the spirit”. Thus, ‫ רוח‬in a special way connects the physical and spiritual. The same can be said of the verbs that accompany ‫רוח‬. They can be divided exclusively into two groups: verbs of 16

S. TENGSTRÖM, “‫ – רוח‬rûaḥ,” 395 (n. 14). H. W. WOLFF, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (6th ed.; Gütersloh, 1994), 57. 18 R. ALBERTZ and C. WESTERMANN, “‫ – רוח‬ruah,” THAT 2: 728. 19 WOLFF, Anthropologie, 58 (n. 17). 17

292

Rodoljub S. Kubat

motion20 and verbs that cause motion.21 Because of this, ‫ רוח‬can indicate the active power of God (1 Kgs 18:12), or life gifted and actuated by that force (Ps 33:6; 104:29).22 The metaphorical potential and semantic range of this term show that its meaning must be understood within the context in which it appears, and the meaning of the word ‫ רוח‬cannot be derived from the term itself. Indeed, the Old Testament Israelites did not think about realities in and of themselves, such as the spirit, the soul, God, the world. They more often thought about reality from the perspective of mutual relations.23 The Septuagint translates the word ‫ רוח‬as πνεῦµα in three quarters of the cases. In parts of the Old Testament that have a later origin, ‫ רוח‬becomes a significantly more encompassing theological term that no longer necessarily denotes the activity of God (Neh 9:20, 30; Ps 51:13; 143:10; Isa 34:16; 63:10, 11, 14; Mic 3:8; Zech 7:12). It often denotes God himself. It is then that the term ‫ – רוח קדש‬Holy Spirit starts appearing (Ps 51:13; Isa 63:10, 11). In the Dead Sea Scrolls and later rabbinic literature, ‫ רוח‬also appears with different meanings.24 The Judaism of the Hellenistic Diaspora, through the Septuagint, adopted Greek terminology. Such is the case with the term ‫רוח‬. Besides the word πνεῦµα, it was translated as: ἄνεµος, θυµóς, πνοή, ἀνήρ, νοῦς, µακροθυµία, µακρóθυµος, πραύθυµος, ψυχή, ὀλιγοψυχία, ὀλιγóψυχος, φρóνησις, and so forth. The use of the term nonetheless retained some particularities derived from the earlier uses of the word. This phenomenon is noticeable in the Wisdom of Solomon as well.

3. The Spirit (πνεῦµα) in the Wisdom of Solomon At the outset, it should be pointed out that the author of the Wisdom of Solomon does not address the issue of the spirit in and of itself. He never discusses the spirit in a focused and targeted manner. The term is encountered inci20 These verbs, in turn, do not mean a particular type of movement, which is crucial, but rather a fact of movement as such. Cf. ALBERTZ and WESTERMANN, “rûaḥ,” 730 (n. 18). 21 According to some uses of these verbs, for example, not only does the wind move, but it sets everything else into a motion that develops a visible, although puzzling and mysterious, force through the wind’s action. ALBERTZ and WESTERMANN, “rûaḥ,” 730 (n. 18). 22 W. H. SCHMIDT, “Anthropologische Begriffe im Alten Testament,” EvTh 24 (1964), 383. 23 Cf. T. BOMAN, Das Hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit griechischen (3rd ed.; Göttingen, 1968). 24 Cf. A. ANDERSON, “The Use of Ruah in 1 QS, 1 QH and 1 QM,” JSS 7 (1962), 293– 303; W. FOERSTER, “Der Heilige Geist im Spätjudentum,” NTS 8 (1961/62), 117–134; F. NÖTSCHER, “Geist und Geister in den Texten von Qumran,” BBB 17 (1962), 175–187; P. SCHÄFER, “Geist/Heiliger,” 173–178 (n. 15).

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

293

dentally, in certain contexts in which other theological ideas such as wisdom, righteousness, the judgment of God, and so forth, are being explored. Nevertheless, the term is encountered relatively frequently. The term πνεῦµα appears in different forms 20 times (πνεῦµα 15х; πνεύµατι 1х; πνεύµατος 2х; πνευµάτων 2х). The writer, even though he writes in Greek, operates semantically within biblical bounds, deploying πνεῦµα similarly to the Old Testament use of the term ‫רוח‬. However, it is evident that, under the influence of Hellenistic philosophical terminology, certain semantic modifications came about. As in the Old Testament, the term “spirit” can be used in a variety of contexts, and the context influences its exact meaning. In the Wisdom of Solomon, several different aspects of the word πνεῦµα appear: 1) a human being’s spirit – the anthropological aspect; 2) the spirit as the source of knowledge – the epistemological aspect; 3) the spirit of God or the spirit of the Lord – the metaphysical-cosmological aspect; and 4) the Holy Spirit – the theological aspect. 3.1 The Spirit of Humankind – the Anthropological Aspect The writer repeatedly uses the word πνεῦµα with an anthropological meaning. The spirit of humankind is the principle of life given to human beings by God. This is explicitly expressed in 15:11: “Because they failed to know the one who formed them and inspired them with active souls and breathed a living spirit into them.”25 Possessing the spirit of life does not mean participation in the entire cosmic life, which πνεῦµα permeates and holds in existence as the supreme principle (see below, especially §3.3). Possessing the spirit relates to the term πνεῦµα ζωτικόν, which is the spirit that God gives. Alongside the spirit, the phrase ψυχὴν ἐνεργοῦσαν also appears. The writer points to humanity’s dependence on God within a strictly monotheistic framework. The Old Testament parallels here are obvious. The term πνεῦµα ζωτικόν is semantically identical to ‫רוח חיים‬. As early as the second report of creation in Genesis, it is said that God created man by blowing into his nostrils the breath of life (Gen 2:7). The report, however, does not mention ‫ רוח‬but a synonymous term, ‫נשמה‬.26 According to the description of the

25 All translations of passages from the Bible are from the NRSV unless otherwise noted. The Greek of Wis 15:11 is: ὅτι ἠγνόησεν τὸν πλάσαντα αὐτὸν καὶ τὸν ἐµπνεύσαντα αὐτῷ ψυχὴν ἐνεργοῦσαν καὶ ἐµφυσήσαντα πνεῦµα ζωτικόν. 26 One can often find ‫ רוח‬and ‫ נשמה‬standing in parallel constructions in biblical texts, as in Isa 42:5: “This is what God the Lord says, the Creator of the heavens, who stretches them out, who spreads out the earth with all that springs from it, who gives breath (‫)נשמה‬ to its people, and spirit (‫ )רוח‬to those who walk on it.ˮ (NIV) Another relevant example is Job 27:3: “As long as I have ‫ נשמה‬within me, and ‫ רוח‬of God in my nostrilsˮ (NIV). Semantically, ‫ רוח‬and ‫ נשמה‬are more or less synonymous. As is the case with ‫רוח‬, the

294

Rodoljub S. Kubat

flood in the priestly source, the living person can be described as “flesh in which is the breath of life (‫( ”)רוח חיים‬Gen 6:17). God gives “the breath of life” to everybody (Num 16:22; 27:16). A human being’s ‫ רוח‬is her spirit. In general, another fundamental meaning of the term ‫ רוח‬is the spirit as a manifest force of movement. Through the event of inhalation and exhalation, it is at the same time “within a man” and “outside of a man”; it comes out of him and works within him.27 That spirit, as a person’s life force, is created by Yahweh, “who stretched out the heavens and founded the earth and formed the human spirit within” (Zech 12:1). In some instances, it is said that the spirit of God created the human being, as in Job 33:4: “The spirit of God (‫ )רוח־אל‬has made me, and the breath of the Almighty (‫ )ונשמת שדי‬gives me life.” A person is alive only when he or she has the spirit, as seen in the book of the Prophet Ezekiel. When Yahweh “clothes” in veins, flesh, and skin the assembled bones, he breathes into them ‫ – רוח‬the spirit – and it is then that the body comes to life (Ezek 37:6, 8–10, 14). The writer of the Wisdom of Solomon uses the biblical assumptions as his starting point when he ponders humankind’s spirit. The human being receives the spirit from God, and he is unable to overcome his own limitations without the Creator: For you have power over life and death; you lead mortals down to the gates of Hades and back again. A person in wickedness kills another, but cannot bring back the departed spirit, or set free the imprisoned soul. (16:13–14)28

Since it stands parallel to the word ψυχή, here “the spirit” can mean “life”. The spirit is often understood as the bearer of life force and is, therefore, a sign of life. In this verse, it represents the principle of life or energy, which human beings cannot bring back through their own power. The writer, however, does not focus on the issue of the spirit in the sense of what it is and what happens to it after death or how it gives life to a person. The author focuses on showing that God is the Lord of life and death. Here he directly relies, in a linguistic and ideological-theological sense, on Deut 32:39 and 1 Sam 2:6. The spirit connotes life or the bearer of life that depends solely on God. It is in this sense that we should understand Ecclesiastes’s statement that the spirit returns to God (12:7), as the one who gave life, which is the spirit.29 A person’s ‫רוח‬, as his or her bearer of life, is in many ways insepa-

basic meaning of ‫ נשמה‬is “windˮ and “spiritˮ. From these, other meanings can be derived. Cf. H. LAMBERTY and ZIELINSKI, “‫ – נשמה‬nešāmāh,” ThWAT 669–673. 27 ALBERTZ and WESTERMANN, “rûaḥ,” 734 (n. 18). 28 ἄνθρωπος δὲ ἀποκτέννει µὲν τῇ κακίᾳ αὐτοῦ, ἐξελθὸν δὲ πνεῦµα οὐκ ἀναστρέφει οὐδὲ ἀναλύει ψυχὴν παραληµφθεῖσαν. 29 Cf. L. SCHWIENHORST-SCHÖNBERGER, Kohelet (HThKAT; Freiburg/Basel/Wien, 2004), 537–538.

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

295

rable from ‫רוח יהוה‬.30 The spirit of Yahweh is a life force on which the length of a person’s life depends (cf. Ps 104:29–30). When ‫ רוח‬leaves, human beings “return to the earth” (Ps 146:4).31 Thus, ‫ רוח‬is like a breath or a wind that comes from God and returns to him, taking away a human being’s life breath at the same time: If he should take back his Spirit (‫ )רוח‬to himself and gather to himself his breath (‫)נשמה‬, all flesh would perish together, and all mortals return to dust. (Job 34:14–15)

In one of the Psalms, a similar idea emerges: “When their breath departs, they return to the earth; on that very day their plans perish.” (146:4) By these strong metaphors, the weakness of human beings and their inability to sustain themselves are emphasized. Returning to the dust is a result of the departure of the spirit. In one part of Wisdom, the writer attempts to express the thoughts of those who stray from God, the wicked (ἀσεβεῖς). The whole section is full of nihilistic doubt. The author portrays the wicked person speaking of the spirit that leaves the body after death. He says that πνεῦµα does not return to God but disappears: “when it is extinguished, the body will turn to ashes, and the spirit will dissolve like empty air” (2:3).32 A human being is merely a child of causalities (Wis 2:2). After death, the individual aspect of existence ceases, because the bearer of life dissolves “like empty air” (2:3). The idea that the soul (ψυχή) disappears after death can be found in Plato’s Phaedo: “scattering like a breath (πνεῦµα) or smoke (καπνός)”.33 Such ideas are close to some Stoic and Epicurean beliefs.34 The writer distances himself from such views. Here he makes use of the common technique of diatribe, shaping the opposing opinions in the form of dialogue brought forth by imagined opponents.35 In this sense, he brings forth a philosophical belief that is opposed to the biblical belief. The nothingness of human existence is characterized by

30

LYS, Ruach, 58 (n. 12). WOLFF, Anthropologie, 59 (n. 17). 32 οὗ σβεσθέντος τέφρα ἀποβήσεται τὸ σῶµα καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα διαχυθήσεται ὡς χαῦνος ἀήρ. 33 Phaed. 70а. 34 Epicurus and his successors incorporated Democritus’s physical theory of atoms and empty space. Thereby he attempted to overcome the fear of death and explain the existence of free will. The human being is, as a soul and body, composed of atoms that decompose after death, which means that the soul is as transient as the body (cf. Lucretius 3.417–829; Diogenes Laertius, Lives, 10.63–65). Epicurus compares the soul to πνεῦµα, in the sense of breath or breeze that is mixed with heat (Ep. Herod., 63, 4–5). Prominent Stoics such as Zeno, Cleanthes, and Chrysippus regarded the soul as a material thing, something that decomposes after death. Only the souls of great wise men remain until the great fire (Chrysippus, SVF II, Frag. 790; 811; 815). 35 ENGEL, Buch der Weisheit, 64 (n. 2). 31

296

Rodoljub S. Kubat

the fact that at the end of life the spirit shall spill out as a breeze. The word πνεῦµα, in this context, is a life force that is lost after death. In both cases just discussed (16:13–14; 2:3), πνεῦµα is an impersonal energy in the sense that the spirit does not determine the identity of the person. The human being, though he or she lives by the spirit, is not a spirit. The spirit is not an entity that constitutes, along with the body, a person, but it is a principle and force of life that comes from God. This is, incidentally, the fundamental idea of Old Testament anthropology. The Old Testament often speaks of the human person by using concepts such as: ‫נפש‬, ‫בשר‬, ‫רוח‬, and ‫לב‬. They are usually directly related to a person, determining the nature of human beings. However, the Old Testament texts nowhere mention that a human being has a soul, a spirit, and a body,36 nor do these three expressions mutually reinforce each other anywhere. Even though these three terms occasionally appear next to one another (Job 13:14; 14:22; Ps 63:1; 84:3), such parallelism does not indicate that they should be interpreted as discrete parts of a whole. Body, soul, and spirit do not each denote substantially different components of the human being; rather, each one denotes a person in his or her entirety.37 The being of a person is thus regarded as a psychosomatic unity. The Bible precludes any possibility of anthropological dichotomy or trichotomy of a substantial nature. The human being is regarded as a unique and complete living being.38 Even though certain elements of Platonic anthropology are noticeable in the Wis (8:20; 9:15), the word spirit in these verses is used within the semantic framework of the Old Testament. In an anthropological sense, “spirit” can also mean “the center of the emotions”. The writer uses it in this sense in 5:3: “They will speak to one another in repentance, and in anguish of spirit they will groan, and say …”.39 Here, στενοχωρίαν πνεύµατος denotes a state of depression. The spirit as the bearer of life can thus also express an inner, mental state or mood. Depressed spirit is the same as depression. As the bearer of the force of life, the spirit manifests itself as a psychological component and can mean a whole range of mental states, from the most powerful emotions to the utmost despondence.40 Similar meanings for ‫ רוח‬are found in the Old Testament writings. Job 7:11 mentions a dejected spirit (‫)צר רוח‬. Besides dejection, it can mean anger or rage (Judg 8:3; Prov 29:11; Wis 10:4; Isa 25:4), courage and endurance (Num 14:24; Josh 2:11; 5:1; Prov 18:14), and with the verb ‫גבה‬, it implies that one rises in pride or arrogance (Prov 16:18; Wis 7:8; compare Ps 76:13). All of 36

SCHMIDT, Anthropologische Begriffe, 376 (n. 22). Ibid. 38 C. WESTERMANN, Genesis 1–11 (BKAT 1/1; Neukirchen/Vluyn, 1968), 283. 39 ἐροῦσιν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς µετανοοῦντες καὶ διὰ στενοχωρίαν πνεύµατος στενάξονται καὶ ἐροῦσιν. 40 ALBERTZ and WESTERMANN, “rûaḥ,” 738 (n. 18). 37

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

297

these mental states are, in part, related to breath. When describing a mental condition wherein a person is humble and contrite, ‫ רוח‬is most commonly used in a construct chain, though it also occurs with adjectival and verbal forms (Ps 34:19; Prov 16:19; Isa 57:15; 61:3; 65:14). 3.2 The Spirit as Source of Cognition – the Epistemological Aspect In addition to denoting the vital energy, life, or inner state of a human being, the word πνεῦµα characterizes a person’s cognitive activity. The spirit acts in human beings with respect to their rational enlightenment. The writer talks, in several instances, of the spirit descending onto human beings and leading them to knowledge. A spirit of discipline is mentioned (πνεῦµα παιδείας) (1:5) and a spirit of Wisdom (πνεῦµα σοφίας) (1:6; 7:7). One verse mentions attributes of the spirit that fills personified wisdom (7:22–23). The spirit is something that comes to a person from “outside” – from God. It represents a dynamic presence of God in a human being that is not only a condition of life, but of knowledge as well. This, by the way, was one of the basic epistemological presuppositions of the ancient world to which Israel belonged. Knowledge does not come by human effort only. The presence of a superhuman reality is necessary. Such is the case with Plato’s world of ideas. In the Old Testament, and in religious understanding in general, it was the action of God; in such instances, it is the work of the spirit. The writer talks precisely of this in 9:16–18: We can hardly guess at what is on earth, and what is at hand we find with labor; but who has traced out what is in the heavens? Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high? And thus the paths of those on earth were set right, and people were taught what pleases you, and were saved by wisdom.41

The poetic parallelism that appears in verse 17 has a synonymous character. Wisdom and the Holy Spirit are nearly identical entities.42 Given the nature of the text and the basic intention of the writer, it is understandable that wisdom is emphasized more. The writer does not talk of the spirit as of a metaphysical reality in and of itself, but he contextualizes it in a gnoseological sense. The spirit intervenes and makes present God, who teaches a person to walk down the right path.

41 καὶ µόλις εἰκάζοµεν τὰ ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ τὰ ἐν χερσὶν εὑρίσκοµεν µετὰ πόνου· τὰ δὲ ἐν οὐρανοῖς τίς ἐξιχνίασεν; βουλὴν δέ σου τίς ἔγνω, εἰ µὴ σὺ ἔδωκας σοφίαν καὶ ἔπεµψας τὸ ἅγιόν σου πνεῦµα ἀπὸ ὑψίστων; καὶ οὕτως διωρθώθησαν αἱ τρίβοι τῶν ἐπὶ γῆς, καὶ τὰ ἀρεστά σου ἐδιδάχθησαν ἄνθρωποι, καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ ἐσώθησαν. 42 SCHMITT, Buch der Weisheit, 91 (n. 1).

298

Rodoljub S. Kubat

In the Old Testament, ‫ רוח‬is an organ or an instrument of cognition, understanding, and reasoning. It is the spiritual center of a person, the reason. The promise given to Ezekiel (36:26–27) states: I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit (‫ )רוח‬within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. (NKJV)

A new spirit, a spirit of God, is connected with the heart, the organ of cognition. God gives it to human beings, and it is a prerequisite to understanding the will of God. Wisdom is a result of that which comes to us through the spirit of God. This can also be seen in Neh 9:20а: “You gave your good Spirit to instruct them.” Of Joshua also it is said, in the priestly tradition, that he is a “man in whom is the spirit [πνεῦµα ἐν ἑαυτῷ – ‫( ”]אשר־רוח בו‬Num 27:18), meaning a wise or a reasonable man, capable of leading God’s people. Therefore, the man who has ‫ רוח‬is a man endowed with the power of wisdom.43 These cases speak of a long-term presence of the spirit of God. Those who are endowed with the spirit are wise and prudent, aware of the actual state of a human being in relation to God. This is precisely the meaning in the above-mentioned verses from the Wisdom of Solomon. The presence of the spirit brings a higher form of wisdom and knowledge – especially the gift of prophecy. The spirit of Yahweh descends on the prophet Ezekiel and enlightens him to prophesy: “Then the spirit of the Lord [‫ ]רוח יהוה‬fell upon me” (Ezek 11:5). Wisdom and intelligence are linked to the spirit of God in Isaiah as well (40:13). The presence of the spirit enables a person to perceive realities that are beyond the scope of normal human thinking. This is clearly shown in the example of the prophets Joseph and Daniel. They receive, through the spirit, the ability to interpret dreams. Joseph is a man in whom is the spirit of God [πνεῦµα θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ – ‫]רוח אלהים בו‬ (Gen 41:38), and the book of Daniel mentions the spirit of the holy gods [‫( ]רוח־אלהין קדישין‬Dan 4:5, 6; 5:11). Particularly striking is 5:12, where the spirit relates to knowledge, reason, and the ability to interpret. The spirit of God descends onto Balaam as well, and he reaches the peak of his prophetic insight (Num 24:2). The spirit can be understood as a mediation of God’s revelation. This understanding was emphasized in the post-exilic period especially. Zechariah clearly states that God sends his will, his words, through the spirit: They made their hearts adamant in order not to hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his spirit [‫ ]ברוחו‬through the former prophets. (7:12)

These prophetic texts point more to a charismatic influence of the spirit. Wisdom of Solomon also speaks of the spirit of God that is poured out onto peo43

WOLFF, Anthropologie, 65 (n. 17).

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

299

ple to teach them his words (1:23). Without the spirit of God, a human being’s spirit is powerless.44 In the Wisdom of Solomon, the spirit is associated with wisdom in many ways, and the word “spirit” appears in several contexts relating to wisdom. Indeed, πνεῦµα σοφία (1:6) is mentioned; from the context, one may conclude that the appropriate translation of the phrase would read: “Wisdom is the philanthropic spirit [φιλάνθρωπον γὰρ πνεῦµα σοφία].” It is a very metaphorical expression. The personified wisdom is presented as a spirit. In the second part of the book, we find something similar: I learned both what is secret and what is manifest, for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me. There is in her a spirit that is intelligent, holy, unique, manifold, subtle, mobile, clear, unpolluted, distinct, invulnerable, loving the good, keen, irresistible, beneficent, humane, steadfast, sure, free from anxiety, all-powerful, overseeing all, and penetrating through all spirits that are intelligent, pure, and altogether subtle. (7:21–23)45

In this hymnic section in which wisdom is discussed – its being, source, and action – a spirit is mentioned, with which wisdom is filled. The writer begins this part of the encomium with the words, “in her is an understanding spirit holy” (KJV),46 and continues with a list containing synonymous and antithetic attributes. Here, the impact of Hellenistic philosophy, especially Stoicism, is noticeable.47 The first attribute concerning the spirit is a mental one. The spirit of God from 1:7, who fills all and who is identical with Wisdom, is an intellectual spirit that permeates the entirety of creation. It is the spirit of the all-knowing God without whom, as an intellectual principle, knowledge and wisdom are impossible. One of the ways of attaining wisdom is addressing God. The spirit of wisdom descends on those who seek it: “Therefore I prayed, and understanding was given me; I called on God, and the spirit of wisdom [πνεῦµα σοφίας] came to me” (7:7).48 The verse is an example of synthetic parallelism, and thus “spirit of wisdom” is roughly synonymous with understanding. The writ44

H. HÜBNER, Die Weisheit Salomons (ATD.A 4; Göttingen, 1999), 187. ὅσα τέ ἐστιν κρυπτὰ καὶ ἐµφανῆ ἔγνων· ἡ γὰρ πάντων τεχνῖτις ἐδίδαξέν µε σοφία. Ἔστιν γὰρ ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦµα νοερόν, ἅγιον, µονογενές, πολυµερές, λεπτόν, εὐκίνητον, τρανόν, ἀµόλυντον, σαφές, ἀπήµαντον, φιλάγαθον, ὀξύ, ἀκώλυτον, εὐεργετικόν, φιλάνθρωπον, βέβαιον, ἀσφαλές, ἀµέριµνον, παντοδύναµον, πανεπίσκοπον καὶ διὰ πάντων χωροῦν πνευµάτων νοερῶν καθαρῶν λεπτοτάτων. 46 Verse 22b features a textual problem. It is not certain if, originally, it stated ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦµα or αὕτη πνεῦµα. In the codex Alexandrinus, one finds the αὕτη version, while the codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus state, ἐν αὐτῇ. The latter reading is complementary with other parts of the book, for example 1:6, where the spirit and wisdom are identified. Nevertheless, most researchers consider the first reading to be original. 47 Cf. HÜBNER, Weisheit, 103–109 (n. 44). 48 διὰ τοῦτο εὐξάµην, καὶ φρόνησις ἐδόθη µοι· ἐπεκαλεσάµην, καὶ ἦλθέν µοι πνεῦµα σοφίας. 45

300

Rodoljub S. Kubat

er is alluding to 2 Chr 1:10, which speaks of Solomon’s prayer in which he asks God for wisdom and knowledge [σοφίαν καὶ σύνεσιν – ‫]חכמה ומדע‬. Πνεῦµα σοφίας belongs to the divine realm, as does wisdom itself (1:5; 7:22; 9:17). This phenomenon is also present in the Old Testament texts, not only conceptually, but also in linguistically similar formulations. The spirit of wisdom is a dynamic presence of God – that is, a force or inspiration that comes from God.49 In the Old Testament, ‫ רוח חכמה‬is encountered in several instances. In Exod 28:3, those who have artistic-priestly talent to make the sacred garments for Aaron possess ‫ – רוח חכמה‬that is, a knowledge that is not merely a creative conceptualization of the empirical but a higher insight.50 The artistic gift for construction of the sacred objects is a result of the action of the spirit of God (31:3; 35:31). God says to Moses, “I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom [‫( ”]רוח אלהים חכמה‬KJV). The Septuagint translation is literal, πνεῦµα θεῖον σοφίας, and is close to the formulation that is used in the Wisdom of Solomon. The spirit of wisdom is the same as the spirit of God. This is especially seen in the parallelism ‫רוח‬ ‫ יהוה‬/‫ רוח חכמה‬in Isa 11:2. In the LXX, a linguistic construction is used identical to the one found in the Wisdom of Solomon: πνεῦµα σοφίας. This messianic verse originally referred to charisma, talent, and wisdom, which are indispensable to a ruler for leading his people.51 Possessing the spirit of God enables wisdom and creativity. 3.3 The Spirit of God or the Spirit of the Lord – the MetaphysicalCosmological Aspect The possibility of knowledge and wisdom assumes access to the secrets of the world. If the spirit of the all-powerful God brings knowledge, then this spirit must be fully acquainted with all the secrets of existence. The spirit of the Lord, who inspires human beings, gives knowledge and fills out the universe: Because the spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and that which holds all things together knows what is said. (1:7)

In these statements, the writer is congenial to the Stoic understanding of the spirit. According to Stoics, God is a creative fire (πῦρ τεχνικόν), a spirit that

49

S. TENGSTRÖM, “‫ – רוח‬rûaḥ,” 411 (n. 14). Human spirit cannot be equated with God’s. The writer explicitly emphasizes this point in one instance: “For a human being made them (the idols), and one whose spirit is borrowed formed them; for none can form gods that are like themselves (ἄνθρωπος γὰρ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς, καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα δεδανεισµένος ἔπλασεν αὐτούς· οὐδεὶς γὰρ αὐτῷ ὅµοιον ἄνθρωπος ἰσχύει πλάσαι θεόν·).” (15:16) Since human beings are themselves created, they know how and are able to create only non-living things. Only God gives life. Cf. ENGEL, Buch der Weisheit, 239 (n. 2). 51 Cf. W. A. M. BEUKEN, Jesaja 1–12 (HThKAT; Freiburg, 2003), 307–310. 50

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

301

pervades the entire universe (πνεῦµα µὲν διῆκον δι’ ὅλου τοῦ κόσµου),52 and holds everything in existence.53 A similar motif appears in 12:1: “For your immortal spirit is in all things (τὸ γὰρ ἄφθαρτόν σου πνεῦµά ἐστιν ἐν πᾶσιν).” As opposed to the Stoic concept, which is pantheistic, the writer presents the spirit as God’s presence in all things. The difference lies in the basic theological or philosophical presumptions. Monotheism can be pantheistic, which is the case with Stoicism. However, according to the biblical tradition represented by the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, monotheism is based on the idea of a transcendent God. The world is something wholly other in relation to this God. The spirit dynamically makes God present in the world that God has created.54 The idea of spirit’s being something all pervasive, although nowhere explicitly stated in the Old Testament, is present implicitly. The very idea of the all-powerful God implies such a theological position. The one who created all things (Gen 1; Isa 42:5) is actively present in all things (compare Ps 103). In Psalm 139:7–10 this idea is expressed in a poetic way characteristic of the Old Testament: Where can I go from your spirit [‫ ?]מרוחך‬Or where can I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, you are there. If I take the wings of the morning and settle at the farthest limits of the sea, even there your hand shall lead me, and your right hand shall hold me fast.

Here, the spirit stands in parallel relationship with the face of God – that is, God himself. The spirit is omnipresent, just like God. At the beginning of creation, ‫ רוח אלהים‬rises above the waters of the cosmic ocean. The spirit is a creative force of God that not only created the world but also rules it. God creates the world through the spirit: “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath (‫ )רוח‬of his mouth.” (Ps 33:6) This verse reveals that ‫ רוח‬relates to the “wordˮ as a synonym because both come out of the mouth of God. In this sense, the spirit is the mediating force that makes God present: “Who has learned your counsel, unless you have given wisdom and sent your holy spirit from on high.”

52

Chrysippus, SVF II, Frag. 1027. Chrysippus, SVF II, Frag. 473: ἡνῶσθαι µὲν ὑποτίθεται τὴν σύµπασαν οὐσίαν, πνεύµατός τινος διὰ πάσης αὐτῆς διήκοντος, ὑφ’ οὗ συνέχεταί τε καὶ συµµένει καὶ συµπαθές ἐστιν αὑτῷ τὸ πᾶν; Cf. SVF II, Frag. 310; 414; 416; 441; 447; 479. According to the Stoics, πνεῦµα represents the transition of fire into the air. It is a hot breath that acts in all parts of the world as its active principle (SVF I, Frag. 127; 88; SVF II, Frag. 449; 413; 439–444). Thus, πνεῦµα makes order (ἕξις) in the inorganic world. As φύς it constitutes plants, as ψυχή animals, and as λόγος humans. Cf. P. STEINMETZ, “Die Stoa. Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie,ˮ in Die Philosophie der Antike 4/2 (ed. H. Flashar; Basel, 1994), 606–608. 54 W. BIEDER, “ πνεῦµα in Sapentia,” ThWNT 6: 369–370. 53

302

Rodoljub S. Kubat

(Wis 9:17)55 In this context, as has already been said, the spirit is identified with wisdom. The spirit enables the just to realize the correct way so that they may “receive a glorious crown and a beautiful diadem from the hand of the Lord” (5:16). The wicked will not partake of a share of the reward with the just, because: A mighty wind will rise against them, and like a tempest it will winnow them away. Lawlessness will lay waste the whole earth, and evildoing will overturn the thrones of rulers. (5:23)56

The spirit of God will partake in the judgment, and with his force he will destroy the ungodly. It is not clear whether πνεῦµα δυνάµεως here means “a powerful spirit” or “a powerful wind”. In any case, the genitive here indicates that one is dealing with a Hebraism.57 It is difficult to ascertain the meaning that the writer had in mind. The word πνεῦµα can mean “the wind” as a physical phenomenon. Such a meaning exists in Old Testament texts. Changes are often incited by ‫רוח‬, which appears as a physical force. In Exod 10:13, the east wind brings locusts. In the verse 19, a strong western wind throws them into the Red Sea. In Exod 14:21, the Lord “drove the sea back by a strong east wind”; in Num 11:31, “Then a wind went out from the Lord (‫)ורוח נסע מאת יהוה‬, and it brought quails from the sea and let them fall beside the camp.” In these cases, ‫ רוח‬is God’s instrument. In Gen 8:1, God releases ‫ רוח‬above the ground so that it may dry out the water of the flood. An almost identical motif appears in the Wisdom of Solomon: Not only could the harm they did destroy people, but the mere sight of them could kill by fright. Even apart from these, people could fall at a single breath when pursued by justice and scattered by the breath of your power. But you have arranged all things by measure and number and weight. (11:19–20)58

The spirit, in any case, can be translated as the force of God,59 which manifests itself in the world. The context suggests that it would be more appropriate to emphasize the spiritual dimension, although these realities are hardly linguistically and conceptually separable. The spirit of God is a force that is manifested in the world. This action can manifest itself as a physical phe55

βουλὴν δέ σου τίς ἔγνω, εἰ µὴ σὺ ἔδωκας σοφίαν καὶ ἔπεµψας τὸ ἅγιόν σου πνεῦµα ἀπὸ ὑψίστων. 56 ἀντιστήσεται αὐτοῖς πνεῦµα δυνάµεως καὶ ὡς λαῖλαψ ἐκλικµήσει αὐτούς· καὶ ἐρηµώσει πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἀνοµία, καὶ ἡ κακοπραγία περιτρέψει θρόνους δυναστῶν. 57 HÜBNER, Weisheit, 80 (n. 44). 58 καὶ χωρὶς δὲ τούτων ἑνὶ πνεύµατι πεσεῖν ἐδύναντο ὑπὸ τῆς δίκης διωχθέντες καὶ λικµηθέντες ὑπὸ πνεύµατος δυνάµεώς σου· ἀλλὰ πάντα µέτρῳ καὶ ἀριθµῷ καὶ σταθµῷ διέταξας. 59 J. FICHTNER, Weisheit Salomos (HAT II.6; Tübingen, 1938), 25.

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

303

nomenon – wind – or as a spiritual event. Based on the overall theological understanding found in the Wisdom of Solomon, one would conclude that, in these cases, the writer implies a spiritual dimension of the action of the spirit of God. The spiritual phenomenon, however, can manifest in the material world and can be represented as ‫ – רוח‬the wind. This can be seen in the description of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles. The descent and presence of the Spirit are followed by a wind: “And suddenly from heaven there came a sound like the rush of a violent wind, and it filled the entire house where they were sitting.” (Acts 2:2) The wind is a visible manifestation of the spirit; the spiritual and material realities are not radically separated. According to the verses from the Wisdom of Solomon discussed above, the spirit can be understood as a force of God acting in the world. By this force, the world was created and survives. At the same time, the spirit of God can also mean God. Apart from the epistemological aspect, identification of the spirit with wisdom is present at the cosmological level as well. In Wis 8:1, the author says that wisdom governs the world and that “she reaches mightily from one end of the earth to the other”. This verse ends the section in praise of wisdom that begins with the words, “there is in her a spirit” (7:22). In verse 24, it is said of wisdom that “because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things”.60 It has already been mentioned that this section features many Stoic elements. Those elements are present in this verse as well.61 As opposed to the Stoic understanding, however, which regards the spirit as the finest and the most subtle materiality, the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon regards the spirit and wisdom as spiritual realities that permeate the world.62 3.4 The Holy Spirit – the Theological Aspect To the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon, the Holy Spirit is the same as the spirit of the Lord. The syntagma Holy Spirit appears two times (1:5; 9:17). In both cases, it stands in a close relationship with wisdom. In 1:5, the Holy Spirit of discipline is mentioned (ἅγιον πνεῦµα παιδείας), who, like wisdom, flees from the wicked. The writer uses a Hellenistic term, παιδεία, here, representing the Holy Spirit as a teacher of lessons. The lessons, and hence knowledge, are taught by the action of the Spirit.63 On the theological level, this can be understood as the presence of God with those who seek him and the absence of God from those who deviate from him. Verse 9:17 fea60

καὶ χωρεῖ διὰ πάντων διὰ τὴν καθαρότητα. Cf. HÜBNER, Weisheit, 109 (n. 44). 62 Some researchers have believed that λεπτός, as one of the attributes of the spirit, points to its immateriality, cf. C. L. W. GRIMM, Das Buch der Weisheit (KEH. Apokr 6; Leipzig, 1860), 153; J. FICHTNER, Weisheit, 34 (n. 59). 63 ENGEL, Buch der Weisheit, 52 (n. 2). 61

304

Rodoljub S. Kubat

tures, again, the striking parallelism between wisdom and Holy Spirit. When one takes into account the literary genre and the way in which the writer conveys his ideas, it is certain that wisdom and the Holy Spirit are identical, insofar as they serve to bring a person to the knowledge of God. At the same time, the Holy Spirit makes God present in the thoughts and soul of a human being. Unlike the other uses of “spirit”, the term Holy Spirit occurs relatively infrequently in the Old Testament writings. In all cases, the texts in question date from the period after the exile. In Ps 51:13, the Holy Spirit is mentioned in a context that is somewhat similar to the one in which the author of the Wisdom of Solomon mentions the spirit. The psalmist, among other things, prays: Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me. Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your holy spirit from me. Restore to me the joy of your salvation, and sustain in me a willing spirit. (Ps 51:10–12)

This section features three mentions of the term spirit. The Holy Spirit is parallel to the face of God. These phrases suggest that the Holy Spirit establishes a kind of rapport with God and meditates the presence of God. The Holy Spirit is the one who enables a person’s spirit – that is, a human being – to sustain life in communion with God.64 It is the force of God by which a person is released from sin and enabled to fulfill the will of God. The Holy Spirit is a guarantor of belonging to the community of God.65 In the Septuagint text of the book of Daniel, the word Holy Spirit appears two times (5:11; 6:4). In these parts of the book of Daniel, there are significant textual differences between the LXX and the MT. In the fifth chapter, it is possible ‫( רוח־אלהין קדישין‬5:11МТ) is translated as πνεῦµα ἅγιον (5:12LXX). In 6:4, as opposed to the Greek πνεῦµα ἅγιον, the Hebrew text reads, “the excellent spirit (‫”)רוח יתיר‬, which is at Daniel’s disposal. The same spirit (‫ )רוח יתיר‬is mentioned in Dan 5:12МТ, as well. Theodotion, in both cases, uses the term πνεῦµα περισσόν, which is a direct translation of the Hebrew ‫רוח יתיר‬, while the ‫ רוח־אלהין קדישין‬is translated as πνεῦµα θεοῦ. It is probable that the ‫ רוח־אלהין קדישין‬is identified with ‫רוח יתיר‬, and hence was translated in the LXX as πνεῦµα ἅγιον. The Holy Spirit can be seen as a remarkable spirit given by God, and thus, it stands in a special relationship with Daniel. Isaiah 63:10–11 contains a theologically more important reference to the Holy Spirit: But they rebelled and grieved his holy spirit; therefore he became their enemy; he himself fought against them. Then they remembered the days of old, of Moses his servant. Where 64 65

E. ZENGER, Psalmen 51–100 (HThKAT; Freiburg, 2000), 53. H.-J. KRAUS, Psalmen I (2nd ed.; BKAT XV.3; Neukirchen, 1961), 389.

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

305

is the one who brought them up out of the sea with the shepherds of his flock? Where is the one who put within them his Holy Spirit …?

This section is also remarkable in terms of genre. It is a penitential psalm that was probably sung in a liturgical community.66 However, here the Holy Spirit is, to a certain extent, personified and represented as a hypostasis.67 This is evident even without an especially in-depth theological reading. The Holy Spirit is, as a mediating hypostasis, someone who resides in Israel. A similar motif is present in Haggai: “According to the promise that I made you when you came out of Egypt. My spirit abides among you; do not fear.” (2:5) The metaphorical language and literary motifs of the Old Testament writers have to be taken into account. Nonetheless, these texts originate from the postexilic period when absolute monotheism crystallized, in the sense that Yahweh was perceived as the only and transcendent God. In this context, the concept of a divine hypostasis and the role of intermediary beings became more strongly emphasized. This is evident, for example, in Old Testament angelology.68 As a matter of fact, Old Testament monotheism was not as absolute as was previously believed.69 Apart from God, there appear beings that may be identified with him but are not completely the same as he. There appears, for example, the Angel of the Lord.70 In Isa 63:9, the face of God is mentioned. The expression ‫ פניו‬here should be understood as a visible form of God’s appearance.71 In one trajectory of later Jewish tradition, this visible form was interpreted as an angel, as appears to be suggested by the MT.72 Indeed, in the much later text 3 Enoch, for ex66

Cf. C. WESTERMANN, Das Buch Jesaja 40–66 (ATD 19; Göttingen, 1966), 306. P. VOLZ, Jesaja II (Leipzig, 1932), 270. 68 Cf. H. BIETENHARD, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spätjudentum (WUNT 2; Tübingen, 1951); А. F. SEGAL, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (SJLA 25; Leiden, 1977); L. W. HURTADO, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids, 1998). 69 Cf. B. T. VIVIANO, “The Trinity in the Old Testament,” ThZ 3 (1998), 193–209; M. S. SMITH, The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (San Francisco, 1990); Der eine Gott und die Götter: Polytheismus und Monotheismus im antiken Israel (AThANT 82; ed. M. Oeming and K. Schmit; Zürich, 2003). 70 Cf. M. BARKER, The Great Angel: A Study of Israel’s Second God (Westminster, 1992). 71 G. VON RAD, Theologie des Alten Testaments I (München, 1957), 284. 72 The verse is unusually difficult, in textual terms. The question is whether to translate ‫ פניו‬as “his face” – that is, God himself – or in connection with “angel” – that is, “angel of the face of God” or “angel of his presence”. The latter would appear to be the natural reading of the MT; see, for example, the KJV and NIV. The problem appears when one compares МТ with LXX. The Septuagint translates this verse as follows: “he did not send messenger nor angel, but saved them himself”, which implies that “angel” and what in Hebrew is the word ‫ פניו‬are two different entities. Indeed, they are contrasted. Thus, LXX 67

306

Rodoljub S. Kubat

ample, we find the angelic character Metatron, who is called the “Prince of the Divine Presence” and is also known as “little Yahweh”.73 Already in the post-exilic period, in certain Jewish communities, the ideas of God’s mediators or hypostases appeared. In the wisdom tradition, wisdom is personified (Prov 8–10), and later, works of Philo of Alexandria, who is a representative of Hellenistic Judaism, feature the idea of the Logos as a mediator.74 All this indirectly shows that the term Holy Spirit could be a certain mediating, divine hypostasis. In this sense, particularly striking is the verse 9:17: “Because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things.” One should not exclude the possibility that τὸ ἅγιόν σου πνεῦµα was perceived as a hypostasis, since wisdom is personified in the book. It is interesting that the writer uses the verb πέµπω. In the Gospel of John also, the verb πέµπω is used twice when Jesus speaks of the sending of the Comforter (John 15:26; 16:7).

4. Conclusions The author of the Wisdom of Solomon derives his basic understanding of the term πνεῦµα from the Bible. As in the Old Testament, spirit has several meanings and can be defined as a theo-anthropological concept. It is understood as a human being’s spirit in the sense of the breath of life given to him or her by God. It can also mean the center of a person’s cognitive powers, as well as one’s inner experience and mood. In the theological sense, πνεῦµα is a spirit that comes from God. It is a force of God that mediates between God and the world within the world. The book features phrases such as the spirit of the Lord and the Holy Spirit (the spirit of God). These terms also have their semantic equivalents in the Old Testament. One could say that the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon, in relation to the Old Testament texts, enriched the term spirit in a metaphysical-cosmological sense. This happened under the influence of Hellenistic philosophical thought, in which a developed cosmology existed. However, while some elements of Stoic cosmology were taken over, they served, by and large, as a means of expressing ideas already fundamentally contained in the Old Testament. The almighty and omnipresent spirit of Yahweh permeates the world; God holds everything in existence. interprets “his face” as simply meaning God. It is possible that, over time, this verse in МТ suffered a correction in the spirit of contemporary Jewish beliefs, according to which ‫פניו‬ was considered to be an angelic order (Jub. 1:27, 29; T. Jud. 25; T. Levi 3; 1 En. 40). Cf. V. HIRTH, Gottes Boten im Alten Testament (Berlin, 1975), 107–108. 73 The title “Prince of the Divine Presence” occurs at 3 En. 1:4 and in many other verses. The translation is that of P. ALEXANDER, “3 Enoch,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; New York, 1983–1985), 1:223–315. 74 Cf. Cher. 9, (I) 215; QG 2.62 (VI), 394; Leg. 3.61 (I), 171; Somn. 1.39 (III), 272; Conf. 20 (II), 291; Mos. 1.12 (IV), 137.

The Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon

307

The Holy Spirit is the same as the spirit of God. It is difficult to ascertain the exact ways it could be understood in the period of Second Temple Judaism. One encounters the term in the theological terminology of the Second Temple75 and later rabbinic texts.76 In later Christian theology, it was understood personally. In any case, it often denotes God’s presence in the world and thus could be viewed as a mediator between God and the world. How this understanding of God's Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon could affect New Testament writers and the early Church, remains highly questionable. One might note the following points. The use of the term πνεῦµα in Wisdom of Solomon, in the theological sense, indirectly suggests that such views existed in pre-Christian Judaism, from which Christian theology emerged. The ideas of intermediary beings or hypostases were certainly known to contemporary Judaism. In this sense, πνεῦµα θεοῦ or πνεῦµα ἅγιον could be understood as some kind of divine hypostasis without clear theological definition. Regardless of the fact that ἔπεµψας τὸ ἅγιόν σου πνεῦµα (9:17), for example, might be a metaphorical phrase, in later interpretation, it could have a strong influence on Christian Trinitarian theology. Such texts were understood in accordance with the theological convictions of the readers. Those reading from the perspective of Christian beliefs could see the Spirit as a hypostasis in certain parts of Wis (1:7; 9:17; 12:1). This is one specific, hermeneutic moment, typical of Scripture and its history of effect. Especially in light of such observations, it is necessary to pay attention to another important phenomenon. Specifically, one should bear in mind the Old Testament understanding of language and its relationship to the reality that language expresses. There was no belief that terms “enveloped” the reality that they expressed. One moved from an ontological, and therefore epistemological, assumption that there exists a higher or divine reality. It can be evoked by words, but the words do not encompass or exhaust that reality. That phenomenon conditioned a linguistic freedom in which one reality can be expressed by a variety of terms or phrases, and one word can express different dimensions of the reality. There is a tendency in the modern world to equate reality and the terms denoting it. The biggest contributor to this tendency is the blend of rationalism and materialism. Bertrand Russell spoke of the “atoms of meaning”, which basically means that every material substrate ought to be adequately expressed by language.77 The supporters of analytical philosophy and logical positivism insist on a precise terminology when a particular phenomenon is 75

Cf. W. FOERSTER, Heilige Geist, 117–134 (n. 24). Cf. P. SCHÄFER, Vorstellung vom Heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (SANT 28; München, 1972). 77 Cf. B. RUSSELL, The Philosophy of Logical Atomism (Routledge Classics; London/ New York, 2010). 76

308

Rodoljub S. Kubat

analyzed.78 The aspiration for the exact is a characteristic of scientific thought and is also reflected in biblical research. Therefore, an increased measure of hermeneutical caution is required when one considers linguistic phenomena of the Old Testament world. This is especially true for terms such as ‫ רוח‬or πνεῦµα, by which an elusive reality is expressed. In these cases, deduction of a meaning from the concept itself is impossible. Only the wider linguistic composition can reveal the meaning of the word “spirit”. The meanings of poetic expressions often come about from metaphorical wordplay. The ambiguous term “spirit” in Wisdom covers a wide range of possible meanings, which in turn point to dimensions of a reality that constantly eludes the rational mind and precise conceptual analysis.

78 B. RUSSELL, “On Denoting,” Mind 14/56 (1905), 479–493; L. WITTGENSTEIN, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (London, 1922); R. CARNAP, Der logische Aufbau der Welt (Berlin, 1928); Wissenschaftliche Weltauffassung. Der Wiener Kreis (ed. Verein Ernst Mach; Vienna, 1929); A. TARSKI, Logic, Semantics, Mathematics (Oxford, 1956).

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs James Buchanan Wallace

1. Introduction The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (T. 12 Patr.) is a pseudepigraphical text of unknown date, unknown provenance, and hotly disputed origins.1 Suggested dates for its composition range from the second century B.C. to the late second or even early third century C.E.2 Many scholars find evidence for Syria as the place of origin, but other locations have been proposed; one can only say that geographical inaccuracies may rule out a Palestinian provenance.3 Disputes about the origins of T. 12 Patr. have preoccupied research on the document. Many scholars view the text as originally a Jewish composition given a reworking – and possibly a very slight one – by a later Chris-

1

A short but superb introduction to T. 12 Patr. is R. KUGLER, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Sheffield, 2001). Kugler cogently and concisely introduces readers to the complex issues surrounding this text, as well as to the contents and themes of the text. The bibliography is likewise excellent. 2 H. C. KEE, “The Ethical Dimensions of the Testaments of the XII as a Clue to Provenance,” NTS 24 (1978), 259–270, argues for around 100 B.C. (see 269); and KEE, “Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (ed. J. Charlesworth; 2 vols.; New York, 1983–1985), 1:775–828, which includes Kee’s introduction and translation; see esp. 777–778. Those arguing for a date in the second half of the second century or in the early third century C.E. include: M. DE JONGE, “The Transmission of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs by Christians,” VC 47 (1993), 1–28, see esp. 15 and 18–22; H. W. HOLLANDER and M. DE JONGE, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Commentary (SVTP 8; Leiden, 1985), 82–85; J. MARCUS, “The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and the Didascalia Apostolorum: A Common Jewish Christian Milieu?” JTS 61 (2010), 596–626. Obviously, the question of date often depends upon whether one interprets the document as originating from a Jewish or Christian author(s). Since T. 12 Patr. is mentioned by Origen (Hom. Josh. 15.6), it cannot be later than the mid third century C.E. and is probably significantly earlier. 3 KEE, “Testaments,” 778 (n. 2); KEE, “Ethical Dimensions,” 269–270 (n. 2), suggests Syria or Alexandria; MARCUS, “The Testaments,” 597–98, also argues for a Syrian provenance.

310

James Buchanan Wallace

tian editor.4 Others, however, insist that the document be interpreted as a Christian composition and offer little hope of reconstructing a more original, non-Christian, “Jewish” version of T. 12 Patr.5 Nonetheless, the thoroughly Jewish flavor of the work is difficult to deny, and thus some scholars insist that it was the work of Jewish Christians.6 Regardless of whether the author was a non-Christian Jew, a Christian Jew, or a Gentile Christian highly conversant with and sympathetic to Jewish traditions, T. 12 Patr. was originally written in Greek, even if it incorporates traditions that are also reflected in Aramaic and Hebrew documents.7 I incline toward the view that T. 12 Patr. was a pre-Christian, Jewish work to which later Christian editors added interpolations that can usually be readily identified, though I admit that the Jewish text can no longer be reconstructed with certainty.8 Even scholars who claim 4

So KEE, “Ethical Dimensions,” 268–270 (n. 2); J. JERVELL, “Ein Interpolator interpretiert. Zu der christlichen Bearbeitung der Testamente der zwölf Patriarchen,” in Studien zu den Testamenten der Zwölf Patriarchen (ed. W. Eltester; Berlin, 1969), 30–61. 5 This has been the position argued consistently and vigorously by M. de Jonge, one of the most significant scholars of T. 12 Patr. See M. DE JONGE, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Study of their Text, Composition and Origin (GTB 25; Assen 1953; 2nd ed. 1975); DE JONGE, “Christian Influence in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” in Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation (SVTP 3; ed. M. de Jonge; Leiden, 1975), 193–246; HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, Testaments: A Commentary, 2–10, 82–85 (n. 2). So also KUGLER, Testaments, 31–38 (n. 1), among others. 6 So MARCUS, “The Testaments,” 596–626, see esp. 602–606 (n. 2); as Marcus readily acknowledges, this is not a new position. The basic idea that a Jewish Christian bore primary responsibility for the authorship of T. 12 Patr. goes back to H. Corrodi in 1781, and this thesis was argued many times over the next hundred years, even emerging as the consensus position of the 1870s and early 1880s, according to H. D. SLINGERLAND, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical History of Research (SBLMS 21; Missoula, 1977), 7–15. Though vigorously affirming the Christian origins of T. 12 Patr., M. de Jonge readily acknowledges that the moral exhortation, in particular, would have been acceptable to Jews and Christians (see “Transmission,” 19–20 [n. 2]). 7 For the argument that T. 12 Patr. was originally written in Greek, see KEE, “Ethical Dimensions,” 268 (n. 2); KEE, “Testaments,” 777 (n. 2); HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, Testaments: A Commentary, 27–29 (n. 2). On the relationship between T. 12 Patr. and the Hebrew and Aramaic materials, including fragments found at Qumran, see HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, Testaments: A Commentary, 17–27, and M. DE JONGE, “Transmission,” 12– 15 (n. 2). 8 I remain convinced that, even if no single manuscript, version, or manuscript tradition provides a reliable witness for the pre-Christian version of T. 12 Patr., the bulk of T. 12 Patr. is in fact pre-Christian. The following features lead me to this conclusion: First, the praise of the Levitical priesthood, though not entirely absent in early Christianity, is usually not so adamant. Second, the anxiety about intermarriages and the attitude towards Gentiles does not readily fit with second-century Christianity; see T. Levi 9:10; T. Jud. 11:1–5; 13:7; 14:6; T. Dan 5:5; see H. D. SLINGERLAND “The Nature of Nomos (Law) within the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” JBL 105 (1986), 39–48, esp. 46–47. Third, the

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

311

that the only text available to us is a Christian composition, do not deny that it would have found a relatively sympathetic reading from many Jews. Thus, T. 12 Patr. can provide us with an invaluable window into Hellenistic Jewish pneumatology around the time of the birth of Christianity, for it exhibits a fascinating variety of uses of the term πνεῦµα. Although frequently cited in discussions of Jewish and Christian pneumatologies in the centuries around the turn of the eras, the pneumatology of T. 12 Patr. has received little sustained attention.9 The meanings of “spirit” deployed in T. 12 Patr. can be classified into four or five basic categories, though the boundaries between these categories are permeable. These categories are: “spirit” as a compositional element of human beings, “spirits” as demonic beings that typically personify vices, “spirit” as the force or power of virtues or other beneficent qualities, and the “spirit of God”. “Spirits” may also refer to angelic beings in one verse, though the meaning is unclear (T. Levi 3:2). In the following investigation, we first discuss “spirit” as a compositional element of human beings, and then investigate the evil, deceptive spirits that tempt human beings. In a transitional section, we examine T. Jud. 20:1–5, which speaks of a “spirit of deceit” and a “spirit of truth”. As part of this examination, we will compare and contrast T. Jud. 20:1–5 with the teaching on the two spirits found in the Rule of the Community of Qumran. We contradictory statements about the eschatological fate of the Jews (contrast T. Jud. 24:1–5 with T. Ben. 9:3–4). Regarding the probable interpolations, KEE, “Ethical Dimensions,” 268 (n. 2), summarizes: “Apart from ten or twelve interpolations – most of them brief, obvious, Christological and/or anti-Jewish – there is nothing distinctively Christian in the Test XII, doctrinally or ethically, so that a Christian origin for the Test can be ruled out.” Kee lists the following passages as likely interpolations: Test. Dan 6:8 (though he adds a question mark); Test. Sim. 6:5, 7; 7:2; Test. Naph. 8:3; Test. Jos. 19:3/8; Test. Zeb. 9:8; Test. Levi 4:4; 10:2; 14:2; 18:7 (“Ethical Dimensions,” 268 n. 1). See also B. ROSNER, “A Possible Quotation of Test. Reuben 5:5 in 1 Corinthians 6:18A,” JTS 43 (1992), 123–127. 9 The most substantive discussions of the pneumatology of T. 12 Patr. that I have thus far identified are: P. A. MUNCH, “The Spirits in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” AcOr 13 (1935), 257–263; J. BRECK, Spirit of Truth: The Holy Spirit in Johannine Tradition: Volume 1: The Origins of Johannine Pneumatology (Crestwood, 1991), 115–125, which is an excellent discussion, though it ignores Stoic influences on the pneumatology of T. 12 Patr.; and E. REINMUTH, Geist und Gesetz. Studien zu Voraussetzungen und Inhalt der paulinischen Paränese (ThA 44; Berlin, 1985), esp. 74–77. The pneumatology of T. 12 Patr. also figures significantly in the important monograph by P. VOLZ, Der Geist Gottes und die verwandten Erscheinungen im Alten Testament und im anschließenden Judentum (Tübingen, 1910). KLEINKNECHT et al., “πνεῦµα, πνευµατικός,” TDNT 6: 332–451, remains a helpful discussion. J. R. LEVISON, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (AGSU 29; Leiden, 1997), one of the most important discussions of pneumatology in first century Judaism, cites T. 12 Patr. numerous times but offers little in the way of sustained analysis. On the whole, the pneumatology of T. 12 Patr. serves Levison as a foil for the pneumatologies of Philo, Liber antiquitatum biblicarum, and Josephus, which are the primary concerns of the book; see, for example, 143–144.

312

James Buchanan Wallace

will then move to an investigation of passages in which “spirit” is associated with beneficent qualities. Finally, we will turn to the “spirit of God”. In keeping with the overall aims of this symposium, the primary purpose of this essay is to examine the meaning of “spirit”, especially insofar as this term refers to the divine spirit. Most of the uses of πνεῦµα in T. 12 Patr., however, refer to demonic entities that have negative moral influences on human beings. These spirits also require investigation for two reasons. First, they provide a broader context for understanding πνεῦµα in the document. Second, and most importantly, these demonic spirits are the subordinates of a dominant evil spirit that can be identified with Beliar, the preferred name for the demonic archfiend of T. 12 Patr., and we also find reference to a single “spirit of deceit”.10 This spirit, in turn, stands in opposition to the “spirit of truth” (T. Jud. 20:1–3). An understanding of the “spirit of deceit” and other evil spirits thus proves invaluable for understanding the good spirits they oppose, especially the “spirit of truth”. Before proceeding, however, we should acknowledge that we should not necessarily expect a consistent pneumatology in T. 12 Patr.11 The foremost concern of the work is moral exhortation on the basis of Torah, and pneumatology is subordinated to this concern.12

2. Spirit as a Compositional Element of Human Beings The Testaments follow the OT tradition of using “spirit” to refer to the human spirit, the force of life and emotions.13 Under the influence of Stoicism, the Testament of Reuben develops this meaning of spirit, by claiming that not one 10 Other terminology is used, too: “Satan”: T. Asher 6:4; T. Dan 3:6, 5:6, 6:1; T. Gad 4:7; “the devil”: T. Neph. 3:1; “the ruler of deceit (ὁ ἄρχων τῆς πλάνης)”: T. Sim. 2:7; T. Jud. 19:4. 11 K.-W. NIEBUHR, Gesetz und Paränese. Katechismusartige Weisungsreihen in der frühjüdischen Literatur (WUNT II.28; Tübingen, 1987), 88. 12 REINMUTH, Geist und Gesetz, 74–77, 92 (n. 9); NIEBUHR, Gesetz und Paränese, 88– 91 (n. 11). Scholars debate how to understand the “law”, which is strongly emphasized in T. 12 Patr. KEE, “Ethical Dimensions,” esp. 262–63 (n. 2), argues that the conception of the “law” in T. 12 Patr. has been universalized under the influence of Stoic conceptions: “The law in Test XII is regarded as potentially universal in its revelatory power rather than as the ground of a special covenant relationship with Israel … The Law of God is universal in a profounder sense, however: it is nothing less than the law of nature by which the order of the universe is sustained.” (262, emphasis in original) Others, however, argue that the Torah has not been universalized but remains the specifically Jewish Torah, including its sacrificial and other “ritual” commandments. For this view, see SLINGERLAND, “The Nature of Nomos,” 47 (n. 8): “Thus, the authors of the Testaments have not abandoned circumcision, kashrut, and the special legal traditions associated with marriage.” 13 See T. Sim. 5:1; T. Naph. 2:2; T. Gad 5:9; T. Jos. 7:2. Compare Gen 2:7 and 6:3, among many others.

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

313

but eight spirits were given to human beings at creation. In T. Reu., Reuben warns his children of “seven spirits of deceit (ἑπτὰ πνευµάτων τῆς πλάνης)” (2:1).14 Before describing these seven spirits, however, Reuben first names eight other spirits that all human beings possess: And seven spirits were given to him at the creation, so that every work of a human being is [done] by them. First is a spirit of life (πνεῦµα ζωῆς), with which the existence is created; second is a spirit of sight, with which desire (ἐπιθυµία) comes. Third is a spirit of hearing, with which instruction is given. Fourth is a spirit of smell, with which flavor is given to a contraction of air and of wind. Fifth is a spirit of speech, with which is given knowledge. Sixth is a spirit of taste, with which comes the eating of foods and drinks, and strength is created by them, because in foods is the essence of strength. Seventh is a spirit of sowing (i.e., procreation) and sexual intercourse, with which sin enters through sensual delight. Therefore, it is last of creation and first of youth, because it (i.e., youth) is filled with ignorance, and it leads the younger as blindness at a pit and as an animal at a cliff. In addition to all of these, eighth is a spirit of sleep, with which ecstasy of nature and an image of death is created. (T. Reu. 2:3–3:1)

Although paralleled in the text with the seven demonic spirits to be discussed shortly, the use of “spirit” here is deeply influenced by Stoicism, as has long been recognized.15 Even before the birth of Stoicism, some Greek physicians spoke of a vital πνεῦµα, a breath that circulates through the body with the blood and facilitates knowledge through the senses.16 Disorders of this πνεῦµα could lead to illness.17 Some prominent Stoics identified this warm breath with the rational divinity that orders and shapes all of existence.18 14 Translations from T. 12 Patr. are my own, unless otherwise noted. I have followed the critical edition of M. DE JONGE, The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: A Critical Edition of the Greek Text (PVTG 1; Leiden, 1978). On the complex manuscript tradition, with discussion of the versions, see pp. xi–xli; see also the essays collected in the second part of M. de Jonge, ed., Studies on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs: Text and Interpretation (SVTP 3; Leiden, 1975), 45–179; and HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, Testaments: A Commentary, 10–17 (n. 2). According to M. DE JONGE, “Transmission,” 2 (n. 2): “The Greek manuscripts, our primary witnesses to the text of the Testaments, date from the end of the tenth century … up to the eighteenth century.” 15 KEE, “Ethical Dimensions,” 266 (n. 2). 16 G. VERBEKE, L’évolution de la doctrine du Pneuma du Stoicism à S. Augustin (Paris, 1945), 12–13, and see 175–220. 17 Ibid., 13–14, 152–153, 219. And see A. A. LONG and D. N. SEDLEY, The Hellenistic Philosophers (2 vols.; Cambridge, 1987), 55F (citing Galen, Caus. cont., 1.1–2.4). 18 VERBEKE, L’évolution, 11–174, esp. 11–15 (n. 16). See also LONG and SEDLEY, Hellenistic Philosophers, 1:160–162, 1:266–268 (n. 17) for a brief overview of Stoic physics and its importance for Stoic thought. On the identification of the divine force that permeates all matter with “breath” or “spirit”, see LONG and SEDLEY, Hellenistic Philosophers, 1:280–289, and see also the primary texts 44D (SVF 1.88); 46A (SVF 2.1027); 47L (SVF 2.441); 48C (SVF 2.473). This πνεῦµα is a mixture of hot and cold, or of fire and air, the two elements possessing those properties, respectively (see 47F [SVF 2.439]; 47G [SVF 2.444]; 47H [SVF 2.841]; 55F). When citing primary source material from Long and

314

James Buchanan Wallace

“Breath” or “spirit” pervades the cosmos, and human beings are constituted by a mixture of πνεῦµα and matter. Indeed, Aëtius (first century C.E.) reports a Stoic teaching that resembles what we find in T. Reu.: Now there are seven parts of the soul produced from the guiding faculty and that extend to the body just as the tentacles from an octopus. … Sight is spirit stretching out from the guiding faculty to the eyes (ὅρασις ἐστὶ πνεῦµα διατεῖνον ἀπὸ ἡγεµονικοῦ µέχρις ὀφθαλµῶν) (SVF 2.836, my translation).

The other four senses are treated similarly, while the sixth and seventh parts of the soul are “seed” (i.e., the power of procreation) and voice, like the fifth and seventh in T. Reu. 2:6 and 2:8. Instead of designating a “spirit of touch”, as Aëtius does, T. Reu. speaks first of a “spirit of life”, reflecting the influence of OT tradition. Moreover, T. Reu. speaks of eight “spirits”, in the plural, just as eight “spirits of deceit” will be enumerated shortly, and T. Reu. emphasizes the function of each sense. According to Aëtius, Stoics identified “spirit” most immediately with the “guiding faculty”, and this single spirit then extends through the body to the senses, the sex organs, and speech organs.19 In both passages, πνεῦµα pervades the human being, and the senses, speech, and procreation are all driven and unified by this underlying πνεῦµα. These human “spirits” described in T. Reu. are, in and of themselves, neutral, but some of these human potencies submit more readily than others to the evil spirits enumerated in the next chapter. Sight, for example, leads to desire. Likewise, the spirit of procreation and intercourse, though necessary, is explicitly associated with sin, and T. Reu. will focus on warning young men against the sin of fornication. These internal human spirits, however, are not merely the windows through which the demonic spirits enter to pervert the ignorant young man. Hearing and speech are associated with learning and instruction, which are certainly regarded positively and safeguard against immorality (see T. Reu. 3:8–9). Indeed, throughout T. 12 Patr., one of the surest avenues towards a godly life is learning and keeping God’s law. Despite the clear debt to Stoic anthropology that we find in T. Reu. 2:3–9, no further explicit references to these specific human senses and potencies as “spirits” occur in T. 12 Patr.20 Nonetheless, H. Kee has demonstrated the Sedley’s Hellenistic Philosophers, I provide the citation from their text, followed by the citation from their source, which is usually SVF, which refers to J. Arnim, ed., Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta (4 vols.; Stuttgart, 1905–1924). When Sedly and Long cite a source other than SVF, I provide the citation of the primary source. 19 On πνεῦµα as the guiding faculty in Stoicism, see, in addition to the passage just quoted from Aëtius, LONG and SEDLEY, Hellenistic Philosophers, 53K (SVF 2.826). This passage also demonstrates, however, that Stoics, too, could speak in the plural of the various πνεύµατα that extend to the sense organs. 20 Due to this fact and other oddities of the passage, some scholars view this passage as a later addition. See NIEBUHR, Gesetz und Paränese, 87 (n. 11).

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

315

thoroughly Stoic character of much of the moral discourse of T. 12 Patr.21 Similarly to Stoicism, “spirit” is the life force enlivening human beings – as well as demonic beings – and it is a force that comes from God. Moreover, as we will see, one passage suggests that the author of T. 12 Patr. also identifies the deliberating faculty of the human being with spirit (see T. Jud. 20:1–2), even though he uses a range of other terms for this guiding faculty.22 According to T. 12 Patr., failures of this faculty to make rational, virtuous choices stem from assaults on the human spirits by evil spirits. To these evil spirits we now turn.

3. Spirits as Demons that Personify Vices After enumerating the eight spirits of human beings, Reuben goes on to enumerate the “seven spirits of deceit” mentioned in 2:2, though again, there are in fact eight. At first, the list of the spirits appears to parallel the seven internal human spirits in reverse order: First the [spirit] of fornication is urged by nature and the senses; second is a spirit of insatiate desire in the stomach (πρῶτον τὸ τῆς πορνείας ἐν τῇ φύσει καὶ ταῖς αἰσθήσεσιν ἔγκειται· δεύτερον πνεῦµα ἀπληστίας ἐν τῇ γαστρί) (T. Reu. 3:3).

The “spirit of fornication”, which will be the focal point of T. Reu., would be the negative side of the seventh human spirit. The author, however, connects this insidious spirit to the senses generally. The second spirit corresponds to the sixth spirit of taste. The third spirit is that of strife (πνεῦµα µάχης), and though this could be correlated with the fifth human spirit of speech, this is unlikely, since the author locates this spirit “in the liver and the bile” (3:4). The fourth is “a spirit of flattery and trickery (πνεῦµα ἀρεσκείας καὶ µαγγανείας)” (3:4), while fifth is a “spirit of arrogance (πνεῦµα ὑπερηφανίας)” (3:5) and sixth a “spirit of falsehood (πνεῦµα ψεύδους)” (3:5). The seventh spirit is a “spirit of injustice (πνεῦµα ἀδικίας)” (3:6). As in the list of human spirits, the “spirit of sleep” is the eighth spirit. Thus, some of the “spirits of deceit” work in and through the spirits enumerated in the first list, but not all do. Many of these spirits represent vices that will serve as the topics of the moral discourse found throughout T. 12 Patr., but some of this terminology is never used again.23 21 KEE, “Ethical Dimensions,” identifies Middle Stoicism in particular as wielding significant influence. On the Stoic vocabulary of the document, see esp. 263–264 (n. 2). 22 The author uses νοῦς, διανοία, and διαβούλιον for inner faculties of thought, moral perception, and moral deliberation. In contrast to the passage from Aëtius, he never uses ἡγεµονικόν. 23 For example, “flattery (ἀρεσκεία)” and “trickery (µαγγανεία)”, the vices of the fourth spirit, do not appear again. The vices of the other spirits, however, do recur over the

316

James Buchanan Wallace

Just prior to enumerating these spirits, Reuben says, “With these spirits (i.e., the eight spirits of the human being enumerated in 2:3–3:1) is mixed the spirit of deception (τούτοις τοῖς πνεύµασι συµµίγνυται τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς πλάνης)” (T. Reu. 3:2).24 The author uses the verb συµµίγνυµι, which indicates that the spirits of deceit are blended and commingled with the human spirits. The verb µίγνυµι could be used in Stoic philosophy to discuss mixing, but it is not the technical term typically used for the full interpenetration of matter and spirit in which the two components are coextensive but retain their properties, for which we would expect the term κρᾶσις.25 Plutarch, however, uses συµµίγνυµι to speak of the mixing of the irrational part of the soul with the rational, as he begins to refute the psychological monism of the Stoics (Virt. Mor. 441D–E).26 The author of T. 12 Patr. has developed an alternative account of vices. Vice, as the work of evil spirits, is an alien force, but these evil spirits are blended with human spirit and can thus reside within organs and faculties, themselves enlivened by spirit.27 Since the senses and other potencies are linked in substance to the force of life itself and to the rational controlling faculty, the demons have a direct route for deceiving the rational faculty. Vice is alien and irrational, but blended into the spirits that regulate human action. Ultimately, the author of T. 12 Patr. has developed a philosophically astute account both of vice and of the works of the demons that figure so prominently in Jewish apocalyptic thinking. By far, the most common use of “spirit” in T. 12 Patr. is to refer to one of these demonic entities that personify vices.28 Although the evil spirits of T. 12 course of T. 12 Patr. Fornication is the principle concern of T. Reu. and the “spirit of fornication” will be mentioned several times throughout T. 12 Patr.; it is also a focal point of T. Jud. “Falsehood” will be an especially important topic of T. Dan. 24 The switch from the plural (“spirits of deceit”) used earlier in T. Reu. 2:1 to the singular in this verse was an inconsistency not lost on scribes; eight manuscripts put the word “spirit” in 3:2 in the plural to match 2:1–2. 25 For discussions of “mixing” in which µίγνυµι is used, see LONG and SEDLEY, Hellenistic Philosophers, 48C (SVF 2.473) and 48E (SVF 2.465); Plutarch, Virt. Mor. 440D. 26 According to the monistic psychology of most Stoics, vices stem from a failure of rational faculties to incline towards the true good, rather than from lower, irrational faculties of the soul taking over reason. See LONG and SEDLEY, Hellenistic Philosophers, 1:383, 1:422 (n. 17); see 65G (SVF 3.459), 65I (Galen, Plac. Hipp. Plat. 5.6.34–7), 65M (Galen, Plac. Hipp. Plat. 5.5.8–26). This was the view of Chrysippus and other important figures, though some, such as Posidonius, dissented (see 65I [Galen, Plac. Hipp. Plat. 5.6.34–7]). 27 Some non-Jewish, non-Christian Stoics, apparently, suggested a very similar proposal. See LONG and SEDLEY, Hellenistic Philosophers, 54S (SVF 2.1178). 28 The “spirit of fornication (τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς πορνείας)”: T. Reu. 5:3; T. Levi 9:9; T. Jud. 13:3; 14:2; T. Dan 5:6; “spirit of envy (τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ φθόνου)”: T. Sim. 4:7 (see also “spirits of deceit and envy”, T. Sim. 3:1); “spirit of jealousy (τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ ζήλου)”: T. Sim. 2:7; T. Jud. 13:3; T. Dan 1:6; “spirit … of boasting (τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀλαζονείας)”: T. Dan 1:6; “the spirit of wrath (τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ θυµοῦ)”: T. Dan 1:8; 2:1,

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

317

Patr. personify vices, they are indeed evil spirits, or demons, rather than mere expressions of human psychology.29 In this regard, the worldview of T. 12 Patr. is thoroughly apocalyptic. Though mixed with human spirt, Reuben makes clear that these spirits stem from Beliar and are poised against human beings: “Seven spirits were given from Beliar against human beings” (2:2). “Beliar” is the Greek version of “Belial”, and these terms are often used in the Greco-Roman period for the chief evil power opposed to God.30 While T. Reu. 2:2 and other passages in T. 12 Patr. speak of the many spirits of deceit, T. Reu. 3:2 and T. Jud. 20:1 speak of a single “spirit of deceit”, and this spirit should be identified with the archfiend Beliar himself.31 The association of vices with demonic activity and the frequent references to a demonic archfiend that is also a spirit, reveal that T. 12 Patr. expresses not only moral but cosmological dualism, insofar as evil, demonic forces are warring against the good (see esp. T. Reu. 6:12). A battle is being fought between good and evil, and this battle includes but transcends the human struggle against sin. As we turn to passages that express this dualism, we will also further explore the author’s understanding of how demons act on human beings.

4 (see also T. Dan 3:6; 4:5); “spirit of falsehood (τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ ψεύδους)”: T. Dan 2:1; “the spirit … of arrogance (τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ὑπερηφανίας)”: T. Dan 5:6; “the spirit of hate (τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ µίσους)”: T. Gad 1:9; 3:1; 4:7; 6:2. Note also T. Jud. 16:1: “For there are four evil spirits in [wine]: desire, burning, prodigality, greed (τέσσαρα πνεύµατα πονηρά· ἐπιθυµίας, πυρώσεως, ἀσωτίας, αἰσχροκερδίας).” “Evil spirits”: T. Sym. 4:9; 6:6; T. Levi 18:12; see also T. Sim. 4:9; “evil spirit (sing.)”: T. Ash. 1:9; 6:5; “spirits (pl.) of deceit”: T. Sym. 6:6; T. Levi 3:3; T. Iss. 4:4; T. Zeb. 9:7; T. Dan 5:5; T. Naph. 3:3; T. Ash. 6:2; “the spirit (sing.) of deceit”: T. Jud. 14:8; 20:1; T. Zeb. 9:8; “a spirit of deceit of Beliar”: T. Jud. 25:3. 29 So also BRECK¸ Spirit of Truth, 116 and 148 n. 14 (n. 9), where he rightly rejects the proposal of MUNCH, “Spirits,” 263 (n. 9), who sees spirit primarily as “a psychological term indicating a disposition or inclination”. However, Munch readily acknowledges the evidence for viewing these spirits as “real demons,” though this aspect of the text represents “a secondary element” (Ibid.). In fact, Munch himself provides considerable evidence in favor of viewing these spirits as real demons (259–260). 30 See T. LEWIS, “Belial,” ABD 1: 654–56. 31 In T. Ben., the “spirit of deceit,” in the singular, is identified with Beliar. In 3:3, Benjamin speaks of the “spirits of Beliar” that ask to submit human beings to evil afflictions. The safeguard against such temptation is love of God and love of neighbor, “for the one fearing God and loving his neighbor cannot be wounded by the aerial spirit of Beliar (ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀερίου πνεύµατος τοῦ Βελιὰρ), since he is sheltered by the fear of God” (3:4). Later, Benjamin states, “The counsel (Τὸ διαβούλιον) of the good man is not in the hand of a deceitful spirit, Beliar (οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν χειρὶ πλάνης πνεύµατος Βελιάρ). For the angel of peace guides his soul” (6:1). This verse clearly characterizes Beliar as a deceitful spirit. Also, “a deceitful spirit, Beliar” is juxtaposed with “the angel of peace”, who guides a good person. This juxtaposition makes even clearer that these “spirits” of T. 12 Patr. are demonic beings.

318

James Buchanan Wallace

4. The Two Spirits 4.1 The Two Spirits in T. 12 Patr. In T. Jud., Judah tells his children that there are two spirits – the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. The passage is worth quoting at length: Know, therefore, my children, that two spirits devote themselves to humankind, that of truth and that of deceit (δύο πνεύµατα σχολάζουσι τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ, τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας καὶ τὸ τῆς πλάνης); and between is that [spirit] of the understanding of the mind, which inclines as it wishes (καὶ µέσον ἐστὶ τὸ τῆς συνέσεως τοῦ νοός, οὗ ἐὰν θέλῃ κλῖναι). Indeed, the things of truth and the things of deceit have been written upon the breast of the human being; and the Lord makes known each one of them. And there is not a time at which works of a human being might be able to escape notice, because they have been inscribed before the Lord in the breast of [his] bones. And the spirit of truth bears witness to all things and brings charges against all (καὶ τὸ πνεῦµα τῆς ἀληθείας µαρτυρεῖ πάντα καὶ κατηγορεῖ πάντων), and the one who has sinned is burned from his own heart, and is not able to lift his face to the judge. (20:1–5)

In this text, an important tension in the moral worldview of T. 12 Patr. emerges. There are two forces, distinct from the human being, that vie for human loyalty, and as other texts will make clear, these forces can come to dominate human beings. Nonetheless, human choice is involved. A faculty of judgment determines towards which of these two poles it will incline, and this human faculty is itself a “spirit”.32 Although this spirit may appear to be technically neutral, making the decision between the spirit of deceit and the spirit of truth, the language reveals that choosing the spirit of truth, though difficult, is the more natural option. As we will see, “spirit of understanding” occurs two other times in T. 12 Patr., both in T. Levi. In one case, it refers to the special perception given to Levi by God (3:2), and in the other case, it refers to the “spirit of understanding” given to the messiah (18:7). Hence, in both of the other cases in which “spirit of understanding” occurs, it refers to a spirit from God. Also, the term σύνεσις is always used positively and often refers to ability to discern the proper moral choice.33 In keeping with the Stoic conviction that virtue is natural, the human spirit of understanding is naturally designed to incline towards its kindred spirit, the spirit of truth. The “spirit of truth” has multiple functions. Several times in T. 12 Patr., “truth” and God’s law or commandments are so closely connected that it 32 See also REINMUTH, Geist und Gesetz, 76 (n. 9). Compare the similar wording of T. Reu. 3:3, in which the first spirit of deception is described: “First the [spirit] of fornication (πρῶτον τὸ τῆς πορνείας).” 33 As the ability to discern the proper moral choice, see: T. Reu.6:4; T. Sym. 4:8; T. Jud. 14:7. In T. Levi, the term appears to be especially associated with Levi’s ability to teach and pass on God’s law; see 4:5; possibly 8:2; 13:2. The term also occurs in T. Zeb. 6:1 in a positive way, but here, it refers to technical skill.

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

319

becomes clear that the commandments of Torah are the perfect expression of truth (see esp. T. Reu 3:8; T. Gad 3:1; T Ash. 5:4; 6:1), and therefore, the “spirit of truth” and Torah must also be so intimately connected that “the spirit of truth” personifies the promptings to live in accordance with God’s law.34 However, this spirit is a spirit “of truth” also in the sense that it faithfully testifies to what the person has actually done, preventing any action from being hidden.35 This spirit may be shunned in one’s moral life, but it cannot be expunged and thus has a certain independent existence beyond the human being’s individual choice to follow its promptings. As Breck notes, the spirit of truth cannot be identified with the “spirit of the understanding of the mind”.36 Indeed, since the “spirit of truth” brings charges against all, this is a single spirit that is encountered by all human beings. Since it is set against the “spirit of deception”, which is so closely connected to Beliar himself, this “spirit of truth” may either be a principle angel or another term for God’s own spirit. The Testament of Asher also speaks of an “evil spirit”. Asher’s opening exhortation conceptually resembles T. Jud. 20:1–5, though Asher does not speak of two spirits. He does, however, proclaim the following: God has given two ways to the sons of men and two counsels (διαβούλια) and two courses of action and two ways of life and two ends … Two paths, good and wicked; with them are two counsels (διαβούλια) in our breasts discerning them … But if the counsel inclines to evil (ἐὰν δὲ ἐν πονηρῷ κλίνῃ τὸ διαβούλιον), all of its actions are in evil, and pushing aside the good it accepts the wicked and is dominated by Beliar (κυριευθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ Βελιάρ), and should it do something good, it perverts it into evil. For when it begins something as if it were good, the end of his action moves toward doing what is wicked, because the storehouse of the counsel is filled with poison from an evil spirit (ἐπειδὴ ὁ θησαυρὸς τοῦ διαβουλίου ἰοῦ πονηροῦ πνεύµατος πεπλήρωται). (1:3, 5, 8–9)

Again, human beings face a choice between two ways of life, and again, the moral character of one’s life is the consequence of both choice and cosmic forces. In this passage, the faculty for discerning between the two ways is called the διαβούλιον (compare T. Ben. 6:1) rather than the “spirit of the understanding of the mind (τὸ [πνεῦµα] τῆς συνέσεως τοῦ νοός)” as in T. Jud. 20:2, but we find the same basic concept of an internal faculty that must “incline (κλίνω)” towards either good or evil. Indeed, just as “the spirit of the 34 Compare BRECK, Spirit of Truth, 118 (n. 9). The point that “truth” can stand in a parallel relationship with God’s law in the rhetoric of T. 12 Patr. derives from HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, The Testaments: A Commentary, 96 (n. 2). In addition to the passages cited above, compare also T. Reu. 6:9; T. Iss. 7:5; T. Gad 3:3; T. Ben.10:3. Compare 4 Macc 6:18. 35 BRECK, Spirit of Truth, 117 (n. 9). Breck also detects here “a basic teaching function” and compares John 16:7–15. 36 Ibid. 118, though Breck appears to understand the phrase I have translated as the “spirit of the understanding of the mind” slightly differently than I do.

320

James Buchanan Wallace

understanding of the mind” can incline towards one of two spirits, so the διαβούλιον can incline to one of two διαβούλια. Once a tendency has been established, forces more powerful than the individual take over. The wicked person is “dominated by Beliar”, and an evil spirit manages to poison the internal counsel, so that everything one does, whether ostensibly good or not, becomes evil. Despite the fact that the author ascribes the power of vice to demonic forces, his understanding of the enormous ramifications of initial inclinations might have fit rather neatly with some aspects of Stoicism. Many Stoics insisted that virtue is “all or nothing”; one is either virtuous or full of vice.37 Indeed, in principle, many Stoics claimed that “the change from vice to virtue is instantaneous”.38 For the author of T. 12 Patr., such an ethics would have been quite comprehensible, albeit for different reasons. The inclination to vice subordinates one to demons, while the life of virtue stems from repentance and turning to God. The Testaments describe the work of the demonic spirits in various ways, and the language the author deploys reveals both the psychological dimensions of the demons’ work, as well as the fact that these demons are external forces attacking human beings and much larger than any individual person.39 Several common motifs recur. Most frequently, the demons of vice somehow attack or corrupt an internal faculty, such as one’s deliberating faculty or counsel (διαβούλιον), mind (νοῦς), or intellect (διανοία).40 These evil spirits stand diametrically opposed to God’s law (T. Reu. 3:1–8; T. Levi 19:1; T. Dan 5:1; T. Naph. 2:6; T. Gad 3:1–2; 4:7; T. Ash. 6:1–4). They seek to attract these higher faculties of human beings, provoking certain desires, and thus deceive them into thinking something is good, acceptable, or even just that is, in fact, a violation of God’s law. Simeon, for example, reports that “the ruler of deceit, when it had sent the spirit of jealousy, blinded my mind (ἐτύφλωσέ µου τὸν νοῦν)” (T. Sim. 2:7).41 The spirits can even speak and reason with 37

See LONG and SEDLEY, Hellenistic Philosophers, 61D (SVF 3.280), 61F (SVF 3.299, 243), and 61T (SVF 3.530). 38 Ibid., 1: 386 (n. 17); see also 61S (SVF 3.539). 39 The evil spirits are also internal, mixed with the human spirit, as has already been demonstrated. At the same time, they are distinct from the human person and can even be described as attacking the person; see T. Sym. 4:9 and T. Jud. 13:3. They work internally, yet are also independent entities, larger than individuals and active outside of and beyond them. 40 According to Plutarch, the Stoics equated the “intellect” (διάνοια) with the “guiding faculty” (ἡγεµονικός), which is the seat of reason (Virt. Mor. 441C). 41 The language of “blinding” is used also at T. Jud. 19:4 (“the ruler of deceit blinded me”) and T. Gad 3:3. See also T. Dan 3:1–6, though here, wrath first burns in the body, which is then able to master the soul and pervert it into thinking it does right, because “it does not see”. Gad claims, “the spirit of hate darkened my mind (τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ µίσους ἐσκότιζέ µου τὸν νοῦν)” (T. Gad 6:2; compare Rom 1:21 [though here the heart is darkened]).

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

321

their would-be victim, trying to convince the victim that what they suggest is completely reasonable (see T. Dan 1:6–8). These spirits can access the faculties of the human person because they are made of the same stuff – they are all composed of “spirit” and are indeed mixed with the spirits given at creation. Demons can thus displace the natural function of the senses and replace them with a perverted version.42 When a person has “inclined” towards what the spirit offers, this force is so overpowering that the language used to describe the sufferer’s state does indeed recall demon possession, occupation by an alien spiritual force that takes over the human person and changes him or her.43 Indeed, the Testaments consistently emphasize that when one is dominated by evil spirits, not only the mind and behavior change, but the body changes, as well.44 While T. 12 Patr. in many respects contains rhetoric and expresses values typical of the moral discourse of the larger Greco-Roman world, it simultaneously presents human choice – or more precisely, the internal inclinations of human faculties – as the battleground of two fundamentally opposed forces, or spirits, which are the ultimate forces behind the moral dilemmas and temptations that human beings face. As R. Kugler observes, speaking specifically of T. Reu., the testament parts ways with the common Hellenistic ethic in asserting that it is not because of the presence or absence of self-discipline that one is vice-ridden or virtuous. Instead, vices are the result of living under the influence of evil spirits (2.1–3.8) and falling into the wily traps of wicked women (5.1–6.4), and virtue is achieved by turning to and trusting in God (4.1).45

42

In T. Dan 2:4, the language of blinding and darkening combine, though here, the physical eyes are blinded: “For the spirit of wrath throws the nets of deceit around him, and blinds his physical eyes, through falsehood darkens his intellect (διάνοιαν), and gives to him his own sight.” 43 See T. Gad 1:9: “And the spirit of hate was in me (ἐν ἐµοί)” and see esp. T. Jos. 7:15, discussed below. See further G. TWELFTREE, “Exorcism and the Defeat of Beliar in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs,” VC 65 (2011), 170–188, esp. 175–177. 44 See T. Sim. 4:9; 5:1; T. Dan 2:4; compare T. Dan 3:4–5, which suggests that the spirit of wrath gives the wrathful person, particularly the body, added power. This is comparable to the idea that demon possession increases strength (see Mark 5:3–4; Acts 19:16). In some respects, such portrayals of demonic attack were not entirely at odds with the Stoic anthropology of the text. Stoic moralists agreed that vice could lead to bad physical effects: see LONG and SEDLEY, Hellenistic Philosophers, 61O (Circero, Tusc. 4.29, 34–35), and for the tyrannical power of passions, see 65A (SVF 3.378, 389). The medical tradition connected disorders in one’s πνεῦµα with disease: see Ibid., 55F (Galen, Caus. cont. 1.1–2.4, though Galen is recounting the views of Athenaeus of Attaleia, who was influenced by the Stoic Posidonius) and VERBEKE, L’évolution, 152–153 and 219 (n. 16). 45 Testaments, 91 (n. 1).

322

James Buchanan Wallace

Since repentance and turning to God, rather than self-discipline, free the individual from vice, the decision to incline towards the spirit of deceit and thus towards vice is not irrevocable. 4.2 The Two Spirits at Qumran As has long been recognized, the teaching of the two spirits in the Rule of the Community offers striking parallels with T. 12 Patr., especially T. Jud. 20:1– 5.46 Scholars often caution against assuming that the Qumran scrolls express a coherent pneumatology, and many scholars argue that the teaching of the “two spirits” in the Rule represents a pneumatology at odds with what is found elsewhere.47 Thus, while an examination of this teaching proves important for our purposes, the pneumatology of the Rule should not necessarily provide the lens through which other Qumran documents are read. According to the Rule, there are two opposed “spirits” in which human beings share, the “spirit of truth” and the “spirit of injustice”: [God] created the human for the dominion of the world, designing for him two spirits in which to walk until the appointed time for his visitation, namely the spirits of truth and of injustice (‫)רוחות האמת והעול‬. From a spring of light are the generations of truth, and from a well of darkness are the generations of injustice. In the hand of the Prince of Lights (is) the dominion of all the Sons of Righteousness; in the ways of light they walk. But in the hand of the Angel of Darkness (is) the dominion of the Sons of Deceit (1QS III, 17–19 [Charlesworth, modified]).48

There are two spirits, one of truth and one of injustice (or “deceit”, as Charlesworth translates ‫)עול‬. These two spirits are correlated with two angelic beings, the angel of light and the angel of darkness. A few lines later, the text mentions “all the spirits of his (i.e., the Angel of Darkness’s) lot (‫כול‬ ‫”)רוחי גורלו‬, revealing that “spirits” can refer to the demonic underlings of the principle evil angel (1QS III, 24). The evil spirits cause even the “Sons of Righteousness” to stumble and commit sin (1QS III, 22–24). The two principle spirits can also be called “spirits of light and darkness”, for according to the Rule, God “created the spirits of light and darkness (‫”)רוחות אור וחושכ‬ 46

For example, KEE, “Testaments,” 800 (n. 2); BRECK, Spirit of Truth, 115 (n. 9). See A. SEKKI, The Meaning of Ruaḥ at Qumran (SBLDS 110; Atlanta, 1989), 60, 66, and 69, and his excellent discussion of scholarly positions until the late 1980s (7–69). Sekki provides significant data that the uses of ‫ רוח‬in 1QS III–IV are relatively distinctive to this passage and thus represent “a secondary and later development in the evolution of sectarian thought” (194). 48 Unless otherwise noted, translations of the Rule of the Community are those of J. Charlesworth, found in J. H. Charlesworth et al., eds., Rule of the Community and Related Documents (vol. 1 of The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations; The Princeton Theological Seminary Dead Sea Scrolls Project; Tübingen/Louisville, 1994). Citations of the Hebrew also derive from this edition. 47

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

323

(1QS III, 25).49 Thus, the Rule makes clear that God created these two spirits. This claim indicates that the Qumranites understood even the “spirit of light” to be a creation of God and therefore distinguishable from God. Indeed, since the text can speak of angels of light and darkness, spirits of light and darkness, and spirits of truth and injustice, only two entities are probably in view. The “spirit of truth” should be identified with the “angel of light”, and the “spirit of injustice” with the “angel of darkness”. These are personal, angelic beings.50 In both the Rule and T. 12 Patr., the “spirit of deceit/spirit of injustice” is identified with the archfiend waging war against God and humanity. However, as I will argue presently, it is less clear that T. 12 Patr. presents the “spirit of truth” as an angelic being. For the Qumranites, this conflict between the two spirits and their adherents is part of God’s cosmic plan. The Community Rule insists that all human beings, whether of the elect or the damned, have some share in each spirit, but it is the one that predominates that will determine one’s ultimate destiny in the eschaton (1QS IV, 15–17, 23–26).51 The intersection between the spirit of truth, the spirit of injustice, and the human spirit that answers for its moral choices is never parsed out in any theoretical way. Nonetheless, most scholars interpret the worldview of the Rule to be highly deterministic; one simply has 49

This is the same terminology for light and darkness used in the creation account of Genesis 1. See H. G. MAY, “Cosmological Reference in the Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old Testament Imagery,” JBL (1963), 1–14, see 2. 50 This is the view of many scholars, but SEKKI, Meaning of Ruaḥ, 196–200, 204–205 (n. 47) – and see his notes for an overview of the debate – mounts a strong argument against this view. He observes that in all clear cases, ‫ רוח‬is used for demonic figures only in the masculine gender, while the feminine gender is used for internal dispositions of the human spirit. Since ‫ רוח‬is used in the feminine gender when the two spirits of truth and injustice, and of light and darkness, are being discussed, Sekki concludes that they are not personal angelic/demonic forces. His view is nuanced, however. He recognizes the “cosmic significance” of the language and claims that “the author indicates that a man’s good or evil spiritual disposition cannot be regarded as simply a personal or individual matter between himself and others (or even God) but is deeply involved in a cosmic Good or cosmic Evil. Good and Evil far transcend human limitations, and it is precisely here that the two cosmic angels are introduced” (198–199). As Sekki’s own qualifications of his argument suggest, the gender of the term is the only convincing evidence. Ultimately, the text itself indicates that the reader should make the connection between these spirits and the angelic overlords. Even if the thrust of Sekki’s argument is correct, we may simply have a situation like T. 12 Patr. itself, in which these entities are both genuine personal (i.e., demonic/angelic) powers and intimately connected to human vice and disobedience. Moreover, CD XII, 2–6 uses ‫ רוח‬as a feminine noun to speak of spirits as demons. 51 Philo could likewise speak of two “powers”, one beneficent and one destructive, mixed in all human beings, though for the wise, the beneficent power prevails. See QE 1.23 (MARCUS, LCL), and see M. PHILONENKO, “Philon d’Alexandrie et l’«’Instruction sur les deux esprits»,” in Hellenica et Judaica (eds. A. Caquot, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud; Leuven, 1986), 61–68.

324

James Buchanan Wallace

a larger share in one spirit than in the other by God’s design. Such determinism can be found in several other sectarian documents.52 Although the Rule – and the Damascus Document – do not typically speak of specific spirits for various vices as T. 12 Patr. does,53 the Rule nonetheless explicitly ascribes to the “spirit of injustice” a list of vices quite similar to the vices associated with the “evil spirits” of T. 12 Patr.: But concerning the spirit of injustice (these are the principles): greed and slackness in righteous activity, wickedness and deceit, pride and haughtiness, atrocious disguise and falsehood, great hypocrisy, fury, great vileness, shameless zeal for abominable works in a spirit of fornication, filthy ways in unclean worship, a tongue of blasphemy, blindness of eyes and deafness of ear, stiffness of neck and hardness of heart, walking in all the ways of darkness, and evil craftiness (1QS IV, 9–11 [Charlesworth, very slightly modified]).

Many of these sins and vices overlap with those denounced in T. 12 Patr., most notably a “spirit of fornication (‫”)רוח זנות‬54, as well as “falsehood (‫”)שקר‬55, pride, haughtiness, and fury. The differences are worth noting as well. We find in the Rule an emphasis on worship that is not as prominent in the paranetic material in T. 12 Patr.. Also, in keeping with the historical situ-

52 1QHa VII stresses that God has predetermined the character of every spirit: “And I know that in your hand is the inclination of every spirit, [and all] its [activi]ty you determined before you created it. How can anyone change your words?” (26–27), and “You yourself formed the spirit and determined its activity [from of old] and from you (comes) the way of every living being” (35); see also XII, 32–33; compare XVIII, 24. Unless otherwise noted, all translations of the Hodayot are those of Carol Newsom, from Hartmut Stegemann and Eileen Schuller, 1QHodayota with Incorporation of 1QHodayotb and 4QHodayota-f (DJD 40; Oxford, 2009). All references to the Hebrew of the Hodayot also derive from this edition. For further evidence of a highly deterministic worldview, see esp. 4Q186, which indicates that human beings are born with a specific share in darkness or light. Other passages indicating that the Qumran community had a highly deterministic worldview include: CD II, 12–13; 1QHa VI, 23–24; but see CDb XX, 17–21. See also MAY, “Cosmological Reference,” 3–6 (n. 49), and Josephus’s account of the emphasis the Essenes place on fate: Ant. 13.172–173. 53 But see the references to the Hodayot in note 52, and see 1QS V, 26, which speaks of “a jealous spirit of wickedness”; the word for “jealous” is the same as that used in Num 5:14. This passage of the Rule, however, appears to speak of a characteristic of the human spirit, as do instances of ‫ רוח‬when used to portray the “ways” of the two spirits (see SEKKI, Meaning of Ruaḥ, 202–203, 205 [n. 47]). 54 The root of the word for fornication, ‫זנות‬, has the same root and same meaning as the word used in Hos 4:12 and 5:4, but the form is masculine plural in these two verses of Hosea: ‫ ְזנוּנִ ים‬. However, the context, as well as the use of the feminine gender, indicate that the author is thinking primarily of the human dispositions and vices caused by one’s share in the spirit of injustice (see SEKKI, Meaning of Ruaḥ, 205 [n. 47]). 55 This Hebrew term is used only in the first instance in the quotation in which a word is translated “falsehood”; this is the same Hebrew term that is used of the “spirit of deceit (‫רוּח שֶׁ קֶ ר‬ ַ )” in 1 Kgs 22:22.

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

325

ation of the sect and their perceptions of their fellow Jews, the Rule strongly denounces hypocrisy. Just as the spirit of injustice leads to a host of vices, the spirit of truth has a beneficent purpose for those privileged to share in it fully: To illuminate the heart of man and to level before him all the ways of true righteousness; and to make his heart fear the judgments of God; and a spirit of humility and patience, of great compassion and constant goodness, and of prudence, insight, and wonderful wisdom, which is firmly established in all the works of God, leaning on his great mercy; and a spirit of knowledge in all work upon which he is intent, zeal for righteous precepts, a holy intention with a steadfast purpose; and great affection towards all the Sons of Truth; and a glorious purity, loathing all unclean idols, and walking with reservation by discernment about everything, concealing the truth of the mysteries of knowledge. (1QS IV, 2–5)

As in T. 12 Patr., the spirit of truth inspires the ability to be righteous and to follow God’s laws, including love of one’s neighbor.56 In the Rule, however, affection is to be directed towards fellow members of the community. Indeed, the sectarian character of the document is apparent throughout the description of the work of this spirit, especially when the author claims that the spirit helps one to conceal “the truth of the mysteries of knowledge”. In both texts, the spirit of truth is an entity that may direct the human spirit but is distinct from the human being’s own spirit. In T. 12 Patr., human beings decide their allegiance, while the Rule and other Qumran documents strongly suggest that one’s share in the spirit of truth has been decided by God, and thus this spirit directs human actions and fate more directly than the spirit of truth of T. Jud. The Rule suggests that the spirit of truth is distinct from God. Both the Rule and T. 12 Patr. view demonic spirits as the ultimate sources of vice and evil. Thus, the human struggle to be virtuous and obedient to God is one aspect of a much larger, cosmic struggle between good and evil. Since these forces are stronger than human beings, they can hold them captive.57 Nothing in T. 12 Patr., however, suggests that God created the evil spirits as evil. The dualistic worldview of both the sectarian Qumran documents and T. 12 Patr. is deeply indebted to the Old Testament, but the concept of two spiritual forces, a spirit of truth and a spirit of deceit/injustice, at war with each other and in competition for the moral orientation of human individuals, almost certainly reflects Zoroastrian influence as well, though the exact path of that influence is unknown.58 See similarly 1QHa VI, 36–37 (here, a “spirit of knowledge [‫ ”]רוח דעה‬enables good choices). 57 See CD XII, 2–6. 58 For the influence of the OT, see MAY, “Cosmological Reference” (n. 49). Numerous scholars have pointed to Iranian influences on the Qumran sectarian documents (see SEKKI, Meaning of Ruaḥ, 18–22, 31–37, 50–51, 53–69 [n. 47]; BRECK, Spirit of Truth, 53–76, 111–154 [n. 9]). M. HENGEL, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period (trans. J. Bowden; 2 vols.; Minneapolis, 1974; 56

326

James Buchanan Wallace

5. Beneficent Spirits As Judah’s description of the two spirits of deceit and truth indicates, there are good spirits in T. 12 Patr. just as there are evil ones. The spirit of truth is opposed to the spirit of deceit, and in T. Gad, the “spirit of love” is opposed to the “spirit of hate” (4:7). The good spirits, however, do not feature so prominently, and the moral psychology of T. 12 Patr. is much more oriented towards understanding the spirits of deceit than it is towards explicating the good ones. One is reluctant to draw conclusions from the absence of evidence. Nonetheless, the absence of individual virtues explicitly personified as angelic spirits is remarkable. Only once might πνεῦµα refer to angels (T. Levi 3:2), and in this case the “spirits” inflict punishment in the second heaven and thus may be winds or demons.59 The beneficent spirits relate only to 2nd ed. 1991), 1:229–231, 2:153, note 776, argues that the Iranian influence on Qumran might actually have come via Greek sources. Regardless of the exact path, the similarity between the Gathas, the texts that preserve the earliest available strands of Zoroastrian thought, the Rule, and especially T. 12 Patr., is too striking to be dismissed: “Hear with your ears the best message, behold with lucid mind / the two choices in the decision each man makes for his own person / before the great Supplication, as ye look ahead to the declaration to Him. / They are the two Wills, the twins who in the beginning made themselves heard through dreaming, / those two kinds of thought, of speech, of deed, the better and the evil; / and between them well-doers discriminate rightly, but ill doers do not. Once those two Wills join battle, a man adopts / life or non-life, the way of existence that will be his at the last: / that of the wrongful the worst kind, but for the righteous one, best thought” (Yasna 30.2–4, trans. M. L. WEST, The Hymns of Zoroaster: A New Translation of the Most Ancient Sacred Texts of Iran [London, 2010]). This passage depicts two opposed wills that attempt to sway the thought of individuals and drive them to righteous or wicked lives. The text suggests that the choice to adopt one way or the other is a manifestation of a battle between these two principles, and a fundamental decision is made that determines one’s moral fate (see BRECK, Spirit of Truth, 64). These two wills are the “Bounteous Will” (Spǝnta manyu) and the “Hostile Will” (Angra manyu). The Daevas are “the traditional gods of Iran whom Zoroaster has replaced with his own moral-intellectual deities, but who still guide … the aggressive groups that harass his community” (WEST, Hymns, 52, note 6). These “Daevas are all spawned from Evil Thought” (Yasna 32.3 [West]). The Bounteous Will is the offspring of the principle God, Ahura Mazda (Yasna 47.2–3), as is the Wrongful Will (BRECK, Spirit of Truth, 55). Thus, two principles, subordinate to and created by one God, war for human allegiance. The basic concept, so important to T. 12 Patr. and the Rule, of positive and negative qualities personified as spiritual powers, is also central to Zoroastrianism (BRECK, Spirit of Truth, 55–57). Moreover, early Zoroastrianism also conceptualizes the fundamental conflict as a conflict between the personified entities “Truth” and “Lie” (see BRECK, Spirit of Truth, 56, 60–67, 112–116). 59 So MUNCH, “Spirits,” 260 (n. 9), who notes that demons frequently have the role of punishing sinners in Jewish apocalyptic traditions; Munch cites T. Ash. 6:5 to validate his claim. HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, Testaments: A Commentary, 136 (n. 2), translate πνεύµατα as “winds”, since other natural phenomena, such as fire and ice, are stored in this heaven for judgment.

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

327

major virtues; we find “the spirit of truth”, “the spirit of love”, a “spirit of understanding”, a “spirit of sanctification”, a “spirit of holiness”, and a “good spirit”. The way to ward off the evil spirits and choose the good is quite clear: fear of God and adherence to God’s laws, especially love of God and love of neighbor.60 Gad states that the spirit of hate, through faintheartedness, works together with Satan in everything for the death of human beings, but the spirit of love, in long-suffering, works together with the law of God for the salvation of human beings (T. Gad 4:7).

While one spirit works with the archfiend, the “spirit of love” works with God’s law to incline human beings to do good that they might ultimately be saved. Our discussion of T. Jud. 20:1–5 already suggested a connection between “the spirit of Truth” and God’s law. In T. Gad 4:7, a beneficent spirit and Torah clearly cooperate for the salvation of human beings. The “spirit of love”, rather than being the underling of a personal agent, corroborates the law of God in the human interior, much as the “spirit of truth” does. Indeed, the “spirit of hate” manifests itself through revulsion at doing God’s law, fear of God, and doing righteousness (T. Gad 3:2); the spirit of hate “finds fault with the truth” (T. Gad 3:3). The one hating “does not desire to hear words of His commandments concerning love of neighbor” (T. Gad 4:2). Hence, the law of God and love are deeply connected, for the mandate to love one’s neighbor is interpreted as one of the central commandments. Love works with “longsuffering” precisely because this disposition allows one to tolerate mistreatment and the success of others without anger or resentment (see T. Gad 4:4–6). Gad exhorts his children, “Flee hate, and be joined to the love of the Lord” (T. Gad 5:2). Following the “spirit of love” is not just a matter of obedience to God for the sake of an eschatological reward; rather, rejecting hate opens the possibility of being joined to God’s own love. Therefore, the “spirit of love” is distinct from the human being; it is not just one’s disposition to love, but a power of love from God that facilitates this disposition and thereby aids in the fulfillment of one of Torah’s central commandments.61 In T. Ben., Benjamin likewise emphasizes the importance of love, especially love for other virtuous people. The good person “loves the one having favor (or grace) from a good spirit as his own soul (τὸν ἔχοντα χάριν πνεύµατος ἀγαθοῦ ἀγαπᾷ κατὰ τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ)” (T. Ben. 4:5). It is unclear whether “a good spirit” refers to the moral disposition of one’s own spirit or to an external spirit. In most of the moral discourse of T. 12 Patr., “spirit” refers to the independent spirits that influence the human mind and intellect. Thus, this is probably a genitive of origins, “favor from a good spir60 61

See esp. T. Ben. 3:4 So also REINMUTH, Geist und Gesetz, 77 (n. 9).

328

James Buchanan Wallace

it”. The language affirms that moral goodness is not merely the result of one’s striving, but “grace” or “favor” from an external power.62 If Nehemiah 9:20 informs the language of T. Ben. 4:5, then this interpretation finds further support. Nehemiah 9:20 states, “And you gave your good spirit to make them understand (καὶ τὸ πνεῦµά σου τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἔδωκας συνετίσαι αὐτοὺς).” In this verse, the “good spirit” is quite clearly God’s spirit. This spirit enables understanding, and “understanding” in turn facilitates obedience to the commandments revealed at Sinai.63 Like several passages of T. 12 Patr., this verse from Nehemiah connects a beneficent spirit with adherence to Torah. Likewise, in Psalm 143:10 (LXX 142:10), the psalmist says, “Your (God’s) good spirit will lead me on level ground (τὸ πνεῦµά σου τὸ ἀγαθὸν ὁδηγήσει µε ἐν γῇ εὐθείᾳ).” In light of these parallels, and in light of T. Jud. 20:1–5 and T. Gad 4:7, we can conclude that this brief phrase in T. Ben. alludes to a similar idea: a “good spirit” helps facilitate virtue, which is obedience to God’s law. In T. 12 Patr., however, χάρις is by no means arbitrary favor given as a mere gift; rather, it is bestowed as one struggles to fulfill God’s law and act morally.64 Thus, T. Ben. 4:5 suggests that a divine spirit actually bestows favor and thereby empowers virtuous behavior, but this additional empowerment is itself the product of moral struggle and obedience to God’s commandments. Other passages that mention spirits of positive qualities are associated with specific individuals – namely, Levi and the messianic figure foretold by T. 12 Patr. The first occurs just before Levi receives his vision of the heavens: And when we were shepherding in Abelmaoul, a spirit of understanding from the Lord came upon me (πνεῦµα συνέσεως κυρίου ἦλθεν ἐπ΄ ἐµέ), and seeing all human beings hide their path (i.e., do things secretly) and that unrighteousness builds a wall for itself, and lawlessness is seated upon ramparts, I was grieved concerning the race of the sons of human beings, and I prayed to the Lord that I might be saved. (T. Levi 2:3–4)

Then, Levi falls asleep and sees a high mountain; the heavens open and Levi ascends. The spirit that comes upon Levi is not directly connected with his heavenly journey. Rather, it is connected with his moral perception, though it is truly revelatory. When the spirit comes upon him, he is able to recognize the deplorable moral state of human beings despite their efforts to hide their sins. The heavenly journey reveals the fate of sinners and even of the “spirits of deception and Beliar” themselves (see esp. 3:3). Levi is one of the princi62

Philo, QE 1.23, is similar on this point. On Neh 9:20, see LEVISON, Spirit and First Century Judaism, 194–197 (n. 9). 64 See esp. T. Reu. 4:8; T. Sim. 4:5; 5:2, all of which make clear that “grace”, or “favor” results from virtuous behavior; see similarly T. Jos. 3:4; T. Jud. 2:1, when read in its larger contexts (1:4–2:1). The term only refers to grace as a sheer gift in eschatological passages: T. Levi 18:9 and T. Jos. 19:6 (both referring to God’s grace to the Gentiles), and possibly T. Jud. 24:2. 63

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

329

ple figures of T. 12 Patr. as the progenitor of the priestly line. The other brothers constantly admonish their “children” to heed and revere Levi and his line. Thus, it is no surprise that like the promised messianic figure, Levi himself possesses a “spirit of understanding”. This spirit is an external agent that “came upon” him from without while he was doing something else. Other Jewish texts likewise stress that the divine aid of God’s spirit is necessary for understanding or wisdom, especially ethical understanding.65 Hollander and de Jonge conclude that here the “spirit of understanding” brings “a limited unique experience”, in contrast to the usual usage of this phrase.66 However, two more times in T. Lev. is Levi granted “understanding (σύνεσις)”, and he is to pass on this understanding to his children.67 Thus, “understanding” in this testament appears to be a special trait granted Levi as a priest and teacher of God’s law, even though it is by no means a trait absent from others. Similarly to Joshua, the granting of a “spirit of understanding” may be a more permanent endowment that enables not only moral insight but the ability to understand and hand on God’s law (compare Deut 34:9). Levi describes the expected Messiah thus: And glory from the Most High will be proclaimed upon him, and a spirit of understanding and of sanctification will rest upon him (καὶ πνεῦµα συνέσεως καὶ ἁγιασµοῦ καταπαύσει ἐπ’ αὐτὸν) in the water. (T. Levi 18:7; see Isa 11:2)68

Neither “understanding” nor “sanctification” will be used to describe the “spirit” of this messianic figure in other passages, and both connect him directly with the figure of Levi.69 Levi received a “spirit of understanding” earlier in this testament, and “sanctification” is used in the LXX especially in

65

See Wis 7:7; 9:17 (see G. MONTAGUE, The Holy Spirit: Growth of a Biblical Tradition [New York, 1976], 105); Neh 9:20; Sus 45; see further LEVISON, Spirit in First Century Judaism, 176–187 (n. 9). 66 HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, The Testaments: A Commentary, 133 (n. 2), and see esp. the OT parallels they offer. 67 Of the ten times the term is used in T. 12 Patr., half of them occur in T. Levi. In T. Levi 4:5 and 8:2, it is a special characteristic granted to Levi; in 13:3 it is something that his children should learn from him and through study of God’s law. 68 The phrase “in the water” is regarded by some as a Christian interpolation; it is missing from e. T. Levi 18:7 alludes to Isa 11:2, though the wording is different. Isa 11:2–3a, LXX, reads: “And a spirit of God will rest upon (ἀναπαύσεται) him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding (συνέσεως), a spirit of counsel and strength, a spirit of knowledge and godliness; a spirit of the fear of God will fill him.” 69 This messiah should not be understood as being in the line of Levi and therefore as different from the “royal” messiah, though the Qumranites appear to have expected two such messiahs. The messiah of T. 12 Patr. will, however, be a priest (T. Levi 18:9).

330

James Buchanan Wallace

connection with the temple and priests.70 Furthermore, the verses preceding T. Levi 18:7 connect the messiah with the heavenly sanctuary and its worship, and they even imply that he bears the immediate presence of God associated with this sanctuary: The heavens will rejoice exceedingly in his days, and the earth will be glad, and the clouds will rejoice, and knowledge of the Lord will be poured forth upon the earth as water from seas, and the angels of the glory of the face of the Lord will be glad in him. The heavens will be opened, and from the temple of the glory holiness (ἁγίασµα) will come upon him with a voice from the fathers, as from Abraham father of Isaac. (18:5–6) 71

This passage recalls Levi’s description of the highest heaven, where “the great Glory dwells in the Holy of Holies” (3:2) with the angels “of the face of the Lord”.72 “The great Glory” is here a technical term for the kabod Adaonai, the glory of the Lord, that dwells in the celestial and earthly temples. Furthermore, “glory (δόξα)” and πνεῦµα stand in parallel positions in 18:7, and “glory (δόξα)”, “spirit of sanctification (πνεῦµα ἁγιασµοῦ)”, and “holiness (ἁγίασµα)” are all described as coming “upon him (ἐπ’ αὐτὸν)”. By possessing a spirit of sanctification, this messiah represents the immediate presence of God and brings this presence to the people. Indeed, several OT passages associate God’s Holy Spirit with God’s presence on earth, and Rabbinic tradition will use “holy spirit” of God’s presence, the Shekinah, in the temple, especially when referring to Solomon’s temple.73 A few verses later, the benefits this figure will bestow are described as follows:

70

The term, though relatively rare, is usually deployed in cultic contexts (see Judg 17:3; Amos 2:11) and can be used especially in connection with the Temple and priesthood (see Ezek 45:4; Sir 7:31; 2 Macc 14:36; 2:17; 3 Macc 2:18). 71 In translating ἁγίασµα with “holiness”, I follow HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, The Testaments: A Commentary, 180 (n. 2). Typically, the term refers to the sanctuary itself, but Hollander and de Jonge point to two Psalms in which the term clearly refers to “holiness” more generally. Most significantly, according to Psalm 131:18 (LXX), ἁγίασµα will burst forth upon God’s anointed (ἐπὶ δὲ αὐτὸν, referring back to “my anointed” in verse 17). See also Psalm 92:5 (LXX), where ἁγίασµα refers to the holiness of the Temple, rather than to the sanctuary itself. 72 “Glory of the Lord” could serve as a technical term for the manifestation of God’s presence in the Holy of Holies in the earthly temple (see 1 Kgs 8:11; Ezek 1:28; 10:4, 18; 43:4), and in 1 Enoch 14:20, “the great glory” resides on a throne in the heavenly Holy of Holies. 73 For OT passages in which the Holy Spirit expresses the presence of God, see MONTAGUE, Holy Spirit, 56–57, 72–73, 76 (n. 65); see Isa 63:9–14; Psalm 104:29; 139:7; 51:13. All of these passages closely connect the “face” or “presence” of God with the spirit. On the Rabbinic traditions that emphasize the holy spirit’s connection with the sanctuary of the first temple – and thus with the Levitical priesthood – see P. SCHÄFER, Die Vorstellung vom heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (SANT 28; Munich, 1972), 73–94, 100–101, 116–118, and 135–143.

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

331

He indeed will open the doors of paradise, and he will check the sword threatening Adam, and he will give the holy ones to eat from the tree of life, and a spirit of holiness will be upon them (πνεῦµα ἁγιωσύνης ἔσται ἐπ΄ αὐτοῖς). And Beliar will be bound by him, and he will give authority to his children to trample upon the evil spirits (τοῦ πατεῖν ἐπὶ τὰ πονηρὰ πνεύµατα). (T. Levi 18:10–12)

Now, all the “holy ones” receive the “spirit of holiness”. Since the “spirit of sanctification” rests upon the messianic figure, we might expect him to pour out this “spirit of holiness”. The language of 18:11, however, is remarkably vague. The sentence that runs through verses 10 and 11 contains four main verbs, all in the future tense. The first three are active verbs and the messianic figure is the subject. “Spirit” itself, however, is the subject of the final clause. This careful wording suggests the independence of this spirit. Though spirit itself will be upon the people, it is not something the messiah here bestows, as if it were his to command. Similarly, Ezekiel envisions the restored people receiving a “new spirit” (36:26) identified with God’s spirit (36:27). And just as Ezekiel foretells the regeneration of the land to an Edenic state (36:29–36, esp. 35), the messiah of T. Levi returns the people to a prelapsarian existence. In this Edenic existence, the people can be holy in part because the opposing spirits, the evil spirits and Beliar, have been decisively defeated.74 Finally, reception of this “spirit of holiness” is the climax of the list, emphasizing its importance. In keeping with the implications of how some OT texts and later rabbinic traditions speak of the holy spirit, this “spirit of holiness” likewise conveys the immediate presence of God to the people, which would certainly fit with the return to Paradise and the portrayal of the messiah in 18:6–7.75 Testament of Jud. 24:1–6 also predicts a messianic figure and associates the advent of “spirit” with him. Not surprisingly, this passage lacks the overtly priestly elements and stresses the lineage of this descendent of Judah. In a subtle and complex manner, the author interweaves allusions to several OT passages.76 Most important, for our purposes, are the subtle ways the author has reworked and inter-woven his allusions to Mal 3:10 (LXX), Zech 12:10, and Joel 3:1–5. Testament of Judah 24:1–6 reads as follows:

74 Several of the Testaments mention this triumph over the evil spirits: T. Jud. 25:3; T. Zeb. 9:8. 75 Rabbinic tradition likewise looked forward to the return of the holy spirit/Shekinah in the future world; see SCHÄFER, Vorstellung, 105–108, 112–115 (n. 73). The spirit would enable human beings to keep God’s law, much as in Ezek 36, according to MONTAGUE, Holy Spirit, 114 (n. 65). Moreover, J. R. LEVISON, Filled with the Spirit (Grand Rapids, 2009), 212–213, notes the intimate connection in some Jewish traditions between the Temple and Eden. 76 These include Isa 11:1–2; Joel 3:1–5; Num 24:17; Isa 42:1–5, esp. vs. 1; Zech 12:10, possibly Zech 9:9; Mal 4:2 (LXX: 3:20); 3:10 (LXX); see HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, The Testaments: A Commentary, 227–28 (n. 2).

332

James Buchanan Wallace

And after these things, a star will rise for you from Jacob in peace, and a man will arise from my seed, as the sun of righteousness, coming together with the sons of human beings in meekness and righteousness, and no sin will be found in him. And the heavens will be open over him, and a blessing from the spirit of the holy father will be poured out, and he will pour out a spirit of grace upon you, and you will be as sons to him in truth (καὶ ἀνοιγήσονται ἐπ΄ αὐτὸν οἱ οὐρανοί, ἐκχέαι πνεύµατος εὐλογίαν πατρὸς ἁγίου· καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκχεεῖ πνεῦµα χάριτος ἐφ’ ὑµᾶς, καὶ ἔσεσθε αὐτῷ εἰς υἱοὺς ἐν ἀληθείᾳ), and you will live by his orders, first and last. This is the sprout of God most high, and this is the spring unto life for all flesh. Then he will take up a tribe of my kingdom, and a stem will come from your root. And in him will arise a staff of righteousness for the nations, to judge and to save all those who call upon the Lord (σῶσαι πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουµένους κύριον).

Allusions to Joel 3:1–5 permeate the passage, from the first verse to the last.77 Joel 3:1 reads: “And it will be after these things, and I will pour out from my spirit upon all flesh (καὶ ἔσται µετὰ ταῦτα καὶ ἐκχεῶ ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύµατός µου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν σάρκα).” (see also 3:2b) Testament of Judah 24:2, in fact, repeats the allusion to the outpouring. This repetition, especially its first iteration, is rather odd, and the manuscripts reflect confusion, offering several different readings.78 This first iteration of the outpouring is slightly more opaque and appears to blend allusions to Mal 3:10 (LXX) and Joel 3:1.79 According to the verse in Malachi, God “will open for you (pl.) the abundant waters from heaven and will pour out my blessing to you (pl.)”. Likewise, in T. Jud. 24:2, it is a “blessing” that is poured out. Πνεύµατος, not mentioned in Mal 3:10, is a genitive of origin, likely recalling the LXX “from my spirit (ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύµατός µου)” of Joel 3:1. “Of the holy father (πατρὸς ἁγίου)” would then take the place of “my (µου)”, and clarify that this is the holy Father’s spirit. In Mal 3:10, however, the rush of waters and blessing will be bestowed upon the people as a whole. Testament of Judah 24:2 does not clarify who is blessed, but since the heavens are opened upon the messiah, rather than the people, we may conjecture that the blessing, too, is poured out upon him. The second outpouring is relatively straightforward. Testament of Judah 24:2 interweaves allusions to Joel 3:1 and Zech 12:10. The author of T. Jud. thereby qualifies the text of Joel 3:1, for it is not God Who pours out this 77

The opening words of T. Jud. 24:1, “καὶ µετὰ ταῦτα”, echo the first words of Joel 3:1. Likewise, the final words of T. Jud. 24:6 echo Joel 3:5: “And it will be that all who call upon the name of the Lord will be saved (καὶ ἔσται πᾶς, ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνοµα κυρίου, σωθήσεται).” 78 The manuscript tradition is so complex that Charles offered two versions in parallel columns in his critical edition. Some manuscripts delete the repetition altogether, but the varieties of ways in which the repetition is dealt with confirm de Jonge’s judgment that the more difficult reading is here the best. 79 HOLLANDER and DE JONGE, The Testaments: A Commentary, 227 (n. 2), note the importance of the reference to Mal 3:10.

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

333

spirit, but the messianic figure, and the spirit that is God’s spirit in Joel 3:1 is now “a spirit of grace”, as in Zech 12:10. That being said, the author has now rendered πνεῦµα the direct object of the verb, as opposed to the more hesitant LXX version, according to which God will pour out “from my spirit (ἀπὸ τοῦ πνεύµατός µου)”.80 Al-though the purpose or function of this spirit is not clearly stated, it appears to enable the people to be adopted as “sons in truth” (24:3a), as Israel is reunited. Testament of Judah 24:2, therefore, portrays a schema quite similar to T. Levi 18. The heavens open, and there is an initial outpouring or bestowal of spirit, and then an outpouring of spirit upon the people. In T. Jud., however, the initial outpouring is a blessing, presumably upon the messianic figure himself, from the Father’s spirit. The blessed messiah, in turn, pours out a spirit of grace on the people. This is the only passage in T. 12 Patr. in which spirit is in the hands of a human figure. When “spirit” is used in a positive sense, it refers to the spirit first bestowed upon the messianic figure and then, in turn, relayed to the people to transform them and restore them to an ideal state. In other cases, “spirit” refers to the ultimate force of good – “the spirit of love”, “the spirit of truth”, or “a good spirit” – that inspires, cooperates with, and empowers proper moral choice that accords with God’s law.81 Indeed, we have seen that law and spirit are intimately linked in T. 12 Patr. Just as Beliar and the evil spirits oppose God’s law, a beneficent spirit can work together with God’s law to save human beings.

6. Spirit of God We have already seen that T. Jud. 24:2 and T. Ben. 4:5 refer to God’s spirit. We now turn to passages that explicitly use the phrase, “Spirit of God”. Joseph serves throughout the Testaments as the moral exemplar par excellence.82 According to the story of Joseph in Genesis, Pharaoh is astounded after Joseph interprets his dream: “And Pharaoh said to his servants, ‘Have we thus found a man who has the spirit of God in him?’” (Gen 41:38) Whether Pharaoh’s statement indicates that Joseph has a special gift given to him83 or Pharaoh speaks simply of “the divine character of the spirit within” Jo80 This change may also derive from Zech 12:10, or it could represent knowledge of the Hebrew, in which ‫רוּח‬ ַ is a clear direct object of the verb. 81 Compare NIEBUHR, Gesetz und Paränese, 90–91 (n. 11); REINMUTH, Geist und Gesetz, 74–77, 92 (n. 9). 82 See H. W. HOLLANDER, Joseph as an Ethical Model in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (SVTP 6; Leiden, 1981). 83 So MONTAGUE, The Holy Spirit, 13 (n. 65).

334

James Buchanan Wallace

seph,84 Pharaoh’s observation clearly stems from Joseph’s ability to interpret dreams. Joseph’s “spirit of God” is juxtaposed, as J. Levison points out, with Pharaoh’s troubled spirit (41:8).85 The claim that Joseph has the spirit of God recurs in T. Sim., but it has been recontextualized: “Now Joseph was a good man, even having a spirit of God in himself (ἔχων πνεῦµα θεοῦ ἐν ἑαυτῷ), compassionate and merciful, he bore no malice against me, but even loved me, as he did all the brothers” (T. Sym. 4:4). Joseph exhibits his possession of a spirit of God not by his ability to interpret dreams, but by being “good”, and his moral goodness is best exemplified here through love of those who have done him wrong.86 (We might recall the connection between the “spirit of love” and “longsuffering” in T. Gad.) Moreover, while the word νόµος does not appear, the “spirit of God” is again connected with fulfilment of Torah, for Joseph’s possession of the “spirit of God” is confirmed in part by his ability to love his neighbors even when it would have been difficult to do so. In yet another passage, the “spirit of God” is associated with moral purity: The one having a pure intellect (διάνοιαν καθαρὰν), along with love, does not see a woman for fornication; for he does not have pollution in [his] heart, because the spirit of God rests in him (ὅτι ἀναπαύεται ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ). For just as the sun is not polluted when attending to manure and mud, but rather dries up and drives away what smells foul, thus also the pure mind (ὁ καθαρὸς νοῦς), while distressed by the pollutions of the earth, dwells among them, but he himself is not polluted. (T. Ben. 8:2–3)

This passage reinforces the crucial connection between intellect, mind, love, and spirit. The pure intellect and pure mind, which result in and are expressed by one’s moral disposition, are the hallmarks of having the spirit of God. This passage also emphasizes that purity must be accompanied by love. The use of ὅτι suggests that the spirit of God resting within the person is what enables intellectual and moral purity. Just as inclining towards an evil spirit results in domination by that spirit, making the fundamental choice to follow the promptings of divine spirit leaves no room in the human spirit for evil spirits and their pollution.87 This concept of an interior, divine spirit that empowers

84

LEVISON, Filled with the Spirit, 49 (n. 75). Ibid. In 41:8, however, the LXX uses “soul (ψυχή)”, not πνεῦµα. T. 12 Patr. does not mention Pharaoh’s troubled spirit. Rather, in T. Jos., it is not Pharaoh who has a troubled spirit, but Potiphar’s wife. The Egyptian woman initially explains her behavior as the groaning of her own spirit in its pain and distress. The manifestation of this troubling spirit is not only her falling and groaning, but her brazen attempts to seduce Joseph, and these attempts to seduce him, despite the proximity of her husband, reveal to Joseph that it is not her spirit that is the problem, but the spirit of Beliar (T. Jos. 7:1–5). 86 So also VOLZ, Geist Gottes, 107 (n. 9). 87 Other passages, especially in the wisdom tradition, connect the spirit to morality. According to Wis 1:5, “a holy and educated spirit” refers to the moral quality of the human spirit, but as in T. 12 Patr., such a spirit “will flee treachery (δόλον)”. See MONTAGUE, 85

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

335

moral goodness and connects the individual with God bears a striking resemblance to a conviction expressed by the Stoic Seneca: God is near you, he is with you, he is within you. This is what I mean, Lucilius: a holy spirit indwells within us (sacer intra nos spiritus sedet), one who marks our good and bad deeds, and is our guardian. As we treat this spirit, so are we treated. Indeed, no man can be good without the help of God. (Ep. 41.1–2 [Helmbold, LCL])88

For both Seneca and T. 12 Patr., virtue requires divine aid, and yet such aid is only forthcoming when one properly respects the interior divine spirit. Furthermore, like the spirit of truth of T. Jud. 20:1–5, Seneca’s holy spirit records one’s actions. The Testaments mention the “spirit of God” only one other time in what is clearly a Christian interpolation. According to T. Ben. 9:3–4, the “unique prophet” of 9:2 “will enter into the first temple, and there the Lord will be mistreated, and will be disregarded, and he will be raised on a tree. And the veil of the temple will be split, and the spirit of God will pass over to the Gentiles, being poured out like fire” (9:3–4).89 The passage implies that the spirit of God resides in the Holy of Holies and moves out of the temple to be poured out on the Gentiles.90 This image further confirms the assertion made earlier that in T. 12 Patr. the spirit is closely associated with the temple and the presence of God. Moreover, the outpouring of God’s spirit is connected with a messianic figure. In these regards, T. Ben. 9:3–4 bears the stamp of the pneumatology found in T. Jud. 24:16 and T. Levi 18:5–14. In T. Ben., however, Christ’s crucifixion and rending of the veil of the temple immediately precede this outpouring. Moreover, the transfer of the spirit to the Gentiles is directly at odds with T. Jud. 24:1–5. Nonetheless, T. Ben. 9:3–4 reveals at least one reason early Christians found T. 12 Patr. to be useful for their own reflections on God’s spirit. I will return to this point in the conclusion. 1QS IV, 21–22 appears to equate the “spirit of truth” with the Holy Spirit, and if the spirit of truth is an angelic entity created by God, then so is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, at least in the version of the Rule found at Qumran, is a distinct entity that exists separately from God. No other sectarian documents support such a clear hypostasizing of the Holy Spirit. This may be another case of diversity within the sectarian documents themselves and may account for the different opinions of scholars regarding the relative independ-

Holy Spirit, 104 (n. 65); LEVISON, Filled with the Spirit, 149 (n. 75), on Philo; and LEVISpirit in First Century Judaism, 96 (n. 9), on Philo’s interpretation of Abraham. 88 On this passage from Seneca, see LEVISON, Spirit in First Century Judaism, 146–148 (n. 9), where he compares and contrasts this passage with passages from Philo. See also LEVISON, Filled with the Spirit, 140–142 (n. 75). 89 Compare Mark 15:38 (and Matt 27:51 and Luke 23:45) and Acts 2:3. 90 MARCUS, “The Testaments,” 613; see 612–614 (n. 2).

SON,

336

James Buchanan Wallace

ence of the Holy Spirit in the sectarian scrolls.91 In T. 12 Patr., the issue is equally difficult. One might argue that the “spirit of truth” of T. Jud. 20:1–5 is an independent, angelic being, based on the following considerations: 1. the analogy from the Rule III–IV; 2. the opposition between the “spirit of truth” and the “spirit of deceit” in T. Jud. 20:1, since the “spirit of deceit” is a demonic being; 3. the use of the definite article in this same verse;92 4. the one instance in which “spirits” may refer to angels (T. Levi 3:2).Other evidence pushes against such an argument, however: 1. “Spirits” is only used in the one passage just mentioned to refer to angels, and this passage is ambiguous. Otherwise, “spirit” is never used in the plural to refer to good “spirits”. This contrasts with the frequent use of “spirits” to refer to evil beings and the clear, unambiguous connection between spirits as vices and the demonic archfiend, Beliar. 2. Although we find several different spirits of positive attributes or potencies, they represent what we might call major, central virtues: truth, love, goodness, understanding, grace, sanctification, and holiness. The text does not speak of many specific spirits of virtues arrayed against the spirits of vice (such as a spirit of chastity opposed to the spirit of fornication). 3. In fact, only the spirit of truth, the spirit of love, a “good spirit”, and most importantly, the “spirit of God” are connected to individuals in the here and now and their moral struggle to reject vice and obey the law of God. The other instances of spirit occur in connection with the messianic figure and the eschaton. Ultimately, the evidence favors the conclusion that T. 12 Patr. speaks of one, single spirit manifest in a variety of ways in human life, though most of them are connected with virtue and/or fulfillment of Torah.93 In the eschaton, God’s presence through the spirit will be experienced in a fuller, more dramatic manner. This divine spirit is never clearly hypostasized as an entity independent from God. This leads us to a final point of comparison and contrast with the Qumran sectarians. Although full purification and cleansing may have to await the 91 See SEKKI, Meaning of Ruaḥ, 207–208 (n. 47), and the variety of opinions he cites in the notes. Sekki argues against identifying the holy spirit here with the “spirit of truth”, though he acknowledges that the person responsible for this teaching on the two spirits may have wanted holy spirit to be understood “within the sense of the spirit of truth in 3:18/19” (208). Sekki suggests that God’s spirit was probably not viewed as “distinct from God … but as an impersonal power” (71). See similarly, E. PEUCH, “L’espirit saint à Qumrân,” LASBF 49 (1999), 283–298, esp. 290–291. Contrast Charlesworth and Struckenbruck, Rule of the Community, 125, note 13 (n. 48), commenting on 1QSb II, 24: “The hypostatic ‘Holy Spirit’ was significantly developed at Qumran.” 92 The use of the definite article when speaking of spirits of positive qualities is rare, but it does occur at T. Gad 4:7 and T. Ben. 9:4. 93 BRECK, Spirit of Truth, 117 (n. 9), appears to reach a similar conclusion.

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

337

eschaton, community members already enjoy some share in these benefits of the spirit. The Rule of the Community stresses the role of the spirit in atoning for and cleansing members of the community: For it is by the spirit of the true counsel of God (‫ )כיא ברוח עצת אמת אל‬that the ways of man – all his iniquities – are atoned, so that he can behold the light of life. It is by the Holy Spirit of the Community in his (God’s) truth (‫ )וברוח קדושה ליחד באמתו‬that he can be cleansed from all his iniquities. It is by an upright and humble spirit (‫)וברוח יושר וענוה‬ that his sin can be atoned (1QS III, 6–8).94

The Holy Spirit belongs to, or permeates, the community; the work of the spirit and the community are inseparable, as are the teachings of the community and God’s truth. Indeed, later in the Rule, a time is imagined, before the coming of the messiahs, when strict obedience to the community rules will enable the community to “become in Israel a foundation of the Holy Spirit in eternal truth, they shall atone for iniquitous guilt and for sinful unfaithfulness, so that (God’s) favor for the land (is obtained) without the flesh of burntofferings and without the fat of sacrifices” (1QS IX, 3–4). According to this passage, the community itself will serve as the basis for the Holy Spirit, for the community will replace sacrificial offerings, itself being the sacrifice. Thus, the close connection between atonement and the spirit is maintained, as is the prerogative of the community for mediating the experience of the holy spirit. In this regard, the conception of the holy spirit at Qumran also connects the spirit with God’s immediate presence, particularly God’s presence in the Holy of Holies of the Temple, an idea present in T. 12 Patr. as well.95 Despite the stress on the connection between the holy spirit and the community, the holy spirit can also aid the individual believer in his (or her?) religious life.96 Ultimately, however, the Rule places a strong emphasis on the presence of the Holy Spirit in the community and the community’s role in mediating that spirit, an emphasis absent in T. 12 Patr. For the author of T. 12 Patr., the spirit of God can be present to any individual in the here and now who is virtuous through obedience to the law of God, for all have the spirit within them.

7. Conclusions According to the anthropology of T. 12 Patr., the life force and the very faculty of moral reasoning are comprised of spirit, and the senses as well as speech and procreation are likewise enlivened by spirit. By skillfully and 94

See similarly 1QHa VIII, 29–32; XXIII, 29–33. LEVISON, Filled with the Spirit, 212–216 (n. 75), though Levison is discussing Qumran texts, not making the connection with T. 12 Patr. 96 See QHa IV, 38; VIII, 25; XV, 10; see also XXIII, 29–33. 95

338

James Buchanan Wallace

even seamlessly interweaving Stoic thought and a Jewish apocalyptic worldview, the author accounts for the irrational choice of vices as well as traditional discourse of evil spirits by claiming that evil spirits are mixed into the human spirits. These evil spirits are personal demonic entities, as well as vices, and attempt to persuade the individual to sin and violate God’s law. Divine spirit, by contrast, is a more unified entity. The spirit of truth, which apparently – though not explicitly – is also mixed into the human being, prompts the human spirit to choose virtue, which is perfectly expressed in God’s law. Indeed, the beneficent spirits of truth, love, and understanding are closely associated with Torah. Both divine spirit and the law serve the common purpose of expressing God’s divine ordering of existence and prompt human beings to live in conformity with it. This one divine spirit can shape one’s moral destiny in accordance with divine law. The more one’s guiding, deliberating spirit inclines towards this spirit of truth, the more fully this spirit becomes active and facilitates virtuous choices in accordance with Torah. Even if ignored, the spirit of truth cannot be fully expunged from human beings, for it will ultimately accuse them of their sins. Only in eschatological passages is the spirit connected with any-thing other than moral behavior. The “spirit of God” and even “the grace of a good spirit” are already available and present within those human beings who choose to live virtuous lives and obey God’s law. Indeed, notable for its absence from T. 12 Patr. is the connection between the spirit and special, privileged revelation, with the one possible exception of T. Levi 2:3. We should, moreover, note an important difference between Stoicism and the moral discourse of T. 12 Patr. While Stoics might emphasize divine law, divine law in T. 12 Patr. is expressed in a specific and particular revelation – the Torah – and thus has very clear contours.97 Divine spirit and law are inextricably bound with each other, as the spirit facilitates adherence to God’s law, and adherence to God’s law further secures one’s share in the spirit. Although the author of T. 12 Patr. by no means collapses God and spirit, as Stoicism could do, neither does he prove willing to separate the spirit from God as a hypostasized entity or as one or many angelic beings. In keeping with Stoic thinking – though by no means in contrast with Scripture – the divine spirit that strives to shape the moral destiny of human beings is always one and the same, whether in the present or in the eschaton, when the saints will encounter more fully the presence and holiness of God in and through the spirit. Although I have maintained that T. 12 Patr. was originally a Jewish work, it was preserved and transmitted by Christians. Early Christians may have been drawn to the document for numerous reasons, but in keeping with the topic of this essay and the theme of this symposium, I would highlight three 97

See SLINGERLAND, “The Nature of Nomos” (n. 8).

Spirit(s) in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs

339

facets of T. 12 Patr.’s pneumatology that early Christians would have found attractive. First, of course, T. 12 Patr. emphasizes the damage wrought on humanity by evil, demonic spirits, an idea in keeping with many early Christian texts, especially the Synoptic Gospels (see esp. Matt 12:43–45 / Luke 11:24–26; 1 Tim 4:1; see also, for example, Mark 1:23–27; 5:1–20; Acts 19:11–16; 1 Cor 2:12).98 T. 12 Patr. also envisions the subjugation of these spirits in the messianic age (T. Levi 18:12; compare Mark 3:13–15, 27). Second, like some early Christians, especially Paul, T. 12 Patr. insists that a divine spirit produces moral transformation (see Gal 5:16–26; Rom 8:2–14; see also 2 Tim 1,7).99 Indeed, as in some passages of T. 12 Patr., Paul suggests that believers must make a choice to “walk by spirit” (5:16) for this aid to bear fruit, and Paul stresses that the Spirit enables human beings to fulfill the central law of loving one’s neighbor (Gal 5:14; compare Rom 13:9–10). Third and finally, in the eschatological uses of “spirit”, T. 12 Patr. connects the outpouring of divine spirit upon humanity with the Messiah. We can be quite confident that this dimension of T. 12 Patr. did not go unnoticed by early Christian transmitters of the document, for as we have noted, one Christian interpolation is T. Ben. 9:3–4, in which the Lord’s crucifixion immediately precedes the rending of the veil in the temple and the outpouring of God’s spirit upon the Gentiles. Testament of Judah 24:1–6 portrays the Messiah himself as the mediator of the outpouring of a “spirit of grace”. This connection fits nicely with NT traditions that portray Jesus Christ as the mediator of the Holy Spirit to the early Christian community. In John 20:19–23, the risen Jesus Christ breathes on the disciples, and they receive the Holy Spirit (see also John 14:16–17, 26; 16:7). In Luke–Acts, the descent of the Holy Spirit follows closely upon Jesus Christ’s ascension, and Luke 24:49 indicates that Christ is instrumental in the sending of the Holy Spirit (see also Acts 1:8; 2:1–4).100 Indeed, Joel 3:1–5 (LXX) is a central text for both T. Jud. 24:1–6 and Peter’s speech in Acts 2:17–36, which interprets the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Thus, early Christian transmitters of T. 12 Patr. may have regarded the interpolation in T. Ben. 9:3–4 as making explicit what to their minds was already implicit in the pre-Christian form of the document: Jesus the Messiah had facilitated the outpouring of God’s spirit, thereby em-

98 Evil or unclean spirits are mentioned numerous times in the NT, especially the Synoptic Gospels. In this volume, see the contribution by A. PUIG I TÀRRECH, “Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus,” in this volume 371–399. 99 On the Holy Spirit and ethical transformation in Paul, see V. RABENS, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (WUNT II.283; Tübingen, 2010). 100 See further the contributions in this volume on the Spirit in John and Acts. Especially germane is the article by A. DETTWILER, “The Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John from a Western Perspective,” in this volume 149–171.

340

James Buchanan Wallace

powering believers to live a transformed life of virtue and love for neighbor, and to overcome the power of evil spirits.

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria Carl R. Holladay In this paper I explore the use of πνεῦµα in Philo of Alexandria. This general way of framing the investigation is intentional, since the word family related to πνεῦµα has rich, diverse, and complicated patterns of usage in Philo. The phrases “divine spirit” (πνεῦµα θεῖον) and “spirit of God” (τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ) occur frequently in Philo, but their referent varies. Sometimes they have primary reference to God, the Existent One, and hence should be understood as God’s own spirit, with “spirit” spelled with a capital “s”, hence “the Spirit of God” or “the Divine Spirit”. At other times, these expressions relate more directly to the cosmos or to the human being, and thus have a primarily cosmological or anthropological nuance. Part of the challenge is to figure out these nuances in Philo’s use of the term πνεῦµα, respect the complexity of the way in which he uses the term and its various cognates, and yet derive some understanding of how Philo conceives “divine spirit” and “spirit of God”, and how his conception fits within the larger context of Second Temple Judaism. As one might imagine, the literature on this subject is vast. Not only have important individual studies been done on Philo’s conception of the spirit1, 1

The classic treatment is H. LEISEGANG, Der heilige Geist. Das Wesen und Werden der mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen. Band I, Teil I: Die vorchristlichen Anschauungen und Lehren vom Pνευµα und der mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis (Leipzig, 1919). This volume, which focused on Philo, was envisioned as the first part of a comprehensive study that examined πνεῦµα within the broader context of Graeco-Roman philosophical and religious thought. Unable to complete his planned sequel, Leisegang published the results of his remaining research in Pneuma Hagion. Der Ursprung des Geistbegriffs der synoptischen Evangelien aus der griechischen Mystik (Veröffentlichungen des Forschungsinstituts für vergleichende Religionsgeschichte an der Universität Leipzig 4; Leipzig, 1922). Also worth noting is the brief article by M. PULVER, “Das Erlebnis des Pneuma bei Philon,” ErJb 13 (1945), 111–132, translated into English by R. Manheim and published as “The Experience of the Spirit in Philo,” in Spirit and Nature: Papers from the Eranos Yearbooks (ed. J. Campbell; Princeton, N.J, 1982), 107– 121. Also see A. LAURENTIN, Le pneuma dans la doctrine de Philon (ALBO 2.24; Louvain, 1951). Especially commendable is M. J. WEAVER, Πνεῦµα in Philo of Alexandria (Ph.D. diss., University of Notre Dame, 1973), who notes deficiencies in Laurentin’s work

342

Carl R. Holladay

but it has also been treated in broader studies related to Philo.2 This paper, rather than tracing the history of Philonic scholarship on the topic, has as its primary focus the Philonic texts themselves.3 Rather than aim for encyclopedic completeness, I have tried to identify the main Philonic texts relating to “divine spirit” or “spirit of God” in order to determine the main contours of Philo’s thought in this single respect. Different taxonomies have been developed for discussing Philo’s understanding of πνεῦµα.4 Instead of proposing a comprehensive lexical taxonomy that accounts for every single use of πνεῦµα in Philo, I have identified two main areas for focusing the discussion. The first is “divine spirit” (πνεῦµα θεῖον) or “spirit of God” (πνεῦµα θεοῦ) understood broadly, sometimes with primary reference to God, at other times as it relates specifically to the cosmos or to humanity, thus in a cosmological or anthropological sense. The (4–5). W. Bieder treats both Philo and Josephus in his analysis of “Πνεῦµα in Hellenistic Judaism,” in Id., “πνεῦµα κτλ,” TDNT 6: 372–375. Philo is treated along with other representatives of Hellenistic Judaism in M. E. ISAACS, The Concept of Spirit: A Study of Pneuma in Hellenistic Judaism and Its Bearing on the New Testament (HeyM 1; London, 1976). For a recent treatment of πνεῦµα in Philo, along with Pseudo-Philo and Josephus, see J. R. LEVISON, The Spirit in First Century Judaism (AGJU 29; Leiden, 1997); also Levison’s articles “Two Types of Ecstatic Prophecy According to Philo,” StPhilo Annual 6 (1994), 83–89; “The Prophetic Spirit as an Angel According to Philo,” HThR 88 (1995), 189–207; and “Inspiration and the Divine Spirit in the Writings of Philo Judaeus,” JSJ 26 (1995), 271–323. Also see C. BENNEMA, The Power of Saving Wisdom: An Investigation of Spirit and Wisdom in Relation to the Soteriology of the Fourth Gospel (WUNT II.148; Tübingen, 2002), 71–83, and F. P HILIP, The Origins of Pauline Pneumatology: The Eschatological Bestowal of the Spirit upon Gentiles in Judaism and in the Early Development of Paul’s Theology (WUNT II.194; Tübingen, 2005), 100–18. 2 J. DRUMMOND, Philo Judaeus, or the Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion (2 vols.; London, 1888; repr., Amsterdam, 1969), 1:85–87; 2:214– 17; É. B RÉHIER , Les idées philosophiques et religieuses de Philon d’Alexandrie (3d ed.; EPhM 8; Paris, 1950), 133–35; and H. A. WOLFSON, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (2 vols. 4th ed.; Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 1:97, 393–94; 2:24–36, 39, 55. 3 The basic concordance work for this paper is based on the electronic version of Thesaurus Linguae Graecae. Rather than searching every cognate relating to πνεῦµα, I focused mainly on the term πνεῦµα and its adjectival form πνευµατικός. A more complete study would also include various cognate verb forms such as καταπνέω. 4 Leisegang’s classification in Der heilige Geist remains influential: (1) πνεῦµα as a cosmological principle, with two sub-headings, πνεῦµα as air and πνεῦµα as knowledge and wisdom; (2) πνεῦµα as a psychological principle, with two sub-headings: (a) πνεῦµα as an independent power of life within human beings, and (b) πνεῦµα as a heavenly power suddenly flowing into the human soul from God. WEAVER, “Πνεῦµα in Philo of Alexandria;” after noting various meanings of πνεῦµα including air, wind, breath, and its use in relation to mind or soul, prophetic spirit, and divine spirit, treats the role of πνεῦµα in (1) cosmology and anthropology, (2) prophecy and inspiration, and (3) morality and the life of virtue.

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

343

second is πνεῦµα θεῖον/ πνεῦµα θεοῦ used with specific reference to prophecy, thus the “prophetic spirit”. Both of these broad areas of usage overlap to some extent, but they are discrete enough to provide different angles of vision on Philo’s understanding of πνεῦµα. My analysis of Philo’s conception of πνεῦµα presupposes the following classification of Philo’s exegetical writings into three different forms of commentary: (1) The Exposition of the Law, which was introduced by the two-volume work On the Life of Moses, followed by On the Creation of the World, which argues that the cosmos and the Law of Moses are harmonious; biographical treatments On Abraham (and other patriarchs, no longer extant) and On Joseph, showing how the patriarchs embodied the Mosaic law before it was given; systematic exposition of the law, beginning with a treatise On the Decalogue, followed by four books of exposition On the Special Laws, and two summarizing treatises On the Virtues and On Rewards and Punishments; (2) The Allegorical Commentary, with a three-volume introductory work Allegorical (Interpretation of the) Laws, which covers Gen 2:1–3:19, followed by seventeen separate treatises, each devoted to a specific section of Genesis, which cover Gen 3:24–41:24; and (3) Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, which cover Gen 2:4– 28:9 and Exod 12:2–28:34 respectively. In addition to these exegetical treatises is a set of miscellaneous writings devoted to philosophical themes (Every Good Man is Free, On the Contemplative Life, On the Eternity of the World, Hypothetica, On Providence) and addressing historical events (Flaccus and On the Embassy to Gaius).5 Dating individual treatises and the three sets of exegetical writings is difficult. Even so, it is possible to differentiate the three sets of exegetical writings. It is plausible to think that Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus represent elementary exegetical exercises illustrating the various levels of interpretation ranging from the literal to the allegorical; that The Allegorical Commentary comprises treatises representing Philo’s more advanced exegetical work aimed at a more specialized audience of students; and that The Exposition of the Law, which consists of straightforward explanation with only occasional use of allegorical exposition, has a wider, possibly non-Jewish, audience in view.6 Given this classification, my analysis does not attempt to trace historical or conceptual development in Philo’s thought. This is problematic since it is 5

On the arrangement of the Philonic corpus, see S. SANDMEL, Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (Oxford, 1979), 29–81; K. SCHENCK, A Brief Guide to Philo (Louisville, 2005), 14–19. 6 See D. T. RUNIA, Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 1; Leiden, 2001), 1–4.

344

Carl R. Holladay

difficult to date each of the three commentaries, let alone individual treatises. Since somewhat different hermeneutical principles are employed in each of the three sets of commentaries, it makes sense to look at his relatively straightforward exposition first, followed by his explicit allegorical exposition, and finally his more detailed exegetical notes in Questions and Answers on Genesis.

1. Spirit of God/Divine Spirit Philo’s conception of the “spirit of God” or the “divine spirit” with primary reference to God is revealed in several passages. These will be examined as they occur in The Exposition of the Law, The Allegorical Commentary, and Questions and Answers on Genesis. The Exposition of the Law: Opif. 29–30, 134–135; Spec. 1.171, 277; 4.123. Two of the most important passages occur in On the Creation of the World, the treatise that introduces The Exposition of the Law. The first is Opif. 29–30: (29) First, the Maker made an incorporeal heaven, and an invisible earth, and the essential form of air and void. To the one he gave the name of “Darkness”, since the air when left to itself, is black. The other he named ‘abyss,’ for the void is a region of immensity and vast depths. Next (He made) the incorporeal essence of water and of life-breath (πνεύµατος) and, to crown all, of light. This again, the seventh in order, was an incorporeal pattern, discernible only by the mind, of the sun and of all luminaries which were to come into existence throughout heaven. (30) Special distinction is accorded by Moses to life-breath (τὸ πνεῦµα) and to light. The one he entitles the ‘breath’ of God (τὸ θεοῦ), because breath is most life-giving (διότι ζωτικώτατον τὸ πνεῦµα), and of life God is the author, while of light he says that it is beautiful preeminently (Gen 1:4) …

Drawing on Platonic thought, Philo interprets the two creation accounts of Gen 1–3 as the creation of the ideal (noumenal) and real (phenomenal) worlds respectively. In this passage he describes the creation of the incorporeal world, here rendered as the intelligible world (νοητὸς κόσµος). While this account is not a verse-by-verse exposition such as we find in the Allegorical Interpretation or Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, it is clearly based on Gen 1. The terms “incorporeal” (ἀσώµατον) and “invisible” (ἀόρατον) signal the noumenal quality of this first created world. Light, the seventh item created, is “an incorporeal pattern (ἀσώµατον παράδειγµα), discernible only by the mind”, of the sun, moon, and stars that were later created. One intriguing feature of this account is Philo’s claim that “life-breath” (πνεῦµα) is one of the things created, which is not asserted in Gen 1. Noting that Moses gives special attention to “life-breath” (πνεῦµα) and “light” (φῶς), Philo says that the former is called “the breath of God” (τὸ [πνεῦµα]

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

345

θεοῦ), because “breath is most life-giving” (διότι ζωτικώτατον τὸ πνεῦµα), and “of life God is the author” (ζωῆς δὲ θεὸς αἴτιος), whereas light is preeminently beautiful. With this series of verbal associations, Philo operates with a robust sense of πνεῦµα as the means through which God imparts life. The core idea here seems to be πνεῦµα as a form of divine agency. Philo’s view of πνεῦµα is further elaborated in Opif. 134–135, when he comments on Gen 2:7, “And God breathed into man the breath of life (καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς), and man became a living soul.” First, Philo distinguishes between the creation of the original noumenal man (νοητὸς ἄνθρωπος) and the subsequent phenomenal man (αἰσθητὸς ἄνθρωπος) man.7 Then, insisting that Gen 2:7 speaks of the latter, Philo explains that: The formation of the individual man, the object of sense (τοῦ αἰσθητοῦ ἀνθρώπου), is a composite one made up of earthly substance (ἔκ τε γεώδους οὐσίας) and of Divine breath (πνεύµατος θείου): for it says that the body was made through the Artificer (τοῦ τεχνίτου) taking clay and moulding out of it a human form, but that the soul was originated from nothing created whatever, but from the Father and Ruler of all (ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ ἡγεµόνος τῶν πάντων): for that which He breathed in was nothing else than a Divine breath (πνεῦµα θεῖον) that migrated hither from that blissful and happy existence for the benefit of our race, to the end that, even if it is mortal in respect of its visible part, it may in respect of the part that is invisible be rendered immortal. Hence it may with propriety be said that man is the borderland between mortal and immortal nature, partaking of each so far as is needful, and that he was created at once mortal and immortal, mortal in respect of the body, but in respect of the mind immortal.

Although the LXX text of Gen 2:7 reads πνοὴν ζωῆς, Philo introduces the more technical philosophical term πνεῦµα into his exposition. The richly developed understanding of πνεῦµα within Stoic thought, especially after Carneades, provided Philo numerous opportunities for exegetical expansion upon the biblical text. Here Philo envisions the “sensible” human being as bipartite, consisting of body (σῶµα) and soul (ψυχή) or mind (διάνοια), and πνεῦµα θεοῦ or πνεῦµα θεῖον as the constitutive, defining element of the incorporeal part of the human being, as that which renders it immortal (ἀθάνατος). Not simply πνεῦµα but πνεῦµα as a part of God or as having a divine quality is what makes humans, at least in part of their being, immortal. A few sections later Philo elaborates upon the creation of the “first man” (πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος, 140), who was the “only citizen of the world” (µόνον κοσµοπολίτην), since “the world was his city and dwelling place”. The constitution of this city was “nature’s right relation” (ὁ τῆς φύσεως ὀρθὸς λόγος), a “divine law” (νόµος θεῖος). The “citizens” of this city prior to the 7

On the debate concerning how many human beings are envisioned in §§134–135, see RUNIA, PACC, 322–23.

346

Carl R. Holladay

first man were the “spiritual and divine natures, some incorporeal and visible to mind only, some not without bodies, such as are the stars” (144). The first man lived with these other inhabitants “in unalloyed bliss”, and “since the divine Spirit (τοῦ θείου πνεύµατος) had flowed into him in full current”, he tried to please God by living virtuously. Picking up on his earlier discussion of “sensible man” as comprising two parts – earthly substance and divine breath – Philo accents the latter as particularly significant. The “divine spirit” has a qualitative and functional dimension: it conveys immortality but also fosters moral living. Another passage in On the Creation of the World should be mentioned here, although it falls into a slightly different category since it mentions only πνεῦµα and not πνεῦµα θεῖον or πνεῦµα θεοῦ. In Opif. 131, commenting on Gen 2:6, “and a spring went up out of the earth and watered all the face of the earth”, Philo explains how Moses’s concept of water is superior to that of other philosophers and that Moses envisions water as a kind of glue that holds the universe together. Philo observes that the earth is held together and lasts, partly by the unifying power of life-breath (τὰ µὲν πνεύµατος ἑνωτικοῦ δυνάµει), partly because it is saved from drying up and breaking off in small or big bits by the moisture.

Here Philo’s explanation of πνεῦµα as the unifying force of the cosmos resonates strongly with the Stoic understanding of πνεῦµα as that which “provides the universe both with cohesion and its dynamic properties”.8 8 J. T. VALLANCE, Oxford Classical Dictionary (eds. S. Hornblower and A. Spawforth; 4th ed.; Oxford, 2012), 1166 s.v. pneuma. The role of πνεῦµα in Stoic thought is amply discussed in A. A. LONG and D. N. SEDLEY, The Hellenistic Philosophers (2 vols.; Cambridge, 1987). Among the texts they cite is Aetius 1.7.33 (SVF 2.1027, part), “The Stoics made god out to be intelligent, a designing fire which methodically proceeds towards creation of the world, and encompasses all the seminal principles according to which everything comes about according to fate, (2) and a breath pervading the whole world (πνεῦµα ἐνδιῆκον δι᾽ ὅλου τοῦ κόσµου), which takes on different names owing to the alterations of the matter through which it passes.” In Long & Sedley’s note, 1:278, they observe, “‘Breath (πνεῦµα) pervading the whole world’ is Chrysippus’ favoured specification of god’s activity.” In section 47D–N (pp. 282–84), Long & Sedley list several primary sources about “breath”, “breathy substance”, in Stoic thought. No. 47L is a quote from Alexander, On Mixture 223,25–36 (SVF 2.441, part), arguing against the Stoics, in which he states the Stoic case precisely: “how could it still be true that the universe is unified and sustained by a breath which pervades the whole of it?” Further, “What too is the tension of breath which binds bodies together so that they both have continuity in relation to their own parts and are connected with the bodies adjacent to them?” (p. 283). As Long & Sedley observe in their commentary (1:287–88), “In Cleanthes’ argument no vitalizing or ‘sustaining’ power is attributed to any element besides fire. That view was modified in the more complex physics which we may attribute to Chrysippus. His predecessors had already identified the soul or vital principle of animals with pneuma, ‘breath’ which is hot air. Following their analogical reasoning from microcosm to macrocosm, Chrysippus opted for

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

347

In Spec. 1.171, discussing the difference between daily, weekly, and monthly sacrifices, and how these relate to the three great festivals, Philo pauses to comment on the significance of “seven”: Moses “considers the seventh day, called also in his records the birthday of the whole world, to be of equal value to eternity, and therefore he purposes to assimilate the sacrifice of the seventh day to the ‘perpetuity’ of the daily offering of lambs”. He goes on to say that “the blood offerings serve as thanksgivings for the blood elements in ourselves and the incense offerings for our dominant part, the rational spiritforce within us (τοῦ ἐν ἡµῖν λογικοῦ πνεύµατος), which was shaped according to the archetypal form of the divine image”. In the earlier part of Special Laws Philo discusses sacrifices, but at §257 he turns to a discussion of those who offer sacrifices. He stresses the importance of ritual purity, but thinks spiritual purity is more important. He thus deduces in §277 that “the symbolical meaning [of offering sacrifices at the altar of incense] is just this and nothing else: that what is precious in the sight of God is not the number of victims immolated but the true purity of a rational spirit (πνεῦµα λογικόν) in him who makes the sacrifice”. The third passage, Spec. 4.123, occurs within a larger discussion of human desire or passion, and how the Mosaic Law addresses this question. Philo introduces Moses’s legislation about food and drink to show how Moses fostered self-restraint. Food offerings, especially first-fruit offerings, reflect the capacity for self-restraint. In a discussion of restrictions about what animals could be eaten Philo explains why Moses prohibits the consumption of different types of animal meat (§§100–115) and fowl (§§116–118), dead animals (§§119–120), as well as blood (§122). At this point Philo explains why blood is prohibited. The discussion draws on Philo’s anthropology in which “soul” (ψυχή) is the defining category of being human. Blood is prohibited by Moses because: ‘breath’ rather than heat on its own as the sustaining principle of the world. This prompted the distinction between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ elements, which thus provided a neat description of the workings of god and matter, the ‘active’ and ‘passive’ principles, within the world-order. … Medical theory and Aristotelian biology had made much of the ‘vital’ powers of ‘breath’, but the extension of these to the world itself, as with the ‘vital heat’ of Cleanthes, was a Stoic innovation.” Further, “‘Breath’ consists of a ‘through-and-through blending’ of its two constitutive elements, which means that any portion of it, irrespective of size, is characterized by hot and cold. Chrysippus deduced from this that ‘breath’ is a dynamic continuum, in part extending from its heat (fire) and in part contracting from its cold (air). This complex motion was described as ‘tension’ or ‘tensile movement.’” It invokes the idea of elasticity expressed by the word teinein, ‘to stretch.’ The special character of this motion is its simultaneous activity in opposite directions, outwards and inwards, whereby we should understand fire and air to be pulling, as it were, against each other in the blend which they constitute. Philo probably refers to the same conception, only more elaborately, when he speaks of the ‘breath’ within stones and logs as extending from the centre to the extremities and back again (288).

348

Carl R. Holladay

It is the essence of the soul (οὐσία ψυχῆς), not of the intelligent and reasonable soul (οὐχὶ τῆς νοερᾶς καὶ λογικῆς), but of that which operates through the senses (ἀλλὰ τῆς αἰσθητικῆς), the soul that gives life which we and the irrational animals possess in common. For the essence or substance (οὐσία) of that other soul is divine spirit (πνεῦµα θεῖον), a truth vouched for by Moses especially, who in his story of the creation says that God breathed a breath of life upon the first man, the founder of our race, into the lordliest part of his body, the face, where the senses are stationed like bodyguards to the great king, the mind. And clearly what was then thus breathed was ethereal spirit (αἰθέριον πνεῦµα), or something if such there be better than ethereal spirit (αἰθερίου πνεύµατος), even an effulgence of the blessed, thrice blessed nature of the Godhead (ἅτε τῆς µακαρίας καὶ τρισµακαρίας φύσεως ἀπαύγασµα).

In Her. 55 Philo explains the composition of the soul in similar terms (See below). 1.1 The Allegorical Commentary: Leg. 1.33–42; 3.161; Det. 80; Gig. 19–57; Plant. 18–20, 24, 44; Her. 55; Somn. 1.30 When we move from The Exposition of the Law to The Allegorical Interpretation, as might be expected, we find Philo expanding upon the significance of πνεῦµα. This is especially evident in Leg. 1.33–42, where Gen 2:7 prompts Philo to pose four questions: (1) “Why God deemed the earthly and body-loving mind worthy of divine breath (πνεύµατος θείου) at all, but not the mind which had been created after the original, and after His own image”; (2) “what ‘breathed in’ means”; (3) “why the breathing is ‘into the face’”; (4) “why, though he shows his knowledge of the word ‘spirit’ (πνεῦµα) when he says ‘and the Spirit of God (πνεῦµα θεοῦ) was borne above the water’ (Gen 1:2), he now says ‘breath’ (πνοή) not ‘spirit’ (πνεῦµα)”. In §37 Philo proposes that three things are implied by the term ‘inbreathing’: that which inbreathes (God); that which receives (mind, νοῦς); that which is inbreathed (spirit, πνεῦµα). “A union of the three comes about”, Philo says, “as God projects the power that proceeds from Himself through the median breath (διὰ τοῦ µέσου πνεύµατος) till it reaches the subject.” Further, in §42 he comments on the distinction between “spirit” (πνεῦµα) and “breath” (πνοή): He [Moses] uses the word ‘breath’ not ‘spirit,’ implying a difference between them; for ‘spirit’ is conceived of as connoting strength and vigour and power, while a ‘breath’ is like an air or a peaceful and gentle vapour. The mind that was made after the image and original might be said to partake of spirit (πνεύµατος), but its reasoning faculty possesses robustness; but the mind that was made out of matter must be said to partake of the light and less substantial air, as of some exhalation, such as those that rise from spices …

Philo’s reasoning here is understandable but unusual. Clearly, for him, πνεῦµα is a much more vibrant term than πνοή. To assert that πνεῦµα con-

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

349

notes “strength, vigor, and power” (τὴν ἰσχὺν καὶ εὐτονίαν καὶ δύναµιν) suggests that it has creative power. Πνεῦµα is what gives the νοῦς its capacity for reasoning (ὁ λογισµός). But νοῦς can be understood in two senses: the noumenal mind that was “made after the image and original (τὴν εἰκόνα καὶ τὴν ἰδέαν) and the phenomenal mind that “was made out of matter (ἐκ τῆς ὕλης)”. The former “partakes of spirit”, while the latter partakes “of the light and less substantial air”. Philo’s logic is understandable: the innately more robust force is assigned to the primordial mind in which it would have seminal power, whereas the “less substantial air” would have secondary, derivative power such as the aroma of spices. But what is unusual about Philo’s logic here is that in Opif. 134–135 πνεῦµα is said to be a constitutive part of αἰσθητὸς ἄνθρωπος, albeit the half designated as ψυχή (or νοῦς). Later, in Leg. 3.161, Philo gives an interpretation that is more closely aligned with Opif. 134–135. Commenting on Gen 3:14, “Earth shalt thou eat all the days of thy life” (Gen 3:14), he explains that human beings consist of two things – soul and body (ψυχή τε καὶ σῶµα). The body is formed out of earth, but the soul “is of the upper air, a particle detached from the Deity” (ἡ δὲ ψυχὴ αἰθέρος ἐστίν, ἀπόσπασµα θεῖον). In support of this, he quotes Gen 2:7, but this time he replaces the LXX wording πνοὴν ζωῆς with his own wording: “for God breathed into his face a breath of life (πνεῦµα ζωῆς), and man became a living soul”. Since this passage is also from The Allegorical Commentary, it shows that Philo’s divergent interpretations of Gen 2:7 are not neatly aligned with the different forms of his exegetical commentary. Philo’s essay The Worse Attacks the Better expounds on the story of Cain and Abel, with specific commentary on Gen 4:8–15. In §80, Philo quotes Gen 2:7, this time with the phrase (πνεῦµα ζωῆς), and remarks that “the essence of life is breath” (πνεῦµα ἐστιν ἡ ψυχῆς οὐσία). Philo plays this off against OT references, e.g., Lev 17:11, which refer to blood as the essence of life. Arguing for the priority of Gen 2:7, Philo insists that Moses would not have said “the essence of life is breath”, then later on have said that it is something else. Philo goes on to say that all humans have a twofold nature: animal and human, each with a corresponding quality – vitality and reasoning respectively. We share the power of vitality with animals, but the power of reasoning is distinctively human, something we share with God the “originator, being the Fountain of archetypal reason” (82). To that faculty we share with animals, blood is the essence; but “to the faculty which streams forth from the fountain of reason breath (πνεῦµα) has been assigned” (83). This, Philo says, is “not moving air, but, as it were, an impression stamped by the divine power, to which Moses gives the appropriate title of ‘image,’ thus indicating that God is the Archetype of rational existence, while man is a copy and likeness” (83).

350

Carl R. Holladay

Thus, Philo distinguishes between two aspects or “natures” of humans – flesh, whose essence is blood, and “breath” or “spirit” (πνεῦµα). He concludes, But man’s life [Moses] names ‘breath,’ giving the title of ‘man’ not to the composite mass, as I have said, but to that God-like creation with which we reason, whose roots He caused to reach even to heaven and come forth from the outmost circles of the so-called fixed stars (84).

One of Philo’s most extensive treatments of πνεῦµα θεοῦ occurs further along in The Allegorical Commentary, in his treatise On the Giants, which is an exposition of Gen 6:1–4. The mention of “angels of God” and God’s declaration, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, because they are flesh”, prompt extensive comments by Philo. Regarding angels, Philo says that angels (ἀγγέλους), demons (δαίµονας), and souls (ψυχάς) are different names referring to the same thing (6–18, esp. 16). Philo explains that Moses generally uses “angels” to refer to what other philosophers call demons (6). He also observes that the universe has various forms of life appropriate to it – earth has land creatures, the sea has sea creatures, etc. Stars are “souls divine” (ψυχαὶ θεῖαι), each of them mind in its purest form, and, like the mind, they move in a circle. Similarly, the air is filled with living beings, though they are invisible to us. Their invisibility does not mean they do not exist. Some of the souls have descended into bodies, others have not. Some have descended into bodies but through whirling activity have risen back upward. These latter are the souls of those who have given themselves to philosophy. These have learned “to die to the life in the body” so that “a higher existence immortal and incorporeal” might lift them into “the presence of Him who is Himself immortal and uncreate” (14). Other souls that descend to earth get stuck in bodily existence, have no real concern for the soul or mind, but are fixated on the body or earthly things like glory, wealth, offices, honors, and other illusions. So, “souls and demons and angels are but different names for the same one underlying object” (16). Just as people speak of good and bad demons, good and bad souls, we can also speak of good and bad angels. To support this claim, he quotes Ps 77:49, which mentions “evil angels”. In §19 Philo moves to a discussion of Gen 6:3, “the Lord God said, ‘My spirit shall not abide for ever among men, because they are flesh’” (οὐ καταµενεῖ τὸ πνεῦµά µου ἐν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς σάρκας). The bulk of the essay (19–57) is devoted to the spirit of God (τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ, 19). Philo makes several points. First, that the spirit of God (τὸ πνεῦµα τοῦ θεοῦ) does not dwell among men of the flesh. Citing Gen 6:3, Philo acknowledges that the spirit may stay temporarily but “it does not abide for ever

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

351

among us, the mass of men”.9 Second, he distinguishes two different senses of the “spirit of God” (θεοῦ πνεῦµα). It sometimes refers to “the air that flows up from the land”, the third element that rides upon the water mentioned in Gen 1:2, “the spirit of God was moving above the water” (22). But it has a second sense: “it is the pure knowledge in which every wise man naturally shares” (ἡ ἀκήρατος ἐπιστήµη, ἧς πᾶς ὁ σοφὸς εἰκότως µετέχει). In support of this he quotes Exod 31:2–3, where God called up Bezaleel and “filled him with the divine spirit, with wisdom, understanding, and knowledge (πνεύµατος θείου, σοφίας, συνέσεως, ἐπιστήµης) to devise in every work”. “In these words”, Philo says, “we have suggested to us a definition of what the spirit of God (πνεῦµα θεῖον) is.” (23) Moses, Philo insists, also had “such a divine spirit” (τοιοῦτόν πνεῦµα, 24). This is reflected in the story of the seventy elders, who cannot be true elders “if they have not received a portion of that spirit of perfect wisdom” (τοῦ πανσόφου πνεύµατος ἐκείνου). Quoting Num 11:17, “I will take of the spirit (τοῦ πνεύµατος) that is on thee and lay it upon the seventy elders”, Philo emphasizes that the spirit is not diminished when it is transferred. It is like fire. We can take fire to kindle other fires, but the original fire is undiminished. The same is true with knowledge. People can acquire knowledge, develop it into a skill, but “no part of it is diminished”. If it were Moses’ own spirit (τὸ ἴδιον πνεῦµα), or someone else’s spirit, that was distributed to other disciples, it would be diminished in the transfer. By contrast, God’s spirit can be transferred without diminution: But as it is, the spirit (τὸ πνεῦµα) which is on [Moses] is the wise, the divine, the excellent spirit, susceptible of neither severance nor division, diffused in its fullness everywhere and through all things, the spirit which helps, but suffers no hurt, which though it be shared with others or added to others suffers no diminution in understanding and knowledge and wisdom. (νῦν δὲ τὸ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ πνεῦµά ἐστι τὸ σοφόν, τὸ θεῖον, τὸ ἄτµητον, τὸ ἀδιαίρετον, τὸ ἀστεῖον, τὸ πάντῃ δι᾽ ὅλων ἐκπεπληρωµένον ὅπερ ὠφελοῦν οὐ βλάπτεται οὐδὲ µεταδοθὲν ἑτέροις οὐδ᾽αὖ προστεθὲν ἐλαττοῦται τὴν σύνεσιν καὶ ἐπιστήµην καὶ σοφίαν) (27).

Philo develops the point that the “divine spirit” can only reside temporarily. “And so though the divine spirit (πνεῦµα θεῖον) may stay awhile in the soul it cannot abide there” (28). He further observes that there is really nothing that humans can firmly possess since they swing to and fro, but mainly be9

Philo elaborates on the moral dimension of πνεῦµα θεῖον in another treatise in The Allegorical Commentary On the Unchangeableness of God. Commenting on Gen 6:4, Philo explains “after that”, noting that it refers to something previously mentioned, specifically “[Moses’] words about the divine spirit (περὶ θείου πνεύµατος), that nothing is harder than that it should abide for ever in the soul with its manifold forms and divisions – the soul which has fastened on it the grievous burden of this fleshly coil. It is after that spirit (µετ᾽ ἐκεῖνο τὸ πνεῦµα) [has gone] that the angels or messengers go in to the daughters of men.” (Deus 2–3).

352

Carl R. Holladay

cause of their attachment to the flesh. In support of this Philo appeals to Gen 6:3: “And Moses himself affirms this when he says that ‘because they are flesh’ the divine spirit (τὸ θεῖον πνεῦµα) cannot abide” (29). The main hindrance is “our fleshly nature” (ἡ σαρκῶν φύσις, 30). In §47, Philo comments on God’s nearness to us, as well as God’s sovereignty and power. “Thus may the divine spirit of wisdom (τὸ σοφίας πνεῦµα θεῖον) not lightly shift His dwelling and be gone, but long, long abide with us, since He did thus abide with Moses the wise.” The reason for this is Moses’ constancy: “true stability and immutable tranquility is that which we experience at the side of God, who Himself stands always immutable” (49). Summarizing, Philo says “Thus it is that in the many, those, that is, who have set before them many ends in life, the divine spirit (τὸ θεῖον πνεῦµα) does not abide, even though it sojourn there for a while” (53). Moses, however, “has ever the divine spirit (τὸ θεῖον πνεῦµα) at his side, taking the lead in every journey of righteousness, but from those others, as I have said, it quickly separates itself” (55). In this remarkably rich passage, Philo introduces some further complexities. One of the most innovative moves is to distinguish between two different senses of πνεῦµα: (1) “air”, the third element, and (2) “pure knowledge”, the possession of the truly wise person. In proposing that πνεῦµα can mean “air” (ἀήρ), Philo appeals to Gen 1:2. His suggestion that πνεῦµα in this passage refers to “air” rather than some mysterious aspect of God is surprising, especially since he adduces Gen 1:2 in Leg. 1.33 to illustrate the difference between “spirit” (πνεῦµα) and “breath” (πνοή), and argues that the former has a strong, robust sense that naturally aligns it with the creation of the νοητὸς ἄνθρωπος. It is worth noting, however, that earlier in the treatise (10), Philo discusses land and water creatures, insisting that they all require air in order to live. In this discussion he says, “these same creatures, inhaling as they do a purer atmosphere (καθαρωτέρου τοῦ πνεύµατος), tend ever to enjoy a more abundant and stronger vitality”. This use of πνεῦµα to denote the atmosphere conforms with other passages in which he uses πνεῦµα and ἀήρ synonymously (Cher. 111). Also remarkable is way in which Philo associates πνεῦµα θεῖον with σοφία. His quotation of Exod 31:2–3 diverges slightly from the LXX, which reads καὶ ἐνέπλησα αὐτὸν πνεῦµα θεῖον σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως και ἐπιστήµης ἐν παντὶ ἔργῳ (“I have filled him with a divine spirit of skill and intelligence and knowledge in every good work”, NETS). The difference in Philo’s wording is slight (πνεύµατος θείου, σοφίας, συνέσεως, ἐπιστήµης), but capable of being rendered so that “divine spirit” can be understood as a separate entity from wisdom, understanding, and knowledge. And yet, rather than developing an exposition in which πνεῦµα θεῖον is understood as an aspect of God who imparts wisdom, or even as some form

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

353

of intermediary extension of God through whom wisdom is conveyed, Philo seems to equate πνεῦµα θεῖον with σοφία, σύνεσις, and ἐπιστήµη unequivocally (23). This is confirmed by his portrait of Moses as the true σόφος who possesses πνεῦµα θεῖον uniquely. What distinguishes Moses from other human beings is his constancy, his ability to retain πνεῦµα θεῖον continuously rather than temporarily, as is the case with the rest of humanity whose goals are multiple and unfocussed and who abide in the flesh (30). This portrayal of Moses as the unique possessor of πνεῦµα θεῖον and thereby the only true sage provides a sharp contrast with other passages in which Moses’ possession of the “divine spirit” endows him with prophetic inspiration. One might distinguish between a moral and prophetic endowment of the divine spirit. Philo further reflects on πνεῦµα θεῖον in Concerning Noah’s Work as a Planter, a later treatise of The Allegorical Commentary, which continues his exposition of Gen 9:20 begun in the previous treatise On Husbandry. Using the imagery of planting, Philo expounds on God’s creation of the world from the elements of water, air, and fire (6). Set within infinite space, the world is sustained and held together by “the everlasting Word of the eternal God” (λόγος ὁ ἀίδιος θεοῦ τοῦ αἰωνίου, 8). Philo then rehearses how the various parts of the universe were created – animals, stars, planets, and angels as “bodiless souls”. In §§18–20, contrasting man with animals, Philo says that animals’ heads are bent downward because of their attachment to the earth, while man’s head is bent upward toward the heavens. This prompts a discussion of the human mind (νοῦς), which is not a “particle of the ethereal substance”, as some say, but according to Moses is directly related to the Uncreated God: Our great Moses likened the making of the reasonable soul (τῆς λογικῆς ψυχῆς) to no created thing, but said that it was a genuine coinage (δόκιµον νόµισµα) of that Divine and Invisible Spirit (τοῦ θείου καὶ ἀοράτου πνεύµατος ἐκείνου), signed and impressed by the seal of God (σηµειωθὲν καὶ τυπωθὲν σφραγῖδι θεοῦ), the stamp of which is the Eternal Word (ἧς ὁ χαρακτήρ ἐστιν ὁ ἀίδιος λόγος). His words are “God in-breathed into his face a breath of Life” (Gen 2:7); so that it cannot but be that he that receives is made in the likeness of Him Who sends forth the breath. Accordingly we also read that man has been made after the Image of God (κατ᾽ εἰκόνα θεοῦ, Gen 1:27), not however after the image of anything created. It followed then, as a natural consequence of man’s soul (τῆς ἀνθρώπου ψυχής) having been made after the image of the Archetype (κατὰ τὸν ἀρχέτυπον), the Word of the First Cause (τοῦ αἰτίου λόγον), that his body also was made erect, and could lift up its eyes to heaven, the purest portion of our universe, that by means of that which he could see man might clearly apprehend that which he could not see” (LCL, Colson and Whitaker, modified).

Several things stand out in this dense, highly compressed passage. Above all, it is one of Philo’s more forthright accounts of the creation of the human soul.

354

Carl R. Holladay

In view is the generic human soul of the “first creation”. Philo’s adamant denial of the human soul’s having any connection with any “created thing” is a critical feature of his psychology. Instead, the soul (or the mind, since he sometimes uses ψυχή and νοῦς interchangeably) is essentially incorporeal since, like a coin, it was “imprinted” from “the Divine and Invisible Spirit”. Its essential shape is “spiritual”. Mediating God’s essence is the Eternal Logos, who ensures that the human soul is “signed and stamped” with God’s seal. The imagery of “seal” and “stamp” is used to ensure continuity of likeness. The human soul is “like God” because its essence corresponds to the essence of God. The “Divine and Invisible Spirit” is a crucial component of this account of the soul’s creation. It would flatten the text to assert that the “Divine and Invisible Spirit” and the “Eternal Logos” are equivalent, or even that the Spirit is somehow an extension of the Logos. Nor does the Spirit appear to be a personalized entity, separate from God, as though it were a distinct member of the Godhead, to use later Christian categories. But neither is it simply the “divine spirit of wisdom” of On the Giants. Nor is it the “spirit of God hovering over the waters” of Gen 1:2. By his assertion that the human soul partakes of the nature of “the Divine and Invisible Spirit”, which conveys and preserves the “stamp” or “imprint” of God as mediated by the Eternal Logos, Philo moves well beyond biblical categories. Later, in §24 of Concerning Noah’s Work as Planter, Philo discusses how those in pursuit of wisdom and knowledge “have been called upwards” (23). Just as heavy objects can be snatched upward in violent storms, so can the human mind (ὁ νοῦς), which is light by comparison, become buoyant and raised to the utmost height by the native force of the Divine spirit (τοῦ θείου πνεύµατος), overcoming as it does in its boundless might all powers that are here below. Above all is it strange if this is not so with the mind of the genuine philosopher.

Later in the same treatise (44), discussing why all kinds of wild beasts were brought into the ark whereas none were brought into the Garden, Philo talks about the man who was fashioned out of the earth and brought into the garden: For the man stamped with the spirit which is after the image of God (ὁ µὲν γὰρ τῷ κατὰ τὴν εἰκόνα θεοῦ χαραχθεὶς πνεύµατι) differs not a whit, as it appears to me, from the tree that bears the fruit of immortal life: for both are imperishable and have been accounted worthy of the most central and most princely portion: for we are told that the tree of Life is in the midst of the garden (Gen 2:9).

Unlike the earlier passage, the Eternal Logos plays no intermediate role. Rather, the πνεῦµα directly transmits or mediates the εἰκὼν θεοῦ. Who is the Heir? is a commentary on Gen 15:2–18. Genesis 15:2 reads “But Abram said, ‘O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?’” Commenting on

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

355

“Damascus”, Philo says this is interpreted as ‘the blood of the sackcloth robe’ (54). The “sackcloth robe”, he says, refers to the body, whereas “blood” refers to bloodlife. This prompts Philo to clarify what he means by “soul”. “We use ‘soul’ in two senses,” Philo asserts, “both for the whole soul and also for its dominant part, which properly speaking is the soul’s soul, just as the eye can mean either the whole orb, or the most important part, by which we see” (55). He goes on to say that Moses conceived of the substance of the soul as twofold: “blood” being that of the soul as a whole, and the divine breath (πνεῦµα θεῖον) or spirit that of its most dominant part. Thus he says plainly, ‘the soul of every flesh is the blood’” (Lev 17:11). Continuing, Philo says: (56) He does well in assigning the blood with its flowing stream to the riot (or horde) of the manifold flesh, for each is akin to the other. On the other hand he did not make the substance of the mind depend on anything created, but represented it as breathed upon by God. For the Maker of all, he says, ‘blew into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul’ (Gen 2:7); just as we are also told that he was fashioned after the image of his Maker (Gen 1:17). (57) So we have two kinds of men, one that of those who live by reason, the divine inbreathing (θείῳ πνεύµατι λογισµῷ), the other of those who live by blood and the pleasure of the flesh. This last is moulded clod of earth, the other is the faithful impress of the divine image.

While Her. 55–57 is an allegorical exposition of Gen 15:2, it affords Philo an opportunity to speak about his anthropology. He envisions the soul as consisting of two parts: the soul understood as a whole and the soul understood as its most defining part, the “soul’s soul” (ψυχὴ ψυχῆς). The substance of the former – the soul as a whole – is blood, while the substance of its most dominant part is the “divine breath” or “divine spirit” (πνεῦµα θεῖον). Philo supports the former claim by citing Lev 17:11, “the soul of every flesh is the blood”. Philo seems to imply that blood is a substance shared by all humankind and that it is linked with flesh. The “substance of the [human] mind” (τοῦ νοῦ τὴν οὐσίαν) does not derive from anything created; instead, Moses represented it “as breathed upon by God”. Philo quotes Gen 2:7 for support: “[God] blew into his face the breath of life (πνοὴν ζωῆς), and man became a living soul.” From this bipartite anthropology, Philo concludes that there are two classes of human beings: those who live by reason, “the divine inbreathing”, and those “who live by blood and the pleasure of the flesh”. The former is “the faithful impress of the divine image”, the latter “a moulded clod of earth”. Philo’s essay On Dreams, consisting of two books, provides allegorical commentary on Gen 28:12–15 and Gen 31:11–21. In Somn. 1.14 Philo explains the significance of the mention of the four wells dug by Abraham and Isaac (Gen 21:25; 26:17–22). Allegorically this means that Moses wanted to show that the universe and human beings consist of four constituent parts, the first three of which are fairly knowable and self-evident, the fourth of which

356

Carl R. Holladay

is not. The universe consists of earth, water, air, and heaven; knowledge of the first three is discoverable, but the fourth is more difficult. “Heaven has sent to us no sure indication of its nature, but keeps it beyond our comprehension” (21). Human beings also have four constituent parts: body (σῶµα), senseperception (αἴσθησις), speech (λόγος), and mind (νοῦς, 25). What is meant by the first three is fairly self- evident. Philo spells out what each of these entails. But the fourth element in human beings, “the dominant mind” (ὁ ἡγεµὼν νοῦς), is not so easy to comprehend. Is it “breath (πνεῦµα) or blood (αἷµα) or body (σῶµα) in general” (30)? In §§31–32 Philo discusses each of these. This fourth element (νοῦς) is incorporeal. Is it “boundary-line, or form, or number, or continuity, or harmony, or what amongst all that exists” (30)? Is it introduced to us at birth from without? “Or does the air which envelops it impart intense hardness to the warm nature within us, such as the red-hot iron receives when plunged at the smithy into cold water” (31)? The name “soul” (ψυχή) is given to it owing to the “cooling” it undergoes. What happens to it when we die? Is it quenched, or does it share the decay of our bodies, or live on for a considerable time, or is it wholly imperishable? And where does the mind reside within the body? In the head? Heart? So, Philo concludes, the fourth item in a series is always the most difficult to comprehend (33). 1.2 Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.51; 2.28, 59 Several passages in Questions and Answers on Genesis pertain to the Spirit of God, but three passages in particular warrant attention. In QG 1.51 Philo comments on Gen 3:19: “What is the meaning of the words, ‘Until thou return to the earth from which thou wast taken’?” He observes that “man was moulded not only from the earth but also from the divine spirit (θείου πνεύµατος)”. In his following comments, rather than elaborating further on what he means by “divine spirit”, Philo continues to reflect on the twofold nature of “man”, who is compounded of earth and heaven. In this exposition “heaven” corresponds roughly to “divine spirit” in his opening comment. By claiming that “earth is the beginning and end of evil and vile man, but heaven of the virtuous man”, Philo implies that the “divine spirit” is somehow associated with the life of virtue. But he does not expand on this further. In QG 2.28, Philo comments on Gen 8:1 by asking “What is the meaning of the words, ‘He brought a spirit (πνεῦµα) over the earth and the water ceased’?” He comments: Some would say that by ‘spirit’ is meant the wind through which the flood ceased. But I myself do not know of water being diminished by a wind. Rather is it disturbed and seethes. Otherwise vast expanses of the sea would long ago have been consumed. Accord-

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

357

ingly, (Scripture) now seems to speak of the spirit of the Deity (τὸ τοῦ θείου πνεῦµα), by which all things are made secure, and of the terrible condition of the world, and of those things which are in the air and are in all mixtures of plants and animals. For this time the flood was not a trifling outpouring of water but a limitless and immense one, which almost flowed out beyond the Pillars of Heracles and the Great Sea. Therefore the whole earth and the mountainous regions were flooded. That such (an amount of water) should be cleared out by the wind is not fitting, likely or right; but, as I said, (it must have been done) by the invisible power of God (ὑπὸ τῆς ἀοράτου δυνάµεως τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ).

What is most revealing about this passage is Philo’s contention that πνεῦµα in Gen 8:1 cannot mean simply “wind” but must be construed as “the invisible power of God”. In QG 2.59 Philo comments on Gen 9:4. He asks, “What is the meaning of the words, ‘Flesh in the blood of the life you shall not eat’”? He answers as follows: [Scripture] seems to indicate through these (words) that the blood is the substance of the soul, but of the sense-perceptive and vital soul, not of that which is called (soul) katexochen, (namely) that which is rational and intelligent. For there are three parts of the soul: one is nutritive (θρεπτικόν), another is sense-perceptive (αἰσθητικόν), and the third is rational (λογικόν). Now the divine spirit (τὸ θεῖον πνεῦµα) is the substance of the rational (part) according to the theologian Moses, for in (the account of) the creation of the world, he says, ‘He breathed the breath of life into his face’ (as) his cause. But blood is the substance of the sense-perceptive and vital (soul), for he says in another place, ‘The soul of all flesh is its blood.’ Very properly does (Scripture) say that the blood is the soul of flesh. And in the flesh are sense-perception and passion but not mind or reflection. Moreover, (the expression) ‘in the blood of life’ indicates that soul is one thing, and blood another, so that the substance of the soul is truly and infallibly spirit (πνεῦµα). The spirit, however, does not occupy any place by itself along without the blood but is carried along and mixed together with the blood. For the arteries, the vessels of breath, contain not only air by itself, unmixed and pure, but also blood, though perhaps a small amount. For there are two kinds of vessels, veins and arteries. The veins have more blood than breath whereas the arteries have more breath than blood, but the mixture in both kinds of vessels is differentiated by the greater or less (amount of blood and breath).

1.3 Observations These passages illustrate the bewildering complexity of Philo’s anthropology. Generally, he views the human being as bipartite, although QG 2.59 mentions three parts of the soul – nutritive, sense-perceptive, and rational – and Somn. 1.25, 30–31 lists four constituent parts of the human being – body, senseperception, speech, and mind. In the aforementioned passages that envision a bipartite anthropology, “soul” (ψυχή) is the basic organizing category. The human being can be thought of as “soul” in two senses – the “whole soul”, or the human being considered as a whole, and the “soul’s soul”, that inner part or essence of the human being. The former Philo tends to align, or define, as “flesh”, “blood”, or sense-perceptible, while the latter is characterized as

358

Carl R. Holladay

“intelligible” or “reasoning”. Indeed, the essence of the former, the “whole soul”, is “blood”, while the essence of the latter, the “soul’s soul”, is πνεῦµα θεῖον, or even the “ethereal spirit”. Philo’s exposition of his anthropology is complicated by two conflicting passages: Gen 2:7, which asserts that “God breathed into man the breath of life (πνοὴ/πνεῦµα ζωῆς) and man became a living soul”, and Lev 17:11, which asserts that “the soul of every flesh is the blood”. How can the ψυχή consist of both πνεῦµα and αἷµα, which are opposing elements? Philo resolves this dilemma by envisioning the human being as a ψυχή with two aspects or types of ψυχή, one whose essence is blood (αἷµα), the other whose essence is spirit (πνεῦµα) or “divine spirit” (πνεῦµα θεῖον). His anthropology also has moral implications. The “whole soul”, or the human being understood generically, is aligned with flesh and blood, both of which it shares with the animal world. The “soul’s soul”, however, is aligned with the mind, reasoning, and spirit, or even the inner “rational spirit-force”. Humans can be inclined to follow either part of their nature, although the wise, virtuous person will be inclined regularly to follow the rational, spiritual side of human nature. From this survey we can see how Philo’s use of πνεῦµα occurs in several different settings. Sometimes his discussion of the cosmos is in the forefront, while at other times he is preoccupied with how human beings are constituted. It is difficult to separate Philo’s cosmological and anthropological uses of πνεῦµα since the human being and the cosmos are interrelated in his thought. In some discussions πνεῦµα as a defining feature of the human being is in the forefront, but in other cases πνεῦµα as an aspect of God is in more clearly in view. And yet, πνεῦµα θεῖον is also a vital link between God and humanity. Thus one of the most intriguing features of Philonic thought is the fluidity of the term πνεῦµα, and the way in which it functions in different parts of Philo’s thought, including his theology, cosmology, anthropology, and prophetic experience. To be sure, Philo operates with a robust sense of “divine spirit” or “the spirit of God”, even though he does not conceive of it in personalistic terms. Nor is “divine spirit” simply an aspect of God that defines human life. In some passages, it almost appears to have a separate essence, although it is typically dynamic rather than static. Bearing the quality of “wind”, “air”, or “breath”, πνεῦµα is associated with movement, force, and power.

2. Spirit of Prophecy/Prophetic Spirit Several passages that mention πνεῦµα, πνεῦµα θεῖον, or πνεῦµα θεοῦ belong to a distinct category in which Philo discusses the spirit of prophecy or

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

359

the prophetic spirit. Mainly these are found in The Exposition of the Law and The Allegorical Interpretation. We will discuss them in that order. 2.1 The Exposition of the Law: Mos. 1.175, 277; 2.265; Ios. 117; Decal. 175; Spec. 4.49; Virt. 217 In Mos. 1.175, describing Moses’s responses to the Israelites’ fears about facing the Egyptians unarmed, Philo explains how Moses calmed the crowds, reassuring them that God needs no armaments. At first Moses talked with them: Still calm and composed, but, after a little, he became possessed (ἔνθους), and, filled with the spirit which was wont to visit him (καταπνευσθεὶς ὑπὸ τοῦ εἰωθότος ἐπιφοιτᾶν αὐτῷ πνεύµατος), uttered these oracular words of prophecy (θεσπίζει προφητεύων): ‘The host which you see armed to the teeth you shall see no more arrayed against you. It shall all fall in utter ruin and disappear in the depths, so that no remnant may be seen above the earth. And this shall be at no distant time, but in the coming night.’

In Mos. 1.263–293 Philo treats the story of Balaam (Num 22–24). As the note in the LCL translation states, Philo treats [this story] in a curiously rationalistic way. The divinely sent dreams of Balaam in ch. 22 are said to be fictions of his, and, though the appearance of the Angel to the ass is admitted, nothing is said of the animal speaking.10

On the hill where the pagan altar was located, the prophet advanced outside, and straightway became possessed (ἔνθους), and there fell upon him the truly prophetic spirit (προφητικοῦ πνεύµατος ἐπιφοιτήσαντος) which banished utterly from his soul his art of wizardry. For the craft of the sorcerer and the inspiration of the Holiest might not live together. Then he returned, and, seeing the sacrifices and the altars flaming, he spoke these oracles as one repeating the words which another had put into his mouth (277).

Another passage relating to Moses’s prophetic inspiration occurs in Mos. 2.265. Book 2 of On the Life of Moses is a panegyrical description of Moses’s life according to three distinct roles: legislative (8–65), priestly (66–186), and prophetic (187–292). In §§258–269 Philo deals with Exod 16:4–30. Discussing Moses’s pronouncement about the Sabbath, Philo says that Moses, when he heard of this and also actually saw it, was awestruck and, guided by what was not so much surmise as God-sent inspiration, made announcement of the Sabbath. I need hardly say that conjectures of this kind are closely akin to prophecies (προφητείας). For the mind (νοῦς) could not have made so straight an aim if there was not also the divine spirit (θεῖον πνεῦµα) guiding it to the truth itself (265).

In his treatise On Joseph, one of two surviving treatises (along with On Abraham) showing how the patriarchs embodied the Law of Moses prior to 10

LCL 6:412 n. a.

360

Carl R. Holladay

the time when it was given, Philo reports Joseph’s speech to the king in which he relates his dreams and interprets their meaning. Upon hearing the report, the king is impressed with Joseph’s ability to divine the truth so exactly and skillfully and to exercise such skillful foresight about the uncertainties of the future. So impressed is the king that he asks his companions, “Shall we find another man such as this, who has in him the spirit of God (ὃς ἔχει πνεῦµα θεῖον ἐν ἑαυτῷ, 117)?” One passage in On the Decalogue specifically addresses the prophetic inspiration that gave rise to the Ten Commandments. In Decal. 175, having completed his discussion of the Ten Commandments, Philo explains Moses’s divinely given qualifications: For it was in accordance with His nature that the pronouncements in which the special laws were summed up should be given by Him in His own person, but the particular laws by the mouth of the most perfect of the prophets whom He selected for his merits and having filled him with the divine spirit (ἐνθέου πνεύµατος), chose him to be the interpreter of His sacred utterances.

In Special Laws, Philo groups his discussion of the individual pieces of Mosaic legislation around each of the Ten Commandments. In Spec. 4.49, discussing interpreters of portents and auguries and of sacrificial entrails and others who practice divination, Philo explains prophecy: For no pronouncement of a prophet (προφήτης) is ever his own; he is an interpreter (ἑρµηνεύς) prompted by Another in all his utterances, when knowing not what he does he is filled with inspiration (ἐνθουσιᾷ), as the reason (τοῦ λογισµοῦ) withdraws and surrenders the citadel of the soul (τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς ἀκρόπολιν) to a new visitor and tenant, the Divine Spirit (τοῦ θείου πνεύµατος), which plays upon the vocal organism and dictates words which clearly express its prophetic message.

After completing his discussion of the special laws, Philo devotes a treatise to On Virtues, followed by another treatise On Rewards and Punishments. In Virt. 217, speaking of Abraham, Philo says that “perception of these truths and divine inspiration (ὧν ἔννοιαν λαβὼν καὶ ἐπιθειάσας) induced him to leave his native country, his race and paternal home” (214), and that Abraham was the “first person spoken of as believing in God” (216). Describing Abraham’s prophetic inspiration, Philo writes: Thus whenever he was possessed (ὁπότε κατασχεθείη), everything in him changed to something better, eyes, complexion, stature, carriage, movements, voice. For the divine spirit (τοῦ θείου πνεύµατος) which was breathed upon him (καταπνευσθέν) from on high made its lodging in his soul (τῇ ψυχῇ), and invested his body with singular beauty, his voice with persuasiveness, and his hearers with understanding.

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

361

2.2 The Allegorical Commentary: Her. 265 and Fug. 182, 186 In The Allegorical Interpretation, Philo’s discussion of the prophetic spirit occurs in two separate treatises – Who Is the Heir?, an exposition of Gen 15:1–18, and On Flight and Finding, an exposition of Gen 16:6–14. In Her. 265, commenting on Gen 15:12, which reports that about sunset “an ecstasy” (ἔκστασις) fell upon Abraham, Philo identifies four types of ecstasy: madness or mental delusion, astonishment or extreme amazement, mental tranquility or passivity of mind, and prophetic inspiration, the “best form of all” (249). In §258 Philo explains how Abraham was a prophet. He quotes Gen 20:7, “restore the woman to the man, because he is a prophet and shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live”. In §259 there is a good summary of how Philo understands prophecy: Now with every good man it is the holy Word (ἱερὸς λόγος) which assures him his gift of prophecy (προφητείαν). For a prophet (being a spokesman) has no utterance of his own, but all his utterance came from elsewhere, the echoes of another’s voice. The wicked may never be the interpreter of God, so that no worthless person is ‘God- inspired’ in the proper sense. The name only befits the wise, since he alone is the vocal instrument of God, smitten and played by His invisible hand. Thus, all whom Moses describes as just are pictured as possessed and prophesying.

Philo then mentions several examples: Noah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, with Scripture references for each. His exposition on “sunset” prompts an allegorical exposition in which “sun” is a figure for the human mind: For what the reasoning faculty (λογισµός) is in us, the sun is in the world, since both of them are light-bringers, one sending forth to the whole world the light which our senses perceive, the other shedding mental rays upon ourselves through the medium of apprehension. So while the radiance of the mind is still all around us, when it pours as it were a noonday beam into the whole soul, we are self-contained, not possessed (ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ὄντες οὐ κατεχόµεθα). But when it comes to its setting, naturally ecstasy (ἔκστασις) and divine possession (ἡ ἔνθεος κατοκωχή) and madness (µανία) fall upon us. For when the light of God shines, the human light sets; when the divine light sets, the human dawns and rises. This is what regularly befalls the fellowship of the prophets. The mind (ὁ νοῦς) is evicted at the arrival of the divine Spirit (τοῦ θείου πνεύµατος), but when that departs the mind returns to its tenancy. Mortal and immortal may not share the same home, and therefore the setting of reason and the darkness which surrounds it produce ecstasy (ἔκστασιν) and inspired frenzy (θεοφόρητον µανίαν).

In the section in which Fug. 182, 186 occur, Philo is commenting on Gen 16:7, “An angel of the Lord found her at the water-spring.” He mentions OT passages in which different uses of the word “spring” are found. Then he proposes to develop his own interpretation. “Our dominant faculty resembles a spring”, he says. From it many powers well up and from there reach the senses, eyes, ears, nostrils, etc.

362

Carl R. Holladay

Thus the dominant faculty in the soul waters, as from a spring, the face, which is the dominant part of the body, extending to the eyes the spirit of vision (τὸ ὁρατικὸν πνεῦµα), that of hearing to the ears, to the nostrils that of smelling, that of tasting to the mouth, and that of touch to the whole surface.

Philo goes on to talk about “a variety of springs of education” (183). In this discussion he says that Moses proclaims the ten-fold seven, telling in this passage of seventy palm trees by the spring, and in another of the Divine Spirit of prophecy (τὸ θεῖον προφητικὸν πνεῦµα) bestowed on only seventy elders (Num 11:16), and again of seventy calves offered as victims, etc.

2.3 Observations While there are some distinctive allegorical elements in the passages of The Allegorical Commentary that discuss prophecy, Philo’s discussion of spiritinspired prophecy tends to be uniform across The Exposition of the Law and The Allegorical Commentary. Although Moses is Philo’s example par excellence of the true prophet, his prophetic experience is described in much the same way as that of other OT figures who experience prophetic inspiration, including Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Balaam. What all have in common is prophecy seen as an ecstatic moment in which the prophet becomes “possessed” (ἔνθεος) and the mind (νοῦς) is suspended, or reason (λογισµός) vacates the soul (ψυχή), while it is invaded by the πνεῦµα θεῖον, the “prophetic spirit” (Mos. 1.277), or the “divine prophetic spirit” (Fuga 186). In these different passages the “divine spirit” (πνεῦµα θεῖον), rather than being a separate being sent from God to prompt prophetic inspiration, is itself the source of prophetic inspiration. That this experience of πνεῦµα θεῖον is different qualitatively from “the divine spirit of wisdom” in Gig. 19–57 is seen by the fact that the exclusive possession of the latter tends to be reserved for Moses, the true philosopher, and also that the prophetic spirit tends to be sporadic rather than residual. While various OT individuals experience prophetic inspiration, it is an exceptional rather than normal mode of experience. “The divine prophetic spirit”, Mary Jo Weaver writes, “is conceived of by Philo as a special gift, not a constituent part of the human personality; it does not elevate the mind, but replaces it”.11 Philo’s construal of prophetic inspiration, especially the way in which he sees it as a function of the divine spirit, is anchored deeply in OT conceptions of prophecy as moments or events in which the “Spirit of God” came to, or came upon, the prophet.12 Equally clear, however, is that Philo’s detailed

11

WEAVER, “Πνεῦµα,” (n. 1), 78–79. WEAVER, “Πνεῦµα,” 136–37 (n. 1), explains the oddity of Philo’s lack of attention to the classical prophets as owing to his preoccupation with Moses, the prophet par excellence, and the way in which Philo connects prophetic experience with mystical experience. 12

Spirit in Philo of Alexandria

363

conceptualization of prophecy as an ecstatic moment in which rationality gives way to inspired utterance is heavily indebted to Plato.13

13

See Phaedr, 240A–250C, 265B; Ion 534B–D.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH IN THE GOSPELS

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus Armand Puig i Tàrrech Examination of the historical Jesus cannot leave to one side the question of God’s Spirit in his life and work. In the texts embodying the Jesus tradition, especially within the Synoptic Gospels, the Spirit is explicitly said to be present in two foundational events: the theophany that follows Jesus’s baptism in the Jordan and his temptation in the desert, which follows this theophany. Additionally, Jesus is portrayed as having a significant role as an exorcist (five incidents are attested in the synoptic tradition),1 which seems to presuppose an antagonistic relationship between the Spirit (τὸ πνεῦµα) and the spirits (τὰ πνεύµατα), and ultimately, between the (Holy) Spirit and Satan, the head and lord of these “evil” or “unclean” spirits (τὰ πνεύµατα τὰ ἀκάθαρτα). Jesus’s expulsion of demons must be understood within the overall context of his performance of miracles, which include both healings (twenty-two

1 The five episodes are: the demoniac of Capernaum (Mark 1:21–28 par. Luke 4:31– 37), the demoniac of the Decapolis (Mark 5:1–20 par. Matt 8:28–34 par. Luke 8:26–39), the Syro-phoenician (young girl) demoniac (Mark 7:24–30 par. Matt 15:21–28), the epileptic demoniac (Mark 9:14–29 par. Matt 17:14–20 par. Luke 9:37–43a), and the dumb demoniac (Matt 9:32–34; 12:22–24 par. Luke 11:14–15). Four exorcism accounts derive from Mark; a fifth account is from Q. Another item relating to the expulsion of demons is the Lucan reference to Mary Magdalene as a disciple “from whom seven demons had gone out” (Luke 8:2). See J. P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. Vol. II: Mentor, Message, and Miracles (ABRL; New York et al., 1994), 657–659. In contrast, excluded as an exorcism is the healing of the hunch-backed woman (Luke 13:10–17) because Jesus cures her with the laying-on of hands (v. 13) (see Mark 6:5) and without expelling any demon – even though the healing command (“woman, you are free of your illness!”) (v. 12) has a clear relationship with Jesus’s subsequent observation on the relationship between illness and the rule of evil: “it was necessary to unbind this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has had in bondage for eighteen years” (v. 16).

366

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

accounts in the four canonical gospels) and exorcisms (five accounts, as already mentioned).2 Jesus himself recognizes both activities when, realizing that Herod Antipas wants to kill him, he gives Antipas this answer: “Today and tomorrow I expel demons and cure the sick, and the third day I will come to the end.” (Luke 13:32) Here Jesus presents himself as exorcist and thaumaturge (in that order!) – that is to say, as someone who regularly performs exorcisms and healings. Of course, this is not all that Jesus did, but it does constitute a significant part. In effect, healings and exorcisms, as signs of the Kingdom, are part of the wider purpose of Jesus’s ministry: the proclamation of the coming of the Kingdom of God. Jesus expresses this with a first-person declaration that reflects the connection that exists between the Kingdom and the signs that signal its active presence among humankind: “If I expel demons by the power (literally: ‘finger’) of God (Luke) / by the Spirit of God (Matt), then the Kingdom of God has come upon you!” (Luke 11:20 par. Matt 12:28) Expulsions of evil spirits have become possible because God’s Spirit is active in Jesus; on the other hand, such expulsions are an irrefutable sign that the Kingdom has begun to make its presence felt among humankind. This emblematic text, which associates Jesus’s divine power with the presence of the Kingdom, raises the issue of the charismatic nature of Jesus’s activity.3 Jesus lives out his closeness to God from the uniqueness of his own experience, but what happens to him also has a visible effect in everyday life, and this is perceived by those around him. Unusual as they are, Jesus’s miracles are always performed within the framework of history. It could be said that the extraordinary has become present in the ordinary. If Jesus heals or casts out demons, it is not to demonstrate his abilities or to win over followers, but because he is surrounded by people who appeal trustingly to him for a gesture of compassion. Both those who suffer the burden of physical disability (the sick) or spiritual bondage (the possessed) and their relatives and friends, who have helped them come to Jesus, trust in him. Jesus, then, does not seem to enjoy doing miracles (see Luke 23:8–9) and does not use them as a way to express his power (John 6:14–15).4 The mira-

2 See the list of twenty-seven accounts of miracles in my Jesus: A Biography (Waco, 2011), 363–365. 3 See J. D. G. DUNN, Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (Grand Rapids, 1997), ch. 3. For Dunn, the distinctive element of Jesus’s ministry is the reciprocal action of his sonship and of the Spirit: Jesus is conscious of his relationship with the Father and with the Spirit. He is, then, a deeply spiritual man but not an ecstatic, nor, evidently, a moralist. 4 Jesus does not use the miracles for his own advantage, to promote himself or his message. According to the Gospel tradition, he refuses to perform a miracle before Herod Antipas, although it might have saved him from death (Luke 23:6–12), and he withdraws

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

367

cles are characterized as freely given, requiring quite often the faith of those who ask for them, to the extent that when Jesus is rejected, he is unable to perform any miraculous act. This is what happened in Nazareth, the village where Jesus had lived for more than thirty years. Mark explains that “he could not do there any miracle” (οὐδεµίαν δύναµιν, Mark 6:5). In contrast to displays of ecstatic prophecy, where the prophets are conscious of having been endowed with a divine spirit (see, for example, 1 Sam 10:10),5 in the case of Jesus we sometimes see a limitation on his power to perform miracles, even though this power is genuine. The miracles of Jesus, whether exorcisms or healings, differ markedly from ecstatic prophecy and have a distinctly personal character, corresponding to Jesus’s essentially personal relationship with God, the Father. If by “charismatic” we mean a person who has some extraordinary gifts that enable him to carry out deeds that go beyond the normal order of things, then the numerous healings and exorcisms performed by Jesus clearly indicate that he acts with the strength of the Spirit, having been granted an authority and a power that are supremely manifested in the mighty deeds he carries out for those around him.6 Moreover, Jesus experiences “three extraordinary phenomena of a mystical kind”: two visions and a transfiguration.7 The visions are the vision at the Jordan, where Jesus sees the heavens open and the Spirit descending as a dove while a heavenly voice can be heard (Mark 1:10–11 and par.), and the vision of the fall of Satan, in which Jesus sees Satan fall from the sky like lightning (Luke 10:18). The transfiguration takes place high upon a mountain, where Jesus undergoes a fleeting bodily

alone to the mountain when the people, enthused by the miracle of the loaves, want to make him their king (John 6:15). 5 This is the episode in which Saul, just after being anointed king by Samuel, joins a group of ecstatic prophets in Gibeah: “The spirit of God took hold of him, and he began to rave like the prophets.” 6 See DUNN, Jesus and the Spirit, 174 (n. 3). In Acts 10:38, Jesus is announced as a messiah anointed “with the Holy Spirit and with power.” 7 See my contribution, “Was Jesus a Mystic?,” in Jesus: An Uncommon Journey (WUNT II.288; Tübingen, 2010), 245–285, 285. To some extent, this study on the Spirit and the spirits is a continuation of that article, with a shift of focus onto Jesus’s spiritual experience and his intimate relationship with the Father and the Spirit. This goes beyond a typical mystical experience, which would have been characterized, as indicated in the earlier article, by an unsatisfied desire for a closer relationship with God and a sense of guilt about one’s own sin. Nothing of this kind is to be found in connection with Jesus, who cannot, therefore, be considered a mystic, even if at times his life is “invaded” by unusual spiritual experiences, which in other contexts might easily be regarded as “mystical”.

368

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

transformation into a figure of glory, witnessed by three of his disciples, who also hear the heavenly voice (Mark 9:2–8, par.).8 In the two visions, Jesus sees two figures emerging from the heavens: the Spirit “descending”, and Satan “falling”.9 Coming up from the waters of the Jordan, Jesus also hears, on earth, a voice, even though that voice is speaking “from heaven” (Mark 1:1 par. Matt 3:17 par. Luke 3:22). This is the divine voice, the memra’ of contemporary Judaism, the word of the Lord, which is related to the divine Wisdom but is an entity in its own right. The figures mentioned above, the Spirit and Satan, are opposed to one another, so that immediately after the epiphany of the “Spirit” and of the divine voice at the Jordan (Mark 1:10), “the Spirit” is said to be responsible for Jesus’s departure into the wilderness (v. 12) where he will be “tempted by Satan” (v. 13). Similarly, when the seventy-two disciples return from mission and joyfully report to Jesus that “spirits” “submitted themselves” to them (Luke 10:17), Jesus says, in effect, that “Satan” has indeed been cast out of the place he used to occupy (v. 18). It is then, “at that time” according to the Lucan narrative, that Jesus, “full of the joy of the Holy Spirit”, blesses the “Father, Lord of heaven and earth” (v. 21). We see, then, in the Gospel of Luke, a similar sequence being established between, on the one hand, the episode of the theophany at the Jordan followed by the various temptations and, on the other hand, the episode of the return of the disciples from mission and Jesus’s prayer of thanksgiving. In the temptations of Jesus and in general throughout his mission (including the mission of the seventy-two disciples sent out by him), Satan’s failure is absolute: he departs (Luke 4:13) or falls from the heavens (10:18). In connection with the theophany at the Jordan and with Jesus’s thanksgiving prayer, we find the motif of Jesus’s sonship (“you are my Son”, “I praise you, Father”, 3:22; 10:21) and that of the Spirit’s being fully present in him (“the Spirit descended”, “full of the joy of the Holy Spirit”, 3:22; 10:21). Although the sequence of the return of the seventy-two from mission followed by Jesus’s thanksgiving prayer is only found in Luke,10 the other sequence (baptism –

8 On the transfiguration, see my article, “La gloire sur la montagne: L’épisode de la transfiguration de Jésus,” RCT 37/1 (2012), 203–245. A shorter version of this study can be found in “The Glory on the Mountain: The Episode of the Transfiguration of Jesus,” NTS (2012), 151–172. 9 It should be noted, however, that the Spirit and Satan do not come from the same celestial location. The Spirit comes from the area of that which is properly divine, above the seven heavens and any intermediate celestial bodies (see Ps 113:4). Satan, in contrast, falls from the second of these heavens or spheres, to which he had been cast after the primordial rebellion of the angels (see below). 10 Luke is responsible for the account of the return of the seventy-two from mission (10:17–20) and for the reference to the Spirit in the introductory formula in the thanksgiv-

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

369

temptations) appears in all three Synoptic Gospels, where, moreover, the Spirit has a key role, appearing in each account at the river Jordan and being the driving force behind Jesus’s subsequent departure into the desert.11

1. A Teaching Full of Authority (ἐξουσία) The Marcan account of Jesus’s activity opens in Capernaum and closes in Jerusalem. After calling the first four disciples (Mark 1:16–20), Jesus goes with them to Capernaum, a small town on the northwestern shore of the Sea of Galilee (v. 21). There, apparently on the Saturday after his arrival, he goes to the synagogue and starts to teach (ἐδίδασκεν). This is followed by the first of Jesus’s miracles: the healing of a demon-possessed man (1:23–27a). However, this exorcism is preceded (v. 22) and followed (v. 27a) by the people’s enthusiastic comments about Jesus’s activity, which is twice said to be “teaching / doctrine” (διδαχή) proclaimed with “authority” (ἐξουσία), an authority that is defined both negatively (the teachers of the Law give instruction with an authority that is not their own but has been borrowed from the rabbinic masters upon whom they depend, v. 21) and positively (Jesus’s is a higher authority since it includes dominion over the evil spirits, v. 27a). Accordingly, the authority of Jesus is made manifest in two ways: his teaching as such (the words that he preaches) and his performing of an extraordinary event (the expulsion of a spirit or spirits living in a possessed man).12 From the outset, people recognize Jesus’s ἐξουσία in the two main aspects of his ministry: what he says and what he does.

ing prayer (10:21–24); see F. BOVON, L’Évangile selon saint Luc (9,51–14,35) (CNT IIIb; Genève, 1996), 69. 11 Mark 1:10, 12; Matt 3:16; 4:1; Luke 3:22; 4:1. However, in recent works on the historical Jesus, his relationship with the Spirit is hardly discussed; see, for example, the study by J. P. Meier cited in note 1, above; G. THEISSEN and A. MERZ, The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide (London, 1998); C. S. KEENER, The Historical Jesus and the Gospels (Grand Rapids, 2009). I myself discussed the issue only tangentially in my work on Jesus, cited in note 2 (see 366–371). It has a slightly more significant place (seven entries in the subject index) in J. D. G. DUNN, Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making 1 (Grand Rapids, 2003). 12 Mark 1:23 speaks of an evil spirit in the singular (πνεύματι ἀκαθάρτῳ), but in the following verse this spirit complains to Jesus, saying to him: “Why do you interfere with us?” (lit.: “What between us [ἡμῖν] and you?”), and again: “Have you come to destroy us [ἡμᾶς]?” Afterwards, in v. 25, Jesus expels the spirit in the singular: “go out” (ἔξελθε). In v. 26, the text speaks once more of “the evil spirit” in the singular. As in the case of the Gerasene demoniac (see Mark 5:1–20), this switching between singular and plural expresses well the lack of personal identity among the spirits and their changing presence within those who have been attacked by their evil power (see Matt 12:45 par. Luke 11:26).

370

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

Staying with Mark, we also see, however, that after entering Jerusalem amid gestures and acclamations concerning his kingship, and after expelling the traders from the temple, Jesus has a series of arguments with the leaders of the people. In the first of these (Mark 11:27–33), those leaders ask Jesus about his authority, and he leaves them without room for reply. The leaders’ question has to do with what Jesus “does” and with the legitimacy of his deeds. In the context of Mark, the phrase “do all this” appears to refer to the immediately preceding expulsion by Jesus of the traders from the temple (Mark 11:15–19). There is an interesting parallel between the expulsion of the evil spirit resident in the demoniac of Capernaum (Mark 1:21–28) and the expulsion of the traders, labelled “thieves”, which takes place in the “house of prayer”, that is to say, the temple of Jerusalem. At stake in each case is the holiness of particular people (Jesus is “the holy one of God”, who wants to restore to the demoniac his full humanity) or places (the temple is “my temple”, that is, the temple of God): people and places have to be recovered by means of a thoroughgoing purification. Clearly, the radical and undisguised nature of Jesus’s prophetic actions throughout his ministry touches on the issue of his authority. Beyond the specific context in which the argument takes place, the question posed by the religious leaders of Israel is relevant to Jesus’s activity in its entirety, both his words, which Jesus does not associate with or subject to any rabbinic interpretation, and his numerous healing actions, which distinguish him from his rabbinic contemporaries. In fact, it is this authority that had already struck the people of Capernaum: what surprises them about Jesus is the authority he displays in their synagogue (Mark 1:21–27), in both preaching (words) and exorcism (actions). Any discussion of authority will directly question the source of this authority. In other words, the experts in the Law want to know if Jesus’s authority derives from God or if its origin should be sought in dark forces associated with “the prince of demons”. The latter view is attributed in Mark 3:22 to the “teachers of the Law who had gone down from Jerusalem”. When they arrive in Galilee, they accuse Jesus of being a servant and ally of Beelzebul and of being possessed by him: “This one expels the demons by the power of the prince of the demons” (ἐν τῷ ἄρχοντι τῶν δαιµονίων). The phrase may be translated as: “by the power of”, “in the name of”, “in collusion with”, or “by the authority of” Satan. It would, then, be Satan who is authorizing Jesus’s actions, not God! Jesus would be an envoy of the devil, disguised as an envoy of God, an impostor, not a prophet. Their verdict is implacable: what Jesus is doing – in particular expelling demons – he can do thanks to the help he has from Satan. This is a grave accusation, since ultimately it is only God himself who would be able to make manifest the origin of Jesus’s authority and to testify

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

371

in his favour.13 Accordingly, Jesus, when asked about the source of his authority by the leaders of the people in Israel’s most emblematic site – the temple precinct – gives an answer that appeals indirectly to God. They say to him: “By what authority do you do all this? Who has given you this authority?” (Mark 11:28 par. Matt 21:23 par. Luke 20:2). Faced with such a direct question, Jesus cannot remain silent. But it is also obvious that he cannot call directly on the Father’s witness, asking for a sign to “show” that the Father has sent him. In effect, Jesus systematically refuses to enter into a dialectic based on heavenly signs; similarly, when the Pharisees ask him for “a sign from heaven” (Mark 8:11) to “clarify” his status as an envoy of God, Jesus answers unreservedly that “no sign will be given to them” (v. 12). Similarly, in the temple precinct, Jesus does not look for God to give a direct answer in the form of a sign or a miracle that, supposedly, would elicit the full support of the divine power. Jesus wants to give a clear answer but does not try to achieve this through a miraculous gesture by God towards him – that would be to tempt God.14 He does not look for miraculous justification of his words and deeds, for God to intervene in history and to show his support for him. On the other hand, he needs to show his opponents that his person and his activity depend on God, on the Father. Accordingly, Jesus chooses a historical figure who may be compared with Jesus himself – John the Baptist, the prophet who signals the irruption of the ἔσχατον.15 Thus, Jesus shifts onto the Baptist the focus of the question he has just been asked. The adversaries of Jesus, when questioning him about his authority, ask by whom or what he has been able to receive such authority – that is, they ask if Jesus has received his authority from heaven and from God, or if it is purely human. Against this background, it is entirely appropriate for Jesus to invite them to fix their attention on the baptism of John and on his legitimacy, with the question: “The baptism of John, did it come from heaven or from humankind?” (Mark 11:30) The question about the authority of Jesus is, in effect, a question about divine support for his words and deeds, and is the question that looms over Jesus throughout his ministry: Does the rabbi from Nazareth act under the 13 This is a recurrent theme in Jesus’s discourses in the fourth gospel: “the Father himself who has sent me continues to give witness on my behalf” (5:37). The origin of Jesus’s authority is rooted in the fact that Jesus says what the Father transmits to him: “all that I say, I say it just as the Father has communicated it to me” (12:50). 14 Likewise, in the episode of the temptations in the desert, Jesus would need to agree to throw himself down from the highest point of the temple. However, this would force God to save him (see Matt 4:5–7 par. Luke 4:9–12). 15 See my contribution, “Why Was Jesus Baptized by John?,” in Jesus: An Uncommon Journey, 143–162 (n. 7). Jesus interprets the baptizing activity of John as a sign of the arrival of God into history. Jesus will be baptized by John and will come into contact with the group around him. However, the Baptist will be his mentor, not his master.

372

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

guidance of God and his Spirit or, on the contrary, do his spectacular deeds have another, darker origin, that needs to be determined, and according to Mark 3:22, denounced as pertaining to the world of the demons? In any case, in the temple controversy (11:27–33) the issue is no longer presented as a contrast between God and Satan, as in 3:22, but between God (“heaven”) and human beings. Significantly, at the end of his life, Jesus recalls the figure of the Baptist to declare that his own ministry has its roots in the divine design, just as the Baptist’s ministry had. The argument is simple: “Everybody was convinced that John really was a prophet” (11:32), and therefore, those who would deny this, the leaders of the people, would not be telling the truth. Just as in the case of John, it is the people who testify that Jesus is a messenger whom God has raised up in their midst. In contrast, their leaders have been unable to recognize this and have accepted neither John nor Jesus as an authorized messenger of God. Thus, as the text explains with some irony, they respond to Jesus by saying, “we do not know (if the baptism of John) was from heaven or from men” (11:33), knowing perfectly well, in fact, that it had come from God. A fortiori, then, they should have known that the words and deeds of Jesus have heavenly support; behind the question addressed to Jesus lies not ignorance but rather an opposition that rejects salvation and a refusal to recognize the divine origin of the authority with which Jesus acts. The leaders of the temple and the teachers of the Law find it impossible to accept that Jesus’s deeds and words have authority and that this authority is bound up with the divine design. What attracts the people to Jesus alienates their leaders. The people accept Jesus’s healings and exorcisms as expressions of his authority over the forces of evil, and his direct form of teaching, without reference to the rabbinic masters, is regarded as an incontrovertible sign of this authority. This same feature leads, in contrast, to distrust and rejection by the leaders. Not knowing how to assess the authority (ἐξουσία) by which Jesus acts, they reject its divine provenance amid accusation and suspicion. They make no pronouncement, because to do so might be viewed as accepting what Jesus has said, and they prefer to leave their opinion open to permanent doubt and to use this doubt as a weapon against him. In any case, Jesus employs the dispute about John the Baptist in order to affirm a parallel between the deeds of John (baptizing and preaching about the coming end of the world) and those of Jesus himself (miracles and preaching about the Kingdom that has already begun to appear). This parallel extends to the prophetic nature of John, whom Jesus declares to have been “a prophet and more than a prophet” (Matt 11:9 par. Luke 7:26), and of Jesus himself, who, like John, is recognized as a “prophet” by the people (Mark 11:32 and par.). Moreover, the people acclaim Jesus as “prophet” on his entry

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

373

to Jerusalem (Matt 21:11)16 and Jesus refers to himself with the proverbial saying about the “prophet” who is despised only by his own people and among those of his own household (Mark 6:4 par. Matt 13:57 par. Luke 4:24 par. John 4:44). Of course, being a prophet implies having a God-given mission, and a true prophet speaks and acts in accordance with the divine design as communicated to him. However, each mission is different because each prophet has his own characteristics. Thus, Jesus’s particular mission is one full of ἐξουσία, a special authority, which, since Jesus’s deeds come from God, must also be attributed to God. Jesus’s authority contrasts with the approach adopted by the teachers of the Law, because he speaks and acts without reference to a human, rabbinic authority but only to that of God and God’s will.17 In fact, two definitive and singular features are combined in the person of Jesus: his authority, received from God and exercised with regard to human beings, and his sonship, which lies behind this authority. Ultimately, then, the authority of Jesus derives from the relationship that, as Son, he has with the Father. Jesus does not refer to himself as the source of his authority, but claims that the authority of his deeds and words is based on his position as son. In short, Jesus’s authority flows from the Father, since his mission is to announce the beginning of God’s rule over this world. Jesus’s status as a unique envoy of God derives from this father-son relationship, a relationship that is the basis of Jesus’s authority, which in turn has its point of reference in the will and design of the Father.18

2. Deeds Full of Power (δύναµις) Jesus’s authority (ἐξουσία) and power (δύναµις) are overlapping phenomena. This has already been seen in the account of the demoniac of Capernaum, where Jesus’s “new doctrine” is presented both in teaching and in the expulsion of “evil spirits” (Mark 1:27). The authority of Jesus extends beyond his 16 Even Simon the Pharisee, despite his doubts, assumes Jesus to be a prophet (see Luke 7:39). Furthermore, allusions to this supposed prophetic role are included in the mocking that accompanies Jesus’s torments before the crucifixion (see Mark 14:65 par. Matt 26:68 par. Luke 22:64). 17 See A. BORRELL, “L’autoritat de Jesús, és l’autoritat de Déu?,” RCT 36/1 (2011) 99– 113. Borrell comments, regarding the dispute about Jesus’s authority in the temple: “Jesús és representat indirectament com algú que parla, ensenya i predica en nom de Déu mateix” (112). 18 It is hardly a coincidence that in the three Synoptic Gospels Jesus’s first controversy in the temple in Jerusalem concerns his authority (Mark 11:27–33 and par.) or that the last one concerns the messiah’s divine sonship (Mark 12:35–37). On the relationship between Jesus and the Father, see my Jesus, 454–461 (n. 7).

374

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

words to the deeds he performs. Among those deeds Jesus himself includes healing and raising from the dead (which ultimately represents an extreme case of healing, see Matt 11:5 par. Luke 7:22). Apart from acts of healing, there are also exorcisms (see Luke 13:32). The healing activity has to be set in the context of “the announcement of the good news” to “the poor” (Matt 11:5 par. Luke 7:22). Regarding the exorcisms, Jesus declares that he performs them by the power / Spirit of God and that they are signs of the coming of God’s Kingdom (Matt 12:28 par. Luke 11:20). Isaianic oracles of messianic and eschatological tone are clearly echoed in the preaching of Jesus, especially in relation to the transformation that takes place in people affected by illness and disability. Jesus regards his ministry as a time of salvation, which finds practical expression in the restoration to health of the chronically sick. The disciples of the imprisoned John the Baptist are sent to Jesus to ask him whether or not he is the messiah. Jesus, in his customary way, does not give a direct answer but refers to his healing of the sick (see Matt 11:2–6 par. Luke 7:18–26). In accordance with the descriptions of the prophet Isaiah, the sick are presented as those whose basic vital functions have been compromised: sight (the blind, Isa 29:18; 35:5), mobility (the lame, 35:6), hearing (the deaf, 29:18; 35:5), life itself (the dead, 26:19).19 Although the texts cited from Isaiah make no reference to lepers, in his response to the Baptist, Jesus includes lepers among those who have been healed, since he does not leave unanswered the requests he receives for healing from people suffering from leprosy, a chronic disease of the skin widespread at the time; note the episodes of the Galilaean leper (see Mark 1:40 par. Matt 8:2) and the ten lepers (Luke 17:13). Apart from the sick, Jesus also mentions the poor, of whom it is said that “they receive the proclamation of good news” (see Isa 61:1; similarly 29:19). Isaiah 61 (vv. 1–2) is also used by Jesus as a programmatic text during his visit to the synagogue of Nazareth, according to Luke 4:16–18. Even if in Isa 61:1–2 (LXX) the world of illness is referred to only indirectly, the text’s mention of the “captives”, the “blind”, and the “oppressed” may be understood against that background. Evidence of this is the fact that in Jesus’s synagogue preaching, as described by Luke (4:21.23–27), he speaks of the son of the widow of Zarephath who was saved from death and of Naaman, the Syrian general, who was cleansed of leprosy. In keeping with this perspective, the sick occupy a central position both in Jesus’s response to John’s envoys, as recorded in Matt 11 par. Luke 7, and in the episode of the synagogue at Nazareth, narrated in Luke 4. The fact that the book of Isaiah provides a backdrop, with allusions to several of its oracles, only serves to emphasize the importance of Jesus’s healing activity in his overall ministry, a 19

Note that this list does not refer explicitly to the mute (see Isa 35:6), who are instead subsumed with the deaf.

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

375

ministry encapsulated in the declaration that “the poor receive the proclamation of good news” (πτωχοὶ εὐαγγελίζονται, Matt 11:5 par. Luke 7:22) and that Jesus has been anointed “to bring good news to the poor” (εὐαγγελίσασθαι πτωχοῖς, Luke 4:18). This good news evidently includes healing of the sick, and the sick of every kind are, accordingly, included in the category of “the poor”. Moreover, Jesus’s healing activity is to be seen in relation to the character of Jesus himself and the level of discipleship that he and his healing activity arouse: in Jesus, the person and the action form an inseparable unity. The episode of the Baptist’s envoys closes with a macarism or beatitude: “Happy the one who will not reject me” (σκανδαλισθῇ ἐν ἐµοί, Matt 11:6 par. Luke 7:23). This pronouncement demonstrates the importance Jesus gives, when asked to explain what he is doing, to his healing activity. It also expresses the difficulties people would have in accepting the idea of a compassionate messiah, when the majority Jewish view (including that held by John’s envoys) was one of a powerful imposer of justice.20 In effect, the use of a beatitude constitutes an invitation to take the side of Jesus’s alternative messianism, in which mighty deeds are directed towards the sick and not towards Israel’s political and religious enemies. Furthermore, according to Jesus, this compassionate version of messianism is supported by Scripture (the texts of the prophet Isaiah) and is, thus, confirmed by God himself.21 However, in the oracles of Isaiah and in the episodes of the Baptist’s envoys and of the synagogue at Nazareth in Luke, one element is remarkably absent – exorcisms. We find no reference at all to the expulsion of demons or to the evil spirits themselves.22 The absence is striking because of the promi20 J. Dupont points out the surprise that would have been felt by John the Baptist, who had been proclaiming a vindicative and punitive judgement, when Jesus spoke to him, indirectly, through the texts of Isaiah, of a compassionate messiah (“L’ambassade de JeanBaptiste [Matthieu 11,2–6; Luc 7,18–23],” NRTh 83 [1961] 805–821, 943, 959). 21 Using thematically-related texts from Isaiah, Jesus succeeds in grounding his healing activity in the divine design and responds affirmatively but indirectly to the question about his messianic identity. See F. BOVON, L’Évangile selon saint Luc (1,1–9,50) (CNT IIIa; Genève, 1991): “(Jésus) répond-il par un oui à la question du Baptiste, sans devenir explicitement personnel” (367). 22 Nor is there any mention of exorcism in a well-known fragment from Qumran (4Q521), which has a clearly messianic and eschatological tone. This text speaks of a new world to come, in which the righteous will be rewarded, the sick will be healed, the dead will be restored to life, the weak will find new strength and the poor will receive good news. Each element of this text may be seen to have a connection with one or more of the oracles of Isaiah: the new world (65:17), the reward of the righteous (60:21), the healing of the sick (61:1), the resurrection of the dead (26:19), the recovery of the weak (66:14), the proclamation of good news to the poor (61:1; 29:19). It is logical, then, to compare this Qumran fragment with the answer Jesus gives to the envoys of John the Baptist when they ask him if he is the messiah.

376

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

nence of demon-expulsion in Jesus’s activity and has been noticed by Luke, who has tried to rectify it by introducing a statement that includes a reference to exorcisms between the question posed by the envoys of John the Baptist (Luke 7:20) and Jesus’s response (v. 22). Luke’s account has Jesus performing a series of healings before the envoys, including the restoration of sight to many and the casting out of “evil spirits” (v. 21).23 It is somewhat disconcerting, however, that after this (v. 22), Jesus does not refer to his activity as an exorcist. By contrast, there is an allusion to this activity at Luke 13:32, when Jesus defiantly responds to the Pharisees’ warning about Antipas’s murderous intentions towards him. Jesus presents his activity in the following way: “Today and tomorrow I cast out demons and cure the sick.”24 In this statement, exorcism is mentioned first, followed by healing. Clearly, demon-expulsion is not a secondary matter in the ministry of Jesus, if that ministry is defined in the most general terms as one of going up to Jerusalem, Jesus’s final destination (v. 33). With regard to Herod, Jesus simply wishes to make it clear that no one will turn him from his purpose and that he will continue doing what he usually does until the moment of his death – namely, freeing those oppressed by evil and illness. Jesus conceives his mission in terms of the restoration of the humanity of people who have suffered physical or spiritual harm. The sick and the demonpossessed are both subject to an evil that has overcome them but that now, with the arrival of the Kingdom, is overturned and defeated. This defeat is evident in the case of the exorcisms, which are, with the healings, signs of the Kingdom employed to dilute the power of evil that oppresses humankind. Accordingly, the emergence of the Kingdom necessarily implies the defeat of the world of the demons. Jesus conceives his healing ministry in eschatological terms: the healing of the sick is bound up with the end of the rule of Satan and his supporters, the evil spirits. If the Kingdom is to advance, Satan must retreat; if the power of the Kingdom is to prevail, the power of evil must diminish. The text that most clearly speaks of this antithesis between the victory of the Kingdom and the defeat of the evil spirits is the well-known 23 Luke is very aware of this aspect of Jesus’s activity, to the extent that in Acts 10:38 it appears as one of his ministry’s defining features: Jesus was someone “who went around doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil”. For Luke the boundary between illness and exorcism is quite porous, as can be seen at Luke 13:16, where the illness of the hunchbacked woman is interpreted as symptomatic of her eighteen-year subjection to Satan. 24 There is no doubt about the authenticity of this declaration. I. H. Marshall notes the Semitic background of the expression “today and yesterday”, indicating “an uncertain, but limited period”. During that period – that is, until the third day when it ends with Jesus’s being put to death – Jesus will continue to develop his activity as exorcist and healer. See The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter, 1978), 571–572.

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

377

logion of Q, already quoted above: “If I cast out demons by the power (literally: ‘by the finger,’ ἐν δακτύλῳ) of God (Luke) / by the Spirit (ἐν πνεύµατι) of God (Matt), then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20 par. Matt 12:28). There is no doubt that this is an authentic saying of Jesus, which forms part of a broader argument about the accusation made by the teachers of the Law.25 Jesus has been accused of conniving with Beelzebul / Satan to cast out demons in the name and by the power of the prince of demons (Mark 3:22 par. Matt 12:24 par. Luke 11:15). The reply to such a grave indictment is not short in coming. Jesus employs an argument ad hominem, which turns the question back on those who have asked it. If it is accepted that Jesus casts out demons by the power of Beelzebul, then one must ask by what power do the followers of those who are accusing Jesus cast them out (see Matt 12:27 par. Luke 11:19). Jesus was not the only one to perform exorcisms. Other rabbis (“your children”) also practised demon-expulsion and, consequently, can or could be accused of conniving with Satan.26 For Jesus, then, the issue is not the act itself of expelling demons, but the meaning and implications of this act. The expulsion of evil spirits is justified in the framework of a world event of the highest importance: the arrival of the Kingdom, which begins with the ministry of Jesus. This arrival does not occur without a victory over the forces of evil that oppress human beings and their world, a victory assured by and grounded in the authority and power of Jesus. The different elements that make up Jesus’s affirmation reflect a remarkable consciousness of his own authority.27 Jesus speaks as “I” and in this way implies that the practice of exorcism is something that he both can do and wants to do. In the reference to the “finger of God” (Luke 11:20), there is an 25

Scholarship is practically unanimous on this point. See J. FREY, “Der historische Jesus und der Christus der Evangelien,” in Der historische Jesus. Tendenzen und Perspektiven der gegenwärtigen Forschung (BZNW 114; eds. J. Schröter and R. Brucker; Berlin/New York, 2002), 273–336, 313, note 203. There is also a general consensus about the priority of the Lucan version over the Matthaean. T. Söding states: “Die Version des Matthäus expliziert die theologische Bedeutung. Sie ist christologisch und pneumatologisch ambitioniert” (Id., Die Verkündigung Jesu – Ereignis und Erinnerung [Freiburg – Basel – Wien, 2011], 437). 26 Jesus emphasizes the point by saying: “they (the followers of the teachers of the Law who are accusing him) will themselves be your judges”. The attitude of the accusers cannot be justified: some of their own disciples are also exorcists and expel demons in God’s name (see Mark 9:38–40 par. Luke 9:49–50). In fact, to perform exorcisms in the name of God was not considered a matter of reproach in Judaism. The Talmud states that the great rabbi Johanan ben Zakai, who died around the year 80 C.E., was well-versed in, among many other things, the subject of evil spirits (b. Sukkah 28a, quoted by Str-B 4: 535). It is not said, however, that he was an exorcist; rather, he is referred to as an expert in this area. 27 The wording is that of J. FREY, “Der historische Jesus und der Christus der Evangelien,” 314 (n. 25): “herausragendes Vollmachtsbewusstsein”.

378

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

allusion to Scripture: when the Egyptian magicians speak of the actions of Moses and Aaron in bringing down plagues upon Egypt, they use the expression “it is the finger of God” (Exod 8:15). Similarly, Jesus’s activity is presented as powerful and grounded in the will of God. In this way, Jesus legitimizes his expulsion of demons. Now, if God is behind Jesus’s exorcisms, then they, with the healings, become a proof and a sign of the saving presence of the Kingdom. The present is a time in which the Kingdom of God is unfolding, in which a new situation emerges, which includes the overthrow of Satan and the dissipation of his strength. That is the understanding Jesus has of his ministry: exorcisms and the Kingdom are interlinked events. And, in fact, the exorcisms, more than anything else, signal a sense that the present is the time of the Kingdom and raise consciousness of the approaching eschatological future.28 Therefore, exorcisms, to the extent that they constitute victories over the evil spirits and their leader, Satan / Beelzebul, are the clearest demonstration and authentication of Jesus’s fundamental message: the Kingdom of God is here, the end of time is about to arrive, a new world has begun.29 This is the message that emerges from the logion on the finger of God. “Finger” (δάκτυλος) and “power” (δύναµις) are, of course, equivalent concepts. Exorcisms are extraordinary events that represent an unleashing of divine power in the world. However, this power is being unleashed through the “I” of Jesus, through his authoritative activity. Jesus is not a simple instrument for divine action, an intermediary, but the authorized depository of God’s power. The exorcisms that Jesus performs come from God, in so far as Jesus has received authority and power to carry them out, but they are also the fruit of Jesus’s own freely-taken decision to perform them. Jesus does not wait for a sign from God before he acts but expels demons with the same authority with which he announces that the Kingdom of God is present among humankind. The central relationship of the exorcisms with the Kingdom and with God’s design is emphasized in Matt 12:28, where the traditional expression “the finger of God” (Luke 11:20) has become “the Spirit of God”. It seems evident that Matthew, or the tradition he relies on, wanted to explain in this way the origin of the power (δύναµις) that was operating in Jesus when he cast out evil spirits.30 The reference to the Spirit of God in Matt 12:28 appears to be related to the quotation of Isa 42:1–4 a few verses before, in Matt 12:18–21. This fulfilment text has been placed between two units, the sabbath healing of a man with a withered hand (12:9–14) and the healing of a blind 28

Again, it is Frey who speaks of “Gegenwartsbewusstsein”: Ibid., 316 (n. 25). DUNN, Jesus and the Spirit, 93 (n. 3). 30 In contrast, as already suggested (see n. 3), Jesus’s authority (ἐξουσία), which obviously includes his power (δύναµις), must be associated with God as Father and with Jesus as Son; see Matt 11:27 par. Luke 10:22: “The Father has placed everything in my hands.” 29

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

379

and dumb demoniac (12:22), which is followed by the Pharisees’ accusation that Jesus has connived with Beelzebul / Satan (v. 24). In order to stress even more the fulfilment of the Isaianic text in Jesus’s activity, the Matthaean account adds that “many people” followed Jesus and that he “cured them all” (12:15). In this way, Jesus’s healings and exorcisms (treated in 12:22 as healings) are interpreted as fulfilling the prophecy in Isaiah. The relationship between the fulfilment citation in Matt 12:18–21 and the corresponding miracles of Jesus (healings and exorcisms) is, however, quite weak, with no explicit mention of miracles in the cited text from Isa 42, which refers to the servant of the Lord, of whom it is said, in a rather general expression, that he will bring justice to the nations and will cause this justice to triumph. Perhaps the restoration of justice has something to do with the fact that the servant will support the bruised reed and the smouldering wick, which are probably metaphors for the poor and the sick who are saved by his action. There is, though, one expression that does clearly link the quotation of Isa 42 with the servant’s performing of miracles: the declaration that the servant will possess the divine Spirit (“I will set my Spirit upon him”, Matt 12:18). It may, then, be affirmed that the basis of Jesus’s power to expel demons is God’s placing of his Spirit upon Jesus, as servant (v. 18) and also as Son (3:16–17). This leads necessarily, then, to an analysis of the episodes of the baptism and the temptations, in both of which the Spirit plays a significant role.

3. Jesus, the Spirit, and Satan Following Jesus’s baptism in the Jordan, as he comes up out of the water, there is a theophany, in which Jesus’s sonship (proclaimed by the heavenly voice) and his possession of the Spirit (indicated by the Spirit coming down from heaven “like a dove”) are intimately connected. As soon as the theophany has ended, the Spirit becomes active, “casting” (ἐκβάλλει) Jesus into the desert – that is to say, the Spirit compels Jesus to confront Satan there (Mark 1:12). A close relationship exists, therefore, between the theophany, in which the Spirit is revealed over Jesus as he emerges from the Jordan, and the cosmic struggle in which Jesus is tempted by Satan. The theophany occurs in a fertile and well-watered place (the bank of the River Jordan), whereas the location of the temptation is barren and dry (the desert). From a narrative viewpoint, there is an evident contrast between the two scenes (Mark 1:10–11 and 12–13), with the various elements held together in a contrastive or complementary relationship: a) “(Jesus) comes up from the water” (v. 10) – “(Jesus) is cast into the desert” (v. 12);

380

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

b) “the Spirit descends from heaven towards Jesus” (v. 10) – “Satan tempts Jesus” and the “wild beasts” surround him (v. 13); c) “the voice from heaven proclaims Jesus’s divine sonship” (v. 11) – “the angels attend to him” (v. 13). The theophany and the temptation are also related by means of the figure of the Spirit, who performs two actions in relation to Jesus: the Spirit descends towards Jesus (and, it may be inferred, settles upon him; see John 1:32) and casts / impels Jesus into the desert.31 The Spirit is, then, the agent, and Jesus is the object of the Spirit’s action, receiving the descending Spirit and driven by the Spirit to a place of testing. Both Matt (4:1) and Luke (4:2) emphasize that the action of the Spirit causes Jesus to go into the desert and to be tempted. Whereas in Mark there is a contrast between the “expulsion” to the desert as the work of the Spirit and the “temptation” as the work of Satan, in Matt and Luke the initiative for both actions comes from the Spirit, a point to be taken up below. First, though, it should be stressed that in the earliest Jewish tradition there is no relationship of this kind between the Spirit of God and the demons,32 even though the texts do contain some episodes of control over or domination of evil spirits. For example, in the book of Tobit, the attack of the demon or evil spirit that had caused the death of Sarah’s husbands is resolved, following the instructions of the angel Raphael, by setting alight on an incense burner “the liver and heart” of the fish that Tobias had caught in the River Tigris. According to the text, the demon “fled in haste to the land of Egypt” (8:1–3), where he is seemingly dwelling. Another relevant account is the one found in 1QapGn 20:12–32, in which, due to Abraham’s entreaty, an evil spirit is sent by God to enter pharaoh so that he cannot have relations with Sarah, whom pharaoh had taken as his wife. Two years later, Abraham prays again and lays his hands on pharaoh, whose country had been stricken by plagues, with the result that the demon is immediately expelled and the plagues brought to an end. Other texts refer to Solomon’s authority over the demons and their banishment, this time to India (according to R. Abba b. Kahana, ca. 310 C.E.).33 Thus, as Josephus notes (Ant. 8:42–49), Solomon’s name was invoked by many exorcists, for by the use of magic formulas and curses he had freed many people from subjection to demons. In the text just cited, Josephus also tells the story of Eleazar, who by using methods attribut-

31 The Spirit sends Jesus into the desert without delay. The verbal form ἐκβάλλει (Mark 1:12), regularly translated as “drive (out)”, is the same one used to indicate Jesus’s expulsion of demons (e.g., Mark 3:22: ἐκβάλλει τὰ δαιµόνια). The nuance in Mark 1:12 is that Jesus was energetically and forcefully “expelled” by the Spirit from the place where he was (the Jordan) into the desert. 32 DUNN, Jesus and the Spirit, ch. 2, note 37 (n. 3). 33 Str-B 4: 534. See Tg. Qoh. 2:5.

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

381

ed to Solomon cast out demons in the presence of Vespasian and his commanders. There is also a report that when R. Simeon b. Yohai (ca. 150 C.E.) was visiting Rome, he freed Caesar’s daughter of a demon.34 However, in this small handful of texts,35 no relationship is found between control of demons – and their eventual expulsion – and the action of the Spirit.36 Demon-expulsion is, rather, a matter of “techniques” and of the personal knowledge of an “expert” who knows what to do in order to drive out an evil spirit. In Jesus’s Jewish context, as we have seen, the Pharisees also had among their ranks people who knew how to cast out demons (Matt 12:27 par. Luke 11:19), and Jesus himself allows exorcisms to be conducted in his name (Mark 9:38 par. Luke 9:49).37 In this Jewish world, there are also figures who are credited not with miracles and even less with exorcisms but with other extraordinary deeds, without the explicit intervention of the Spirit, such as Honi and Hanina b. Dosa.38 The exorcisms of Jesus are quite different, and the effectiveness of his actions against evil spirits is not dependent on the application of a particular technique or on a prior petition to God. Rather, Jesus bases the power of his words towards the evil spirits on his own authority and his own power. Furthermore, as already suggested, there is a close relationship between Jesus’s announcement of a Kingdom that is active here and now and the signs of this Kingdom, that is to say, miracles, which, because of their visibility and their immediate effect, endorse Jesus’s announcement of the Kingdom.39 The exorcisms, in particular, are connected to the Kingdom in its present form: “the 34

Str-B 4: 535. The account is found in the Babylonian Talmud (b. Me‘il. 17b). B. Chilton notes that “there are not many stories of exorcisms in the literature of early Judaism”. See his contribution, “An Exorcism of History: Mark 1:21–28,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (eds. B. Chilton and C. A. Evans; Leiden, 1999), 227, note 26. 36 In the text from the Genesis Apocryphon, the situation is exactly the reverse: the evil spirit is actually sent by God to possess pharaoh. 37 This last text indicates the fame Jesus must have built up as an exorcist, which lasted long after his death, to the extent that seven Jewish exorcists are said to have been doing things in Ephesus similar to those of the Palestinian exorcists referred to in Mark 9:38 (see Acts 19:13–16). 38 Practically contemporaries of Jesus, the activity of both rabbis is characterized by prayer, asking for rain or for the healing of the sick; however, they do not perform any miraculous deeds, which are attributed to them only in later rabbinic tradition, at the time of the Talmud; see MEIER, A Marginal Jew, 2: 581–588 (n. 1). 39 G. Theissen writes: “The combination of eschatology and miracle in Jesus’ activity is distinctive” (The Miracle Stories of the Early Christian Tradition [Edinburgh, 1983], 280). T. Söding accurately notes: “Die Dämonenaustreibungen Jesu (sind) eine Folge der Basileia-Dynamik” (Verkündigung Jesu, 442 [n. 25]). In other words, the expulsions of demons, as a consequence of the announcement of the Kingdom, are signs of the present Kingdom, which will reach its full realization only in the future (see PUIG I TÀRRECH, Jesus, 401–405 [n. 7]). 35

382

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matt 12:28 par. Luke 11:20). The question is whether there is a clear relationship between the power (δύναµις) demonstrated by Jesus in expelling evil spirits and exposing their leader, Satan, and the evident association of the Spirit with Jesus at the beginning of Jesus’s activity – namely, at his baptism and his temptations. In these two foundational episodes, there is a double affirmation, both of Jesus as Son of God and of Jesus as divine envoy / powerful messiah, guided by the Spirit and full of that Spirit when confronting Satan. If this confrontation with the prince of demons was originally associated with the last days, it is highly significant that it took place before Jesus began to preach.40 In other words, when Jesus is baptized and then tempted in the desert, the end-time has already arrived. If Satan’s dominion is over and the ἔσχατον is breaking out, it means “the day of the Lord” is near, a day associated, according to Joel 3:1–5, with the outpouring of the Spirit. An examination is needed, then, of the Spirit’s evident activity at the beginning of Jesus’s ministry and the relationship of this activity with the successive failures of Satan’s temptations and with the subsequent continual overthrow of the evil spirits under Satan’s command, who are expelled by Jesus during the various exorcisms that mark his ministry. Against this background, as it has been told, the baptism of Jesus comes about as a consequence of Jesus’s interpretation of the activity of John the Baptist, which is for Jesus a “sign” of the arrival of the ἔσχατον. When Jesus goes to the Jordan, it is not to repent and to be cleansed of sin or to await the imminent arrival of the last days, but because Jesus understands that the time has arrived for God to reveal himself and to let his forgiveness overflow. This outpouring of grace and blessing is brought to reality in Jesus’s preaching, in his announcement of God’s present kingship, made visible in exorcisms and healings, active and effective signs of this kingship.41 Jesus’s baptism is followed first by a theophany and then by a kind of demonophany, the first as Jesus comes up from the waters of the Jordan and the second when he enters the desert.42 Each of these two episodes may be seen

40 In various Jewish texts, the glorious messiah of the end-time is presented as overcoming and subjecting the evil spirits. For example, the messiah sits on the throne and judges Azazel “in the name of the Lord of the spirits” (1 En 55:4). Similarly, it is said that at this time the messiah will bind Belial (another figure comparable with Satan) and destroy him (T. Zeb. 9). Other texts refer to God’s causing his kingship to shine everywhere, while both “the devil” and the sadness he causes come to an end (As. Mos. 10:1). 41 This perspective is developed at length in my article, “Why Was Jesus Baptized by John?,” cited in n. 15 (n. 7). 42 The demonophany is evident in the Q account of the temptations (Matt 4:1–11 par. Luke 4:1–13), where Satan “approaches” Jesus and speaks to him, “takes him up” onto a mountain, and “takes him up” also to above the highest point of the temple. Leaving aside

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

383

as related to one of the two spiritual worlds that exist beyond the visible space inhabited by humankind: the world of the divine and the world of the demonic. Following a clearly apocalyptic model, Mark has placed the two scenes alongside each other, so that each of them begins with the formula καὶ εὐθύς, “immediately” (Mark 1:10.12), and unfolds against an eschatological and messianic background. Indeed, the theophany commences with an event of cosmic scope: the heavens are torn apart (v. 10); the vault of the heavens opens up in order to allow a vision of the Holy Spirit descending and an audition of a heavenly voice.43 According to J. Gnilka, who mentiones Isa 42:1, this descent of the Spirit upon Jesus is a prelude to his preaching.44 However, from a narrative perspective, its most immediate relationship is with the next episode, in which the Spirit leads Jesus into the desert where he will confront the power of Satan and emerge victorious. The episode of the temptations is, then, clearly eschatological and messianic in character: Jesus does not succumb to the snares of the tempter but, on the contrary, defeats him – and the wild beasts surround him and do not harm him (Mark 1:13). The reference to the wild beasts in Mark 1 cannot be dissociated from Satan’s endeavours to make Jesus yield to temptation and is, in fact, simply another side of the same coin. The wild beasts are also found in a fragment of the Testament of Naphtali (8:4), which presents those who do good as full of the blessings of God and then goes on to add: “the devil will flee from you, the wild beasts will fear you … and the angels will cleave to you”.45 This sequence of events is similar to the one in Mark 1:13, where it is indirectly affirmed that Satan’s temptations have been in vain (see Luke 4:13: the devil “departs” from Jesus afterwards) and that the beasts surround Jesus as a sign of recognition of his victory, a victory clearly endorsed, moreover, in the angels’ ministering to Jesus.46 the origin of Q’s account of the three temptations, it is clear that each of them corresponds to a physical movement by the two characters (Jesus and Satan). 43 In Mark, the vision and audition are exclusive to Jesus. The tearing apart of the vault of the heavens means that the world of God comes into contact with the earth and that the earth benefits from God’s presence. Isa 63:19 (“O that you would tear open the heavens and come down”) is usually cited here but note also Pss 18:10; 144:5, which refer to a storm in connection with God’s descent. 44 See J. GNILKA, Das Evangelium nach Markus (Markus 1–8,26) (EKK 2/I; Zürich/Neukirchen, 1978), 61. 45 See C. FOCANT, L’évangile selon Marc (Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testament 2; Paris, 2004), 74. 46 The majority opinion, which relates the mention of the beasts to the last days (see Isa 11:6–8; 65:25; 2 Bar. 73:6) is, in principle, well-founded; see GNILKA, Markus, I, 67 (n. 44). Jesus overcomes the tempation and so the eschatological time begins; similarly, Lagrange, quoted by FOCANT, Marc, 74 (n. 45), speaks of the messianic times and the last days: “l’entourage paisible des animaux du désert signifie qu’avec Jésus l’homme entre dans l’ère du salut final”. However, this entry into the eschatological period does not have

384

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

In the setting, then, of a place (the desert) and a time (forty days) in which the leading figure of the infernal world (Satan) fails in his temptations and is contrasted with the angels sent by God to minister to Jesus, it is difficult to think that the third set of characters, the wild beasts, have a merely neutral role. Jesus’s time in the desert is characterized by conflict, and against such a background the wild beasts are to be placed alongside Satan as representatives of the evil spirits (see Luke 10:19). The fact that they surround Jesus is a result of the subjection in which they have been placed and reflects the loss of authority suffered by Satan due to the failure of his temptations. The background of Mark 1:13 does not, then, appear to be Isa 11:6–8 (the meekness of wild beasts as an expression of messianic peace) but rather Luke 10:18–19, where, as we will see, Satan’s defeat is coupled with control over snakes and scorpions, the most dangerous creatures of the desert. The last days cannot arrive until the power of evil has been defeated, and this defeat is another aspect of the victory represented by the breaking out of God’s rule on earth in the ministry of Jesus, who is “mighty in deed and word” (Luke 24:19). In this notably apocalyptic context, it is easier to understand the surprising detail furnished by all three synoptics – namely, that Jesus is “driven out” (Mark), “taken up” (Matt), or “led” (Luke) into the desert by the Spirit. The figure of the Spirit is, accordingly, present in three different ways at the beginning of Jesus’s ministry as narrated by the synoptics: in John’s proclamation, in the theophany at the Jordan, and in what Jesus does immediately afterwards. First, John the Baptist announces that Jesus “will baptize you with the Holy Spirit”, a statement that appears in the same form in Mark (1:8) and in Q (where “and with fire” is added; Matt 3:11 par. Luke 3:16).47 The sense that the sentence would, arguably, have had in the context of John’s preaching and in accordance with the common understanding of first-century Judaism, concerns the Spirit as a gift in the last days, associated with salvation or judgement (see Joel 3:1–3 and Isa 4:4, respectively). John attributes this “baptism” or outpouring of the Spirit (which saves) and of fire (which condemns) to “the one who is stronger”, the one who is still to come and who will have a significant role in the ἔσχατον.48 Secondly, the descent of the Spirit onto Jesus, when the heavens have been torn apart, cannot be simply a matter of “historical myth”, as claimed by a bucolic air, but in keeping with the apocalyptic context, occurs in the midst of conflict between the one who dominates this world (the devil) and the one who is trying to free the world of that domination (Jesus). 47 There is a good discussion in MARSHALL, Luke, 146–148 (n. 24). 48 Note that the metaphor of the wheat stored in the granary and the chaff burned in the fire (Matt 3:12 par. Luke 3:17) is related to saving “baptism” (outpouring of the Spirit) and “baptism” of tribulation (outpouring of fire). At Qumran, in contrast, the task of judgement is associated with God (see 1QS 4:20), not with the messiah or anointed one.

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

385

Strauss and many who have followed him.49 The starting-point of the account is a vision-audition that Jesus would probably have communicated, and the arguments to deny its reality or to categorize it in some other way are not convincing.50 However, setting aside development of the account over time from a core, it does not have to be understood in terms of Jesus’s now becoming a Son or receiving the Spirit he did not have before, and indeed the text offers no support for such an interpretation.51 Rather, the vision-audition is a sign of God’s conformity with, and his full support of, Jesus’s decision to leave Nazareth and to begin his mission in the Judean desert, the place where the Kingdom of God had already started to be proclaimed by an authentic prophet, John the Baptist. According to Mark 1:10–11, Jesus “saw” and “heard” a triple sign: the opening heavens, the descending dove, and the voice speaking from heaven. In other words, Jesus receives a personal divine communication that gives him assurance about three matters directly associated with him: the coming of the end-time (the opened heavens is a sign that the Kingdom of God – that is, God’s final manifestation – has already begun), the sending of Jesus as messiah, or one anointed by the Spirit, to the poor and the sick (the descent of the Spirit indicates that Jesus’s mission has a specific temporal location and that it will be full of δύναµις or power to overcome evil), and the identification of Jesus as the beloved Son of the Father (the voice from the heavens is a declaration of the sonship of Jesus and correspondingly confers on him, as Son, the authority or ἐξουσία pertaining to the Father).52 The theophany at the Jordan is focused, then, less on the person of Jesus and much more on his mission. The account has to do with who Jesus is, but it primarily concerns his mission to announce the Kingdom, a mission accomplished by the strength of one who possesses the Spirit and by the authority of one who is the beloved Son. This is why Jesus’s ministry begins with the theophany at the Jordan. 49

Cited by DUNN, Jesus remembered, 374, note 169 (n. 11). Accordingly, the episode should not be reduced to Jesus’s replacement of fear and judgement in the Baptist’s message with the certainty of salvation, a position represented by Theissen (THEISSEN and MERZ, Historical Jesus, 211–212 [n. 11]); for various perspectives, see Dunn, Jesus remembered, 375, note 171 (n. 11). 51 Dunn writes: “The thought is of Jesus as Spirit-endowed and son of God from the beginning – whether the beginning of his mission, or the beginning of his life” (DUNN, Jesus remembered, 377 [n. 11]). In fact, neither Matt nor Luke has any difficulty in adopting the second of the two possibilities that Dunn proposes (see Matt 1:20 and Luke 1:35). As for Mark, it is obvious that the ‘life’ of Jesus begins with his baptism in the Jordan (Mark 1:9). 52 The explicit formulation of this is seen in connection with the so-called prayer of exultation, in the very middle of Jesus’s public ministry. According to Q, Jesus declares in the first person: “The Father has placed everything in my hands” (Matt 11:27 par. Luke 10:22). 50

386

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

Thirdly, it is clear that the first “act” in that ministry is set in the desert and that Jesus’s interlocutor is not a human being but the opponent par excellence, the prince of demons, characterized as “strong” by Jesus himself (Mark 3:27 par. Matt 12:29 par. Luke 11:21–22). In the overall context of Jesus’s ministry, the temptations represent, as J. Gnilka affirms, a matter of principle.53 The Kingdom’s arrival begins with a struggle between Jesus and Satan, the leader of the evil spirits, which is not an eschatological battle or war in the style of those found in the texts from Qumran but rather a challenge between tempter and tempted, a spiritual confrontation, which Q sets out in three brief episodes. The praying and fasting common to anyone who withdraws into solitude is, evidently, only of secondary importance; Mark does not mention it at all and Matt (4:2) and Luke (4:2) do so just once. The point of the episode is, rather, Satan’s insidious insistence and Jesus’s unbreakable resistance. Curiously, two of the three temptations recounted in the Q account are to do with the δύναµις of Jesus and with his capacity to do extraordinary things (changing stones into bread or turning a fatal fall into an act of salvation). Thus, Satan seems to know that Jesus is, in Luke’s term, “full of the Holy Spirit” (Luke 4:1) and that he can perform miracles. If Jesus had accepted Satan’s suggestion, however, the miracles would always have been to his own advantage (feeding himself in the middle of the desert and demonstrating his power before the people in Jerusalem). It is the Spirit, though, who has driven Jesus into the desert (see Mark 1:11; Matt 4:1; Luke 4:1) and so has placed him at the mercy of Satan and his temptations. The aim, then, is clear for Jesus: to achieve victory (his first and most decisive!) over the tempter.54 Jesus’s mission has to begin with his dominion over Satan. Unable to make Jesus bend or to turn him from his path, Satan has to withdraw and to leave the way open for Jesus to deploy his δύναµις in his ministry without impediment (see Luke 4:13) until the time of the passion, in which Satan will have his moment (see Luke 22:3), “the hour of the power of darkness” (Luke 22:53). From a different perspective, Satan’s inability to overcome Jesus and Jesus’s triumph over the tempter converts the episode of the temptations into that of Jesus’s first and greatest exorcism. In the rest of Jesus’s ministry, Satan himself will not appear but only his followers, the evil spirits, and then only to be cast out by the δύναµις of Jesus, acting with God’s own power.

53 GNILKA, Markus, I, 68 (n. 44), underlines that Jesus may now start bringing about his mission: to bind the strong one (3:27) and proclaim the arrival of the Kingdom of God. 54 Note that the desert sojourns of other figures from Israel’s history have different motivations: Moses, for example, goes up the mountain forty days in order to receive the tablets of the Law (Exod 34:28), and Josephus goes into the desert three years to lead a life of penance as a disciple of Banus (Vita 11–12). In no such account, however, is a struggle with Satan to be found.

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

387

The Spirit has “driven” Jesus into the desert (Mark 1:12) in order for Satan to be overcome and to begin in this way an ongoing defeat of evil and the Evil One.55 The Spirit that is in Jesus sustains his δύναµις, which overcomes evil spirits of every kind, beginning with the head of them all. Satan’s defeat is represented above all in Jesus’s vision of his fall: “I saw Satan falling from the heavens like lightning.” (Luke 10:18) This vision has been inserted by Luke within the episode of the seventy-two’s return from mission (10:17–20) and is probably to be connected with the following verse, 19, which speaks of the disciples’ victory over “all the enemy’s power”,56 a victory also represented by Jesus’s own ministry, since his healings and exorcisms ultimately constitute a repeated suppression of the power of the prince of demons. The vision in Luke 10:18 indicates that Satan has lost the place he had occupied in the intermediate heavens, where he had sat enthroned.57 Numerous intertestamental texts refer to the fall from heaven of enthroned figures, such as the giants,58 and above all Isa 14:12 (“How have you fallen from heaven, shining star of the morning!”), referring originally to the king of Babylon, is employed in reference to the fallen angels and specifically Satan in Jewish apocalyptic traditions of the second to first centuries B.C.59 This text is especially relevant to Luke 10:18, not only because of the motif of the fall from heaven but also because of the accompanying celestial image: a star (Isa 14), a flash of lightning (Luke 10). In both cases, the allusion is to an action that is sudden and complete, with the fall represented as a definitive and irreversible fact: Satan has fallen from his throne, his status snatched away, never to be recovered. It seems, then, that there is an additional stage between the episode of the temptations – where Satan does not succeed but where it is not said that he has therefore lost his status – and the vision of Satan’s fall, with which he is clearly dethroned. However, if both texts are taken carefully into account, it becomes clear that the content of the vision is a consequence of Satan´s failure of the temptations. Jesus, impelled 55 J. Marcus writes: “After his baptism, [Jesus] became convinced of Satan’s deposition from power, and saw his own exorcisms as evidence for the progressive overthrow of the Satanic regime” (“The Beelzebul Controversy and the Eschatologies of Jesus,” in Authenticating the Activities of Jesus, 247–277, 274 [n. 35]). 56 Such a relationship may not be original, but the two verses should probably be traced to Jesus himself. On v. 19 (based on Ps 91:13 and Deut 8:15), see DUNN, Jesus and the Spirit, 139–140 (n. 3). On v. 18, see my article, “Lc 10,18: La visió de la caiguda de Satanàs,” RCT 3/2 (1978), 217–243. 57 Accordingly, in 2 En. Satan dwells, with the giants, in the fifth heaven, not so far from God (in the seventh heaven). From there, God casts him out, with his angels (29:4–5). 58 Tg. Yer. I Gn 6:4a; Gen. Rab. 26:7; Pirqe R. El. 22 (“The angels that fell from his holy place, from the heavens”); L.A.E.16:1. In the New Testament, too, there are references to the fall of the angels, in particular of Satan: 2 Pet 2:4; Rev 12; 19:20; 20:10. 59 The expression “morning star” is rendered in the Vulgate by lucifer, “bearer of light.”

388

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

by the Spirit, has begun his ministry by challenging the devil, Satan, and has overcome him. Satan has tempted Jesus but has not made him fall. Now, instead, the one who will fall is the one who wanted the other to fall. Satan’s sudden “fall” from heaven is equivalent to his “expulsion”. If Jesus, the Son, sustained by the Spirit, has not succumbed, then Satan has been defeated and Jesus’s vision is clear confirmation of this defeat. Thus, the vision of Satan’s fall helps clarify the scope of what happened in the desert when Jesus resisted temptation: Satan has lost the power he once possessed and the Kingdom has started to manifest itself on earth in real events. The “strong” one has been confronted by another, who is “stronger”. In the words of the Assumption of Moses (first century B.C.), “the devil will come to an end and sadness will be no more” (10:1).60 The fall and expulsion of Satan has an evident relationship with Jesus’s expulsion of evil spirits. In the episode of the temptations, as already seen, the “wild beasts” that surround Jesus (Mark 1:13) submit themselves to him, having come under the authority of his δύναµις. These beasts have to follow in Satan’s footsteps when he is unable successfully to tempt Jesus. Here, in Luke 10:19, something similar occurs. The “power of the enemy” (δύναµις τοῦ ἐχθροῦ) – that is, of Satan and the evil spirits – is contrasted with another power, deriving from the ἐξουσία that Jesus has given to his disciples. This is a “delegated power”, which the disciples employ during their mission, in the absence of Jesus, over dangerous animals (snakes and scorpions), representatives of evil spirits.61 The contents of Mark 1:13 and Luke 10:18–19 thus appear to be analogous in relation to Jesus’s defeat of Satan and Satan’s loss of power in heaven, accompanied by the expulsion of evil spirits, as represented by wild beasts (Mark) or venomous creatures (Luke), in the framework of the arrival of the Kingdom of God. An eschatological perspective informs both the account of Jesus’s temptation and his vision of Satan’s fall.62 At this point, it is possible to see a relationship between Jesus, the Spirit, and Satan and the evil spirits that depend on him. This relationship is evidenced both in the interconnected foundational events of the theophany at the 60 In several texts this end is achieved by the messiah: 1 En. 54:4–5; 55:4; 90:21–24; T. Lev. 18. 61 “The evil spirits in this passage are described in terms of serpents and scorpions … The enemy is of course Satan himself” (MARSHALL, Luke, 429 [n. 24]). For serpents and scorpions as representatives of evil spirits, see L.A.E. 37–39; Sipre Deut 20:4; note also Mark 16:17–18. 62 The Spirit is not present in Luke 10:17–20 but is mentioned by Luke at 10:21 (Jesus is “full of the Holy Spirit”) after the return of the seventy-two and Jesus’s exaltation of his Father in heaven. The association of the joy of the Spirit and the expulsion of the spirits “by the power of your name” (the name of Jesus, v. 17) should be regarded as part of the Lucan redaction.

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

389

Jordan and the temptations, and to a lesser degree, in another foundational episode, the vision of Satan’s fall. That vision and the temptations have in effect a complementary relationship and should, it seems, be located at the beginning of Jesus’s ministry, where the Spirit appears three times (Mark 1:8, 10, 12), informing our interpretation of that ministry. The Spirit’s presence in Jesus, as clearly indicated by the Spirit’s descent from the heavens “like a dove”, represents not only the will of God but also Jesus’s identity as Son of God. Accordingly, Jesus’s ministry is determined by his possession of God’s Spirit, by his sonship, and ultimately, by God’s design. Jesus’s perception of his mission in relation to the Spirit is demonstrated in the logion on blasphemy against the Spirit, which cannot be pardoned. In contrast, “every sin and every blasphemy” (Mark 3:28), or even a word “against the Son of Man” (Matt 12:32 par. Luke 12:10), can be pardoned.63 Leaving aside the issue of the earliest form of the logion, all versions (including Did. 11:7 and Gos. Thom. 44)64 agree that a sin against the Spirit cannot be pardoned. Sinning against the Spirit is a grave matter because Jesus possesses this Spirit as a consequence and result of God’s design. Hence, sin against the Spirit is committed by those who would deny the presence of the Holy Spirit in Jesus and instead, accuse him of being possessed by Beelzebul / Satan, the prince of demons, and of being in collusion with him (3:22). Those who claim this are committing blasphemy, since they deny the power of the Spirit in Jesus and make him out to be an ally of Satan, a false prophet who deceives people with presumed exorcisms and whose expulsions of demons are totally fraudulent. This is to deny that Jesus’s δύναµις is divine and that his ἐξουσία comes from God. From this perspective, sin against the Spirit is equally sin against the Son and against the Father. The presence of the Spirit in Jesus is a determinative element of his mission, the basis of his δύναµις.

4. Conclusions 1. Jesus’s public activity begins with two closely-related events: the theophany at the river Jordan and the “demonophany” in the desert. In these events, it is clear that Jesus is in possession of God’s Spirit, who “descends upon him” (Mark 1:10) and immediately afterwards “drives” him into the 63 On the relationship among the different versions of the logion, see BOVON, Luc (9,51–14,35), 234–235 (n. 21). 64 In Gos. Thom., however, the pronouncement is trinitarian in nature: blasphemy “against the Father” and “against the Son”, but not “against the Spirit”, can be pardoned. It is apparent that this reflects a subsequent development of Jesus’s original logion; in fact, blasphemy against the Spirit is also blasphemy against the Father and against the Son.

390

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

desert (v. 12), not so that Jesus will fall into Satan’s hands but so that Satan will be defeated, following the failure of the temptations. The success of Jesus over the prince of evil is figuratively conveyed by the image of the wild beasts that submissively surround him (v. 13), representing the evil spirits, which follow Satan but are now subject to Jesus. The snares of the enemy, in the shape of temptation or attempted assault, fail, and as proof of this, God’s angelic messengers minister to Jesus after Satan has vainly endeavoured to turn him aside from his chosen course. In the desert, a clear contrast appears between the divine world and the infernal one: on the one side, the (Holy) Spirit and the angels that assist Jesus, and on the other, Satan, who tempts Jesus, and the (evil) spirits, who submit themselves to Jesus. All this constitutes in effect a single foundational event consisting of two episodes: the theophany, including the descent of the Spirit, and the temptations in the desert, including Satan’s attack. 2. In these early stages of the life of Jesus, there are two active presences: that of the Spirit, who is in Jesus, and that of Satan, who tempts him. Both spirits, the Holy Spirit and the prince of evil, move in relationship to Jesus: the former descending upon him and driving him out into the wilderness, and the latter repeatedly tempting him during his forty days of solitude. Moreover, at the Jordan, Jesus “sees” the Spirit descending from heaven “like a dove” (Mark 1:10) and also in an unspecified place “sees” Satan falling from heaven “like lightning” (Luke 10:18). These two visions – the only ones attributed to Jesus in the Gospels – are intimately bound together, so that they come to be like two sides of the same coin. The visions are set against a cosmic horizon, characterized successively by Satan’s challenge (unsuccessfully tempting Jesus in the desert, while the evil spirits, the “wild beasts”, submit themselves to him) and by Jesus’s challenge (in his ministry successfully casting out evil spirits, who follow Satan). 3. Jesus’s control over evil spirits becomes one of the most notable and particular characteristics of his activity. Some contemporary rabbis also tried to cast out spirits of evil and sickness (see Matt 12:27 par. Luke 11:19), but such exorcisms are not usual in the Judaism of the period, while they are in the case of Jesus, who includes them as one of his main activities (see Luke 13:32). Behind these exorcisms – and, it may be added, behind Jesus’s resistance to the temptations with which Satan vainly tests him in the desert – there is a δύναµις, a divine strength deriving from the presence of the Holy Spirit. It would appear, then, that Jesus’s activity as exorcist is prefigured by the episode of the temptations, in which the defeat of Satan and the evil spirits (the “wild beasts”) occurs in parallel with the victory of Jesus, who has entered into temptation under the guidance of – and, therefore, sustained by – the Spirit. 4. The episode of the temptations is, then, closely connected with Jesus’s activity as exorcist and ought not be interpreted independently of it. In fact,

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

391

there are undeniable historical references to the “power” of Jesus both in the New Testament (e.g., Mark 1:27; 2:12) and elsewhere. Josephus uses the neutral term “surprising acts” (Ant. 18:63–64) when writing of the miracles of Jesus, although the Talmud presents Jesus negatively, as a “magician” undeserving of any type of recognition (b. Sanh. 43a; 107b). Jesus’s opponents even say that he is “possessed by demons” (Mark 3:22). In the second century, the Greek philosopher Celsus restates the same point of view (Celsus 1:68). Jesus himself does not respond directly and overtly to such attacks nor does he defend himself by adducing the constant presence of the Spirit in him. Jesus is a charismatic, but of greater importance than the extraordinary gifts he possesses is the permanent presence of the Spirit in him, a Spirit with which Jesus can confront Satan and Satan’s actions and can bring about the defeat of Satan’s followers, the evil spirits. Anointed by the Spirit and endowed with δύναµις, Jesus is able to heal “all who were oppressed by the devil” (Acts 10:38). 5. Jesus never affirms directly that he is the Son of God (Mark 14:61–62 is of editorial origin), and the tradition only once attributes this status to him in absolute terms (“the Son”), so this text (Matt 11:27 par. Luke 10:22) is extremely unusual in the Synoptic Gospels. But Jesus positions himself in vital relationship with God, both calling on him as “Father” (Mark 14:36, for example) and referring to him in this way. In the “theology” of Jesus, God maintains an unsurpassable primacy. Neither does Jesus explicitly declare that he possesses the Spirit (the reference in Matt 12:28 appears to be secondary). However, Mark 3:28–29 par. Matt 12:31–32 par. Luke 12:10, which gives greatest importance to blasphemy against the Spirit, most probably results from consciousness that Jesus’s actions against evil spirits depend on a δύναµις that derives from the Holy Spirit. This text is in essence analogous to the beatitude addressed to those who are not scandalized by Jesus (Matt 11:6 par. Luke 7:23). To deny the Spirit is to deny that the Spirit acts in Jesus, and to deny Jesus is to deny that Jesus has been sent by God. The two denials match one another. 6. Exorcisms are not explicitly mentioned in Jesus’s response to the envoys of John the Baptist (see Matt 11:2–6 par. Luke 7:18–23), even though in Jesus’s ministry at least five accounts of demon-expulsion may be identified, three inside the territory of Israel (Capernaum and Galilee) and two outside (Gerasa in the Decapolis and the border of Tyre and Sidon in Phoenicia), to which may be added notices such as the one about Mary Magdalene (Luke 8:2). However, as we have noted, Jesus answers John’s disciples with a macarism: “Happy the one who will not reject (more literally: be scandalized by) me” (Matt 11:6 par. Luke 7:23). This use of a beatitude appears to constitute an invitation to take part in a more diverse form of messianism, as represented by Jesus, in which the messiah’s mighty deeds are directed towards the sick rather than Israel’s political and religious enemies, a compassionate

392

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

messianism, which is only achieved through the δύναµις that is present in Jesus’s healings and exorcisms. 7. Satan’s sudden fall from heaven, reported by Jesus in the first person (“I saw”, Luke 10:18), signals the arrival of the Kingdom, and the sign that God’s rule is underway in the ministry of Jesus is provided by his exorcisms and healings, which attest to Satan’s dethronement and the cessation of his power. Again in the first person, Jesus associates the Kingdom’s arrival with the expulsion of evil spirits: “If I cast out demons by the power (literally: “finger”) of God (Luke) / by the Spirit of God (Matt), then the Kingdom of God has come upon you” (Luke 11:20 par. Matt 12:28). The introduction, in Matt, of the term “Spirit” instead of “finger”, reflects the relationship between the δύναµις that is present in Jesus’s exorcisms and its source – namely, the active presence in him of the Spirit. The signs of the Kingdom (exorcisms and healings) are bound up with the announcement of good news to the poor in Jesus’s reply to John the Baptist’s envoys (Matt 11:2–6 par. Luke 7:18–23) and with the presence of the Spirit in Jesus (as clearly seen in the episode of the synagogue at Nazareth in Luke 4:18–19, quoting Isa 61:1–2). In the Kingdom announced by Jesus, which has now begun to be present and active, the Spirit’s presence is demonstrated by the casting out of evil spirits. Satan’s defeat at the Jordan and his fall from heaven are keys to the interpretation of Jesus’s activity as exorcist, which is directly bound up with the arrival of the Kingdom and the beginning of God’s rule. 8. Both Matt (12:15b–32) and Luke (11:14–26) reflect in their accounts the antithetic relationship between the Holy Spirit, source of Jesus’s δύναµις, and the evil spirit par excellence, Satan-Beelzebul, the prince of demons, whose δύναµις has been brought to an end. The expulsion of demons is a consequence of the removal of this power from Satan (Luke 10:17–20), so that even the seventy-two disciples sent out on mission, as well as the twelve (Mark 3:15; 6:7, 13; 16:17–18; Matt 10:1 par. Luke 9:1; Matt 10:8), share in the δύναµις of Jesus, their master. In Matthew, Jesus, as Davidic messiah (12:23), has God’s Spirit (v. 18, which quotes Isa 42:1, quoted also at 3:17!) and casts out demons (v. 24). Similarly, in Luke, the Spirit rests on Jesus, the anointed one (4:18, quoting Isa 61:1–2), who performs mighty deeds (v. 23), the first of which is the expulsion of the demon that had taken possession of a man from Capernaum. To sum up, Jesus’s public activity begins with two closely related events: the theophany at the river Jordan and the “demonophany” in the desert along with the temptations. These two events clearly reflect Jesus’s possession of God’s Spirit, which “descends upon him” (Mark 1:10) and immediately “drives” him into the desert (v. 12). There, the wild beasts surround him in submission (v. 13). The wild beasts represent the evil spirits, who follow Satan but who are now subject to Jesus. Additionally, Jesus, who “sees” the Spirit at the Jordan, also “sees” Satan falling from the heavens “like light-

Holy Spirit and Evil Spirits in the Ministry of Jesus

393

ning” (Luke 10:18). The cosmic background of these two visions is characterized by Satan’s challenging of Jesus and Jesus’s response to his challenges. The exorcisms constitute additional successful responses to Satan’s challenges by Jesus, who possesses a δύναµις, a divine power that derives from the Holy Spirit’s presence in him. Accordingly, the temptations should not be interpreted independently of Jesus’s activity as exorcist. Furthermore, the logion concerning blasphemy against the Spirit (Mark 3:28–29 and par.) has in its background an awareness that Jesus’s action against evil spirits is a consequence of the δύναµις that derives from the Holy Spirit. To deny the Spirit is to deny that the Spirit is active in Jesus, and to deny Jesus is to deny that he has been sent by God. The two denials, thus, match one another. Satan’s defeat in the desert and his fall from heaven are keys to the interpretation of Jesus’s activity as exorcist, which is directly related to the arrival of the Kingdom and the beginning of God’s rule (see Luke 11:20 par. Matt 12:28).65

65 The English version of this text has been prepared by Dr. J. F. Elwolde of the Theological Faculty of Catalonia (Barcelona) and former United Bible Societies Translation Consultant.

The Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of Mark Joel Marcus At first glance, the Gospel of Mark seems like an unpromising place for investigating the question of New Testament ecclesiology and pneumatology. There are no references in Mark to the ἐκκλησία (“church”), in contrast to the two in Matthew, and only three or four to the Holy Spirit: 1:10, 12: Jesus receives the Spirit at his baptism, and it then drives him out to the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. 13:11: Jesus’ disciples, in the coming time of persecution, are not to premeditate their answers when questioned by civil and religious authorities; τὸ πνεῦµα (“the Spirit”) will give them the words to say. Also perhaps 14:38: “The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”1 Here, however, it is not entirely clear that the reference is to the Holy Spirit as opposed to the human one.2

Much more common in Mark are the references to the unclean spirits, Jesus’ great foes in this Gospel. And, indeed, the opposition between the unclean spirits and the Holy Spirit is an important feature of Mark’s unveiling of the “spirit” theme in his Gospel: 1:10: Jesus receives the Spirit at his baptism. 1:12–13: the Spirit he has just received drives him out to the desert, the traditional abode of evil spirits, there to combat the evilest spirit of all, Satan. 1:21–28: Apparently having prevailed in this combat, he then demonstrates it by casting out an unclean spirit in his stage-setting first act of public ministry in the synagogue at Capernaum.3

1 Unless otherwise noted, I use the translation of Mark from J. MARCUS, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AYB 27/27A; New Haven and London, 2000–2009). In the commentary on this verse, however, I do not capitalize “spirit” in my translation, as I have done here. 2 On these two spirits, see A. E. SEKKI, The Meaning of Ruah at Qumran (SBLDS 110; Atlanta, 1989). 3 See J. P. MEIER, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (ABRL; New Haven, 1991), 1.409 on the way in which the author of each Gospel places a programmatic passage at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry: this exorcism in Mark, the Sermon on the

396

Joel Marcus

One significant aspect of the holiness of the Holy Spirit for Mark, then, is that it is the effective antagonist of the unclean spirits, the demonic powers that previous to Jesus’ advent, in Mark’s apocalyptic worldview, had control of this world. But despite the rarity of the term πνεῦµα used in a positive sense and the total dearth of usages of the term ἐκκλησία, the interrelated realities represented by these terms are very much at home in the Markan narrative and, one would suppose, in the Markan world. In staking this claim, however, I am entering into controversial territory, since I am challenging one of the most influential streams of Markan interpretation in the past half-century: the work of Norman Perrin, his students, and other scholars associated with them.4

1. The Challenge of the Perrin School If one of the main purposes of the Spirit in classical Christian theology is to make Jesus again present to the church after his earthly lifetime (see John 14:15–20, etc.), the Perrin school would deny that this purpose is actually congruent with the Markan narrative. Dominic Crossan, for example, in an essay pointedly entitled “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord”, follows the standard Perrin school line that Mark 16:7, “There [in Galilee] you will see him, just as he said to you”, refers not to the resurrection of Jesus but to his parousia. Jesus, then, is experienced not as a present Lord by the Markan community but as an absent one – a position supported by the angel’s statement in 16:5, “He is not here”, which according to Crossan “underlines the negativity of [Jesus’] presence.”5 The entire Markan present, then, is the time of Jesus’ absence; the reunion with Jesus spoken of in 16:7, and the restoration of his lost presence, will occur only at the parousia. Similarly, Vernon Robbins, in Mount in Matthew, the inaugural sermon in Nazareth in Luke, and the wedding at Cana in John. 4 The most in-depth study of this school of thought known to me is W. O. SEAL, “The Parousia in Mark: A Debate with Norman Perrin and His ‘School’” (diss unpub : Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York, 1983). See also W. O. SEAL, “Norman Perrin and His ‘School’: Retracing a Pilgrimmage,” JSNT 20 (1984), 87–107. John Dominic Crossan, whose work I discuss in the next section, was not a student of Perrin’s, but the work to which I refer appeared in a book edited and dominated by Perrin students and characterized by a high degree of “unanimity in methodology and conclusions” (SEAL, “Norman Perrin and His School,” 89). 5 J. D. CROSSAN, “Empty Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1–8),” in The Passion in Mark: Studies on Mark 14–16 (ed. W. Kelber; Philadelphia, 1976), 148. The idea that 16:7 is a reference to the parousia goes back to E. LOHMEYER, Galiläa und Jerusalem (FRLANT 52; Göttingen, 1936).

The Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of Mark

397

the same book of Perrin-school essays, points to 14:7, “you do not always have me [with you]”, which according to him “asserts the absence of Jesus from the [Markan] community”.6 Although Crossan and Robbins do not emphasize it, this position might also garner support from the prophecy of the “taking away” of the Bridegroom, i.e., Jesus, in 2:20; when that happens, “then they will fast on that day”. But in order to experience the hoped-for end of this absence through an eschatological reunion with Jesus, one must endure to the end; only the one who does so will be saved (cf. 13:13b). The little band of the saved, however, apparently will not include the Twelve, according to Perrin and his school. They, rather, have committed the sin of apostasy, fleeing when Jesus is arrrested and, in the person of Peter, denying any association with him (14:50–52, 66–72).7 Peter even uses the sort of adjuration formula that later persecutors such as Pliny demanded of those attempting to prove they were not Christians.8 Rather than the Twelve, the true representatives of discipleship for Mark are, according to Mary Ann Tolbert, the usually anonymous and often female minor characters of great faith such as the Syrophoenician woman (7:24–30), the woman with the flow of blood (5:24–30), and the woman who anoints Jesus (14:3–9).9 This view, like most New Testament interpretations worth their salt, was a theologically interested one, one that in many ways reflected the socially liberal atmosphere of much North American theological education at the time.10 Peter and the “official” disciples represented the conservative, mainline church, and their exposure as apostates discredited that church and point-

6

V. K. ROBBINS, “Last Meal: Preparation, Betrayal, and Absence (Mark 14:12–25),” in The Passion in Mark, 35–36 (n. 5). 7 See T. J. WEEDEN, “The Heresy That Necessitated Mark’s Gospel,” in The Interpretation of Mark (ed. W. Telford; 1968; repr., Studies in New Testament Interpretation; Philadelphia, 1995), 91; K. E. DEWEY, “Peter’s Curse and Cursed Peter (Mark 14:53–54, 66– 72),” in The Passion in Mark, 96–114 (n. 5) and M. A. TOLBERT, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Philadelphia, 1989), 218. 8 Letters, 10.96. See especially the parallel between Pliny’s qui negabant esse se Christianos aut fuisse ... praeterea male dicerent Christo (“who denied that they were or had ever been Christians ... and then cursed Christ”) and Peter’s damning confessions in 14:68, where he denies that he was with Jesus, and 14:71, where he calls down curses (apparently on Jesus) and swears, “I don’t know this man that you’re talking about!” Pliny’s letter, however, goes unmentioned in the treatment of Mark 14:66–71 by Weeden, Dewey, and Tolbert (see previous note) – probably a reflection of the “literary” approach of the Perrin school. 9 See TOLBERT, Sowing the Gospel (n. 7). 10 W. O. SEAL, “Norman Perrin and His School,” 94–99 (n. 4) dates the heyday of the Perrin school’s work on Mark to 1969–76.

398

Joel Marcus

ed to the need for reformation by the “little people”.11 This is a view that is remarkably resilient; features of it have recently been resuscitated by my friend Tobias Nicklas in an article that used the negative features of the Twelve, headed by Peter, as a way of critiquing reactionary circles within the Roman Catholic Church.12

2. The Reunion with the Disciples We may applaud such theological passion and concern for the way in which things are going for the church in the world. At the same time, there are exegetical problems with the Perrin school position, and these problems also point to theologically important issues. It may legitimately be asked, for example, whether Jesus is really portrayed as being absent from the Markan community. Furthermore, is Mark’s message really an absolute rejection of Peter and the Twelve in favor of the minor characters of great faith? To take the second matter first, it is certainly true that Peter and the Twelve make huge mistakes, and even seem to become more and more dense as the narrative proceeds. But there are several mitigating factors in the narrative’s portrait of them. First of all, as Suzanne Henderson has shown in a recent monograph, the disciples do follow Jesus, and their initial act of following is clearly meant to be paradigmatic for later disciples who will come along in their wake: Jesus calls them, and they leave everything to comply with his imperious order (1:16–20).13 In 3:13, similarly, Jesus calls to himself “those whom he himself wanted, and they came away to him” (προσκαλεῖται οὓς ἤθελεν αὐτός, καὶ ἀπῆλθον πρὸς αὐτόν). Surely this is meant to be paradigmatic for all disciples. Are these ones whom Jesus himself wanted destined to be left out in the cold in the end? After the initial act of calling, the Markan Jesus singles out a group of twelve for special treatment (3:14–15). And the purpose for which he calls this group of twelve is not, contra the Perrin school, to serve as a negative example of “how not to do it”, but ἵνα ὦσιν µετ’ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἵνα ἀποστέλλῃ αὐτούς: in order that

11

For this phrase, see D. M. RHOADS and D. MICHIE, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel (Philadelphia, 1982), 128–36. Perhaps the most negative characterization of the Twelve is from T. J. WEEDEN, “Heresy,” (n. 7): the Twelve are the exponents of a heresy, and they represent the enemies of the Markan community. 12 T. NICKLAS, “Matthäus liest Markus. Die Figur des Petrus,” in Matthew as a Reader of Mark (Leuven, 2015). 13 S. HENDERSON, Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of Mark (SNTSMS 135; Cambridge, 2006).

The Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of Mark

399

they might be with him, and that he might send them out, in order to preach and cast out demons.14 And these Twelve do, indeed, subsequently become a part of Jesus’ ministry. In 4:11a, for example, he proclaims that they are the ones to whom the mystery of the kingdom of God has been given. In 6:12–13 they begin to fulfill the promise made in 3:14–15, when they go out and preach that people should repent, casting out many demons and healing a great many people – this in puzzling contrast to Jesus’ own inability, seven verses earlier, to heal more than a few (6:5). And, in the two feeding miracles (6:35–44; 8:1–9), they become, despite their initial skepticism (6:37b; 8:4), the conduits for the feeding of the five thousand and the four thousand respectively (6:41; 8:6), thus fulfilling Jesus’ emphatic command in the first feeding (6:37a): “You give them something to eat!” (∆ότε αὐτοῖς ὑµεῖς φαγεῖν).15 And despite all their subsequent failures, not only in action (especially abandoning Jesus) but also in understanding (and the list of the things they don’t comprehend in the narrative is a long one), they still are not left at the end of the day in the same boat as the rich young man, who turns away in sorrow from the call to follow Jesus (10:22), or those threatened with eschatological judgment because they have been ashamed of Jesus (8:34–38). To be sure, by the end of the story Peter and the others have, in a sense, become ashamed of Jesus, to the point of denying him to save their own necks, and by the iron logic of 8:38 this should separate them from eschatological salvation. But iron logic does not always prevail in a world ruled by the grace of God. Jesus himself prophesies that the Twelve, not the “little people” or any other followers, will be reunited with him in Galilee after his resurrection (14:28; 16:7). Some Perrinites rightly point out that the second of these predictions, 16:7, is delivered to the women on Easter morning, and that instead of immediately delivering it to the Twelve, as ordered, they go out and say nothing to anyone, “for they were afraid” (16:8).16 But 16:7 is only a reminder of what Jesus himself said in 14:28, and all of Jesus’ other prophecies in the Gospel have infallibly come true. It scarcely seems credible that this should be the only exception. The ultimate truth about the Markan disciples, then – and, I believe, about us as Christian disciples, as our position is illuminated by the Markan narra14 Cf. the fine dissertation by K. STOCK, Boten aus dem Mit-Ihm-Sein. Das Verhältnis zwischen Jesus und den Zwölf nach Markus (AnBib 70; Rome, 1975). 15 All of these points are emphasized by HENDERSON, Christology (n. 13). 16 See for example T. J. WEEDEN, Mark: Traditions in Conflict (Philadelphia, 1971), 50, who concludes that Mark “is assiduously involved in a vendetta against the disciples”. See also CROSSAN, “Empty Tomb,” 149 (n. 5): “In plain words, the Jerusalem community led by the disciples and especially Peter, has never accepted the call of the exalted Lord communicated to it from the Markan community. The Gospel ends in a juxtaposition of Markan faith in 16:6–7 and Jerusalem failure in 16:8.”

400

Joel Marcus

tive – is, as Elizabeth Malbon has put it, that they and we are “fallible followers” – stumbling, weak, frequently afraid, frequently overlooking the eschatological riches bequeathed to us – fallible, but followers nevertheless.17 As for the contrast with the anonymous “little people”: it’s relatively easy to have a one-time revelation (e.g. “Truly this man was God’s son!” in 15:39) or to reach out to Jesus in desperation and faith to be healed by him (e.g. 1:40; 5:27–29; 7:25–28; 10:47–48). But it is another thing to continue on the path of following, even when the way seems dark before you, even when Jesus and God seem to be totally absent. And this continuity of discipleship, with all its pitfalls and failures, is what the Markan depiction of the Twelve mirrors. But that is what the life of discipleship is like – and, deo gratia, our ultimate reunion with Jesus does not depend on our perfect obedience but only on his promise to meet us again in Galilee.

3. The Presence of Jesus And this brings us back to the Spirit – or, to speak in more Markan imagery, to the presence of Jesus in the world in the interim between the resurrection and the parousia. Because that Jesus is present in the world, despite having, in one sense, gone away, seems to be guaranteed by the overall purpose of Mark’s Gospel, which is to testify to that presence, despite all evidence to the contrary. To be sure, the Perrinites do have exegetical evidence on their side, for example in the already-mentioned parable of the bridegroom in 2:19–20.18 This does seem to imply a disjunction between the joy that characterized the period of Jesus’ earthly ministry, when the Bridegroom was present, and the sorrow of the era that followed, when he was taken away. But this theme of Jesus’ absence is not an undifferentiated one, any more than it is in John, where it is acknowledged that Jesus will go away, leaving the disciples initially desolate, but where it is added that he will not let them be orphans permanently, but will come to them again (14:16–19; 16:16–20). It is similar in Mark: one of the main purposes of the Gospel is to assure Jesus’ followers that he is still present with them despite all evidence to the contrary. In stories such as the sea-crossing in 4:35–41 and its variant in 6:45–52, for example, Jesus initially seems to be absent, either because he is asleep or because he has for some strange reason stayed on the shore to pray while he sent the disciples across the sea. In this state of aloneness, the little ship of disciples is confronted by a terrible storm, which threatens to swamp 17 E. S. MALBON, “Fallible Followers: Women and Men in the Gospel of Mark,” Semeia 28 (1983): 29–48. 18 On this, see especially W. KELBER, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and a New Time (Philadelphia, 1974), 20, 123.

The Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of Mark

401

it (4:37–38), or the disciples are tormented by the difficulty of rowing against a contrary wind (6:48). But then, just in the nick of time, Jesus awakens and rebukes the storm, and the disciples are saved (4:39), or he joins them in the boat, and they are assured that he is not a phantom, but a real presence (6:49– 51). And the purpose of such stories seems clear: to reassure storm-tossed, seemingly alone disciples that Jesus is with them and will save them from the dark storms of their own times.19 The exorcisms and healing miracles, similarly, cannot have merely an antiquarian interest, but are meant to assure disciples that the miracle-working power Jesus demonstrated in his lifetime is still with them – as indeed it already was with the Twelve (6:13).

4. Who is the Sower? That the author of the first Gospel believed that Jesus still was with the church, and even with him as he composed his narrative, is confirmed, finally, by a curious discrepancy between the Parable of the Sower (4:3–8) and its interpretation (4:14–20).20 The latter allegorizes most of the major elements of the parable: The seed is the world. The different kinds of soil are different kinds of human beings who receive the word. The various obstacles to the growth of the seed are the sorts of things that prevent the word from having its proper effect: Satan and his minions, shallowness of response (lacking “root in oneself”), and “the cares of the age”, which strangle the word.

Oddly, there is only one major element in the parable that is not allegorized: the Sower himself, seemingly its most important character! What explains this curious circumstance? Since Mark does not explicitly tell us who the Sower is, we are left to draw our own conclusions. Here, however, the exegetical evidence seems to uncover different possibilities, each of which has arguments in its favor but also problems. For example, we might think that the Sower was God. In favor of this position, God is the ultimate source of “the word” in the Old Testament, especial-

19

See M. E. BORING, Sayings of the Risen Jesus: Christian Prophecy in the Synoptic Tradition (SNTSMS; Cambridge, 1982), 202: “Although the absence of Jesus is ‘a presiding feature in the Markan gospel,’ still ‘the gospel (itself) functions in such a way as to extend Jesus into the Markan present.’” Boring is here quoting two passages from Werner Kelber, although he puts them to a purpose with which that Perrin student would probably not have agreed. 20 Here I repeat the substance of J. MARCUS, “Blanks and Gaps in the Parable of the Sower,” Biblical Interpretation 5 (1997), 1–16; see that article for further references.

402

Joel Marcus

ly in the prophets.21 The latter also emphasize that his word ultimately will not be thwarted, but will accomplish that for which he sends it (see especially Isa 55:10–11) – which seems similar to the final message of Jesus’ parable in its Markan interpretation. The great problem with this interpretation is that, if this Sower is meant to be the same as the Sower in 4:26–29, then the seed grows up in a way the Sower does not understand – an ignorance difficult to attribute to God. We might posit, then, that the Sower was Christ. In favor of this position, Jesus does, throughout the Gospel, proclaim “the word” (2:2; 4:33; 8:32; 9:10; 10:22, 24; 11:29; 13:31; 14:39), and even “goes out” to do so (1:38), as the Sower does in 4:3. And, unlike God, ignorance can be attributed to the Markan Jesus. In fact, he attributes it to himself in 13:32, and other Markan narratives seem to imply a lack of clarity on his part about exactly how God’s kingdom will be realized on earth (5:30; 14:35–36; 15:34). The major problem with this hypothesis is that, within the Gospel narrative itself, the bountiful harvest promised to the Sower seems to elude Jesus. Even his closest associates, for example, seem to misunderstand him. And we have noted above the curious contrast in 6:1–13, where the failure of Jesus’ teaching and healing seems to be contrasted with the success of his disciples. This brings us to the third possibility: the Sower may be the Christian disciple. This hypothesis, as just seen, has 6:1–13 in its favor, as well as the fact that what Jesus does teach in the Gospel is often a reference to post-Easter realities (for example 4:15–20) or the basic Christian kerygma (as in the passion-and-resurrection predictions in 8:31; 9:31; and 10:33–34). Moreover, “the word”, used absolutely, seems to be a Christian technical term for the post-Easter kerygma.22 Problematically, however, the disciples, or post-Easter Christians, are never portrayed as preaching “the word”, as Jesus is. How are we to explain these mixed signals? I believe that they point to the composite identity of the Sower – that he is, at one and the same time, God, Jesus, and Christian disciples. And the latter group includes post-Easter Christians such as Mark himself. When Mark retells the old stories that he collects in his Gospel, then, it is not just his own authorial personality opening its mouth and speaking, but God and Christ speaking through him. We can, then, generalize the promise made in 13:11 to Jesus’ disciples: it is not just you who will speak; your voice will be the voice of the Spirit. Or, as Jesus promises in 13:31, his words will never pass away, but will continue to reverberate throughout the universe after his death. And this means that Jesus’ words – which bear the authority of God himself (1:22, 27) – can become the words of later Christian preachers, including Mark himself, and 21

See W. H. SCHMIDT et al., “Dābhar,” TDOT 3: 84–125. See J. JEREMIAS, The Parables of Jesus (2d rev. ed.; 1954; repr., New York, 1972), 77–78. 22

The Spirit and the Church in the Gospel of Mark

403

even perhaps his readers. And so the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jesus, lives on in the church.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH IN SECOND CENTURY CHRISTIAN WRITINGS

A Church without Spirit? Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch Tobias Nicklas Ignatius of Antioch wrote a series of epistles to Christian communities in Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles, Rome, Philadelphia, Smyrna, and to his fellowbishop Polycarp. Ignatius expected martyrdom in Rome, and he alluded to Pauline writings more than to any other early Christian literature.1 Ignatius of Antioch could thus be called, in a sense, a deutero-Pauline theologian, writer, and finally, martyr.2 If, however, we compare his ideas about Christ, Salvation, or the Church and its organization to Paul’s concepts, the differences seem to outweigh the similarities. This is especially the case with regard to the “Holy Spirit”. While in his First Letter to the Corinthians Paul praises the community which “does not lack any spiritual gift (χάρισµα)” and later de1

Regarding Ignatius’s reception of Paul, see, for example, P. FOSTER, “The Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch and the Writings that Later Formed the New Testament,” in The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers; eds. A. Gregory and C. Tuckett; Oxford et al., 2005), 159–186, esp. 164–172, who concludes: “The four epistles for which a strong case for Ignatius’ usage can be supported are, in declining order of likelihood, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, and 2 Timothy. Interestingly this result also gains support from Ignatius’ own comment in Ign. Eph. 16. 2 that Paul ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ µνηµονεύει ὑµῶν ἐν Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ.” This is in part contrary to A. LINDEMANN , Paulus im ältesten Christentum. Das Bild des Apostels und die Rezeption der paulinischen Theologie in der frühchristlichen Literatur bis Marcion (BHT 58; Tübingen, 1979), 199–220, and Id., “Paulus in den Schriften der Apostolischen Väter,” in his Paulus, Apostel und Lehrer der Kirche (Tübingen, 1999), 252–279, esp. 267–273, who sees an important implicit influence of Pauline theology on Ignatius but thinks that Ignatius did not know the Pastorals. 2 For a comparable argument, see C. R. MOSS, Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions (New Haven/London, 2012), 54–55.

406

Tobias Nicklas

votes three chapters of the same writing (1 Cor 12–14) to the question of the proper use of these charisms in the community, and while his doctrine of the Spirit plays a decisive role for his ethics3, it is hard to find any clear, explicit statements about the Holy Spirit in Ignatius’s writings. At about the same time, probably during the first decades of the second century C.E., the Ascension of Isaiah was written, a text that offers us something of a counter-perspective.4 While both Ignatius and the Ascension of Isaiah agree that the prophets of the past spoke spiritually about Jesus Christ, who is understood as God’s Beloved in the Ascen. Isa., these texts develop very different ideas of the church.5 The community behind the Ascension of Isaiah quite probably understood itself as a group of “holy ones”, as “righteous disciples of the Beloved” or as “prophets of the last days”. In a recent article, Meghan Henning and I have described the role of the Spirit in the life of this group in the following way: If we envision a community behind the text of the Ascen. Isa., we imagine a group that itself aspires to, like Isaiah and the other prophets, ascend to the seventh heaven by “being in the Spirit” (Ascen. Isa. 11:40). This community’s understanding of the Holy Spirit or the angel of the Spirit is grounded in the idea that the speech of the prophets is inspired by this Spirit, but goes beyond that basic idea to include all of the righteous believers in this group

3 See, for example, V. RABENS, The Holy Spirit and Ethics in Paul: Transformation and Empowering for Religious-Ethical Life (WUNT II.283; Tübingen, 2010; 2nd ed. 2013). 4 The date of Ignatius’s writings has become a matter of debate in recent years. While J. RIUS-CAMPS, The Four Authentic Letters of Ignatius the Martyr: A Critical Study based on the Anomalies Contained in the Textus Receptus (Christianismos 2; Roma, 1979), argues that a kernel of the Ignatian writings goes back already to the first century, authors like R. M. HÜBNER, Der Paradox Eine. Antignostischer Monarchianismus im zweiten Jahrhundert (VigChr.S 50; Leiden/Boston, 1999) and T. LECHNER, Ignatius adversus Valentinianos? Chronologische und theologiegeschichtliche Studien zu den Briefen des Ignatius von Antiochien (VigChr.S 47; Leiden/Boston, 1999), have argued that even the writings of the “middle recension” are pseudepigraphical and come from a later period in the second century C.E. This is no place to discuss Hübner and Lechner’s interesting observations in detail; I would, however, still follow A. BRENT, Ignatius of Antioch: A Martyr Bishop and the Origin of Episcopacy (London/New York, 2007), 99–143, (and others) and date Ignatius’s martyrdom – as it is traditionally done – with Eusebius’s Hist. eccl. 3.36.1 to the last years before Trajan’s death (August 117). The Ascension of Isaiah, again, is usually dated between the end of the first century and the first decades of the second century C.E. For an overview, see J. Bremmer and T. Nicklas (eds.), The Ascension of Isaiah (Studies on Early Christian Apocrypha; Leuven, 2014) [forthcoming]. 5 Regarding the Christology of the Ascension of Isaiah, see E. NORELLI, “«Il Diletto» e l’uso dei titoli cristologici nell’AI” in Id., L’Ascensione di Isaia: Studi su un apocrifo al crocevia dei cristianesmi (Origini NS 1; Bologna, 1994), 253–264.

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

407

who can speak “reliable words” through contact with the Spirit. What is more, this group understands the angel of the Holy Spirit as part of the divine, and thus worthy of worship.6

It is possible that The members of this group may have lived an ascetic life, in which mystical experiences must have played an important role; quite probably they still observed the Torah (even if we cannot say too much about the details of their special halakah). At the same time, they lamented living in a world where there are “not many prophets” (Ascen. Isa. 3:27).7 Writing from the perspective of the prophet Isaiah, the author makes the following complaint: In those [that is, their own; TN] days (there will be) many who will love office, although lacking wisdom. And there will be many wicked elders (= presbyters!) and shepherds (bishops?) who wrong their sheep … And many will exchange the glory of the robes of the saints for the robes of those who love money; and there will be much respect of persons in those days, and lovers of the glory of this world. And there will be many slanderers and [much] vainglory at the approach of the Lord, and the Holy Spirit will withdraw from many. And in those days there will not be many prophets nor those who speak reliable words, except one here and there in different places, because of the spirit of error and of fornication, and of vainglory, and of the love of money … And among the shepherds and the elders there will be great hatred towards one another. For there will be great jealously in the last days, for everyone will speak whatever pleases him in his own eyes. And they will make ineffective the prophecy of the prophets who were before me, and my visions also … they will make ineffective, in order that they may speak what bursts out of their heart. (Ascen. Isa. 3:23–31; translation Knibb OTP)8

Of course, I do not want to suggest that the group behind the Ascension of Isaiah is or has to do with Ignatius’s alleged opponents. It shows us, however, that there were groups of Christ-followers who were somewhat close to what we (and probably also Ignatius) would call “Judaism”, who were organized differently than Ignatius’s churches, whose Christology could arguably be construed as “non-orthodox” or even “docetic” (if one still wants to use this term), and who were highly polemical against the emerging ecclesiastical hierarchy.9 Thus, the quotation shows what a counter-perspective to Ignatius’s theology could have looked like. 6 M. HENNING and T. NICKLAS, “Jewish, Christian – or What? Matters of SelfDesignation,” in The Ascension of Isaiah (n. 4). 7 Regarding the role of prophets in the Ascension of Isaiah, see P. C. BORI, “L’estasi del profeta: Ascensio Isaiae 6 e l’antico profetismo cristiano,” CrSt 1 (1980), 367–389; E. NORELLI, “AI 6 e il profetismo estatico cristiano,” in Id., L’Ascensione di Isaia (n. 5), 233–248, and Id., “Profetismo e profeti cristiani nella ‘Ascensione di Isaia,’” Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa 35 (1999), 362–376. 8 M. A. KNIBB, “Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 (ABRL; ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York et al., 1985), 143–176. 9 I personally would hesitate to label the Ascen. Isa., with its interest in the martyrdoms of Isaiah, Peter, and the Beloved, as “docetic” in the usual sense of the (very problematic) term.

408

Tobias Nicklas

Returning to Ignatius, is it possible that Ignatius, forced by opponents comparable to the ones mentioned above, simply does not speak about God’s Spirit, Christ’s Spirit, or the Holy Spirit? Or should we simply look deeper into his writings where, according to Henning Paulsen, important dimensions of an implicit or indirect pneumatology can be found?10 In order to give appropriate answers to these questions, I would like to start with a few observations on the use – and partly on the “non-use” – of pneumatological terminology in Ignatius’s writings; I will then analyse a few passages that seem of obvious relevance; finally, I will contextualize the results.11

10

As far as I know, one of the very few more recent scholarly studies of Ignatius’s pneumatology can be found in H. PAULSEN, Studien zur Theologie des Ignatius von Antiochien (Göttingen, 1977), 122–129 (whose results have also been taken over by C. MUNIER, “Où en est la question d’Ignatius d’Antioche? Bilan d’un siècle de recherches,” 1870–1988, ANRW II.27.1 (1992): 359–484, esp. 437–440). Paulsen comes to a highly astonishing conclusion: While he admits that the explicit evidence for pneumatology in Ignatius’s extant writings is scarce and that early Christian prophecy only plays a marginal role in Ignatius’s epistles (123–124), he argues that several implicit factors have to be taken into account when one wants to assess Ignatius’s pneumatology properly. According to Paulsen, Ignatius regards himself as a charismatic person who receives important revelations (124) and who, according to prescripts of his epistles, understands himself as θεοφόρος, a term which, according to Paulsen, is used interchangeably with πνευµατοφόρος or πνευµατικός (124; see also G. DAUTZENBERG, Urchristliche Prophetie. Ihre Erforschung, ihre Voraussetzungen im Judentum und ihre Struktur im ersten Korintherbrief [BWANT 104; Stuttgart et al., 1975], 170). After a detailed discussion of Ign. Phld. 7:1–2, Paulsen comes to the conclusion that even in contexts where he does not explicitly mention the word πνεῦµα, Ignatius thinks in pneumatological terms. That is why, according to Paulsen, the impact of pneumatology for Ignatius’s work should not be underestimated. He writes: “Es bestätigt sich so die Hypothese, daß Ignatius auch dann, wenn sich πνεῦµα nicht explizit nachweisen läßt, pneumatologische Zusammenhänge kennt und nutzt. Dies warnt jedenfalls nachdrücklich vor einer Unterschätzung ignatianischer Pneumatologie, wie sie sich durch die quantitativ geringe Anzahl der Belege nahe legen würde“ (127). The same author further comments, “Fragt man nach der Bedeutung der Pneumatologie für die Theologie der ignatianischen Briefe, so läßt sich feststellen: Entgegen bestimmten Tendenzen bisheriger Forschung, die sich auf die geringe Zahl pneumatologischer Texte in den Ignatianen beruft, sollte die Rolle der Pneumatologie nicht unterschätzt werden. Denn sie erstreckt sich auch auf Bereiche, die nicht pneumatologische Termini enthalten“ (129). 11 I will exclude the many passages where Ignatius speaks about the human spirit (e.g., Ign. Rom. 9:3; Ign. Pol. 1:3) or the relationship between Sarx and Pneuma (Ign. Eph. 8:2; 10:3; Ign. Trall. 12:1; Ign. Phld. 11:2; Ign. Smyrn. 1:1 and 10:2; Ign. Pol. 2:2), which – while interesting in and of themselves – seem not to be of utmost relevance for our topic of the relationship between “Holy Spirit” and the “Church”. For an overview, see C. MUNIER, “Question,” 437–438 (n. 10).

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

409

1. Ecclesiological Descriptions Connected to Binitarian and Seemingly Binitarian Expressions 1.1 The Prescripts of Ignatius’s Epistles As a first observation, even a cursory reading of the “middle recension” of Ignatius’s letters reveals many cases where one would expect a “protoorthodox” theologian like Ignatius to speak about the Spirit, but he does not do so.12 Perhaps the most obvious examples can be seen in the many cases where Ignatius uses “binitarian” formulae or expressions where one would expect “trinitarian” ones. This is already the case in the prescript of his Letter to the Ephesians: Ignatius who is also called Theophoros (ὁ καὶ θεοφόρος) to the church at Ephesus in Asia, blessed with greatness through the fullness of God the Father, predestined before the ages for lasting and unchangeable glory forever, united and elect through genuine suffering by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God, a church most worthy of blessing: heartiest greetings in Jesus Christ and in blameless joy.13

The words “by the will of the Father and of Jesus Christ our God” are, as far as I can see, a clearly binitarian expression of the Ephesian church’s relation to God. The greatness of the ἐκκλησία … τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ (see as a parallel, for example, the Pauline ἐκκλησία … τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, 1 Cor 1:2 and 2 Cor 1:1) finds its roots in God the Father’s πλήρωµα, and its unity and election in the passion of Jesus Christ who suffered by the Father’s will.14 While Jesus Christ, interestingly, is called “our God” and is thus related very closely to the Father, we do not read anything about the Spirit here.15 Al12 Regarding the transmission of Ignatius’s writings, see the introduction given by H. LÖHR, Die Briefe des Ignatius von Antiochien. Die Apostolischen Väter: Eine Einleitung (ed. W. Pratscher; Göttingen, 2009), 104–129, esp. 105–107. 13 English translations of Ignatius’s writings are taken over or adapted from M. W. Holmes (ed.), The Apostolic Fathers in English (Grand Rapids, 1997; 3rd ed. 2007). 14 The idea that the cross of Christ is an important factor regarding the unity of the communities can already be found in Pauline writings. For a broader discussion, see T. NICKLAS and H. SCHLÖGEL, “Mission to the Gentiles, Construction of Christian Identity and its Relation to Ethics according to Paul,” in Sensitivity to Outsiders: Exploring the Dynamic Relationship between Mission and Ethics in the New Testament and Early Christianity (WUNT II.364; eds. J. Kok, T. Nicklas, R. Hays, and D. Roth; Tübingen, 2013), 324–339. 15 For comparable expressions, see also, for example, Ignatius, Ign. Eph 15:3; 18:2; Ign. Rom prescr.; 3:3; 6:3 (the “suffering of my God”); Ign. Smyrn. 1:1; 10:1; and Ign. Pol. 8:3. Regarding Ignatius’s Christology, see T. G. WEINANDY, “The Apostolic Christology of Ignatius of Antioch: The Road to Chalcedon,” in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers; eds. A. Gregory and C. M. Tuckett; Oxford et al., 2005), 71–84 (Ignatius preparing the structures of later “orthodox” Christologies); H. LÖHR, Briefe, 123–125 (n. 12) (Ignatius fighting against

410

Tobias Nicklas

though we should not expect an author to express every aspect of his ecclesiology in every passage of his writings, it is revealing that the prescript of Ign. Eph. is by no means an isolated example. Almost all prescripts of Ignatius’s epistles show comparable patterns.16 The church of Magnesia (Ign. Magn. prescr.), for example, is called “blessed through the grace of God the Father in Christ Jesus our Savior”; in the Letter to the Trallians we read that the church in Tralles is “dearly loved by God the Father of Jesus Christ, elect and worthy of God, at peace in flesh and spirit through the suffering of Jesus Christ”; the community of Smyrna is called “church of God the Father and of the beloved Jesus Christ” (Ign. Smyrn. prescr.).17 In the long prescript of Romans we read that this community “has found mercy in the majesty of the Father Most High and Jesus Christ his only Son”. The community of Philadelphia is even called “the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ” (Ign. Phil. prescr.), and according to Ignatius’s Letter to Polycarp, Polycarp has “God the Father and Jesus Christ as his bishop”. The only clear exception to this pattern is found in the prescript to the Philadelphians: … to the church of God the Father and of Jesus Christ at Philadelphia in Asia, one that has found mercy and is firmly established in godly harmony and unwaveringly rejoices in the suffering of our Lord, fully convinced of his resurrection in all mercy, which I greet in the blood of Jesus Christ, which is eternal and lasting joy, especially if they are at one with the bishop and the presbyters and deacons who are with him, who have been appointed by the mind of Jesus Christ, whom he, in accordance with his own will, established in strength by his Holy Spirit. (Ign. Phil. prescr.; translation adapted from Holmes)

This text is dominated by the topics of (1) Christ’s suffering and resurrection and (2) the community’s unity with the ministries of bishop, presbyters, and deacons. The holders of these offices are appointed ἐν γνώµῃ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ and established ἐν βεβαιωσύνῃ, a term by which not only “strength” but “firmness”, “soundness”, or “steadiness” are expressed. In addition, the idea of a Spirit of strength goes back to Isa 11:2 where it is re-

docetic teachers); or – with a certain shift – R. M. HÜBNER, “Die Ignatianen und Noët von Smyrna,” in Idem, Paradox, 131–206 (n. 4 ), who understands Ignatius and Noët’s Christologies as close parallels and concludes that they are both examples of a monarchianism directed against Valentinian tendencies. This is, of course, a decisive argument for Hübner’s understanding of Ignatius’s letters as pseudepigraphic writings. 16 The situation in the prescripts is of special import because, as in Paul’s letters, Ignatius’s prescripts already address motifs that later at least partly return in the body of the letter. 17 Even if Ignatius here also speaks about the charisms given to the community, one should not be too quick to associate this concept with the Spirit. For a detailed discussion, see below!

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

411

lated to God’s Anointed One. The passage could thus be called an example of a more or less traditional use of the idea of the Holy Spirit. Precisely because it is an exception to the overall rule, this statement about the Spirit is revealing: God the Father and Jesus Christ are decisive where Ignatius speaks about the church and its roots in salvation history. At least in this passage, however, the Spirit seems to be a principle related to the Father and Christ (who is, as we have seen, understood as God as well).18 Interestingly, even if this principle could be called a “divine power”19, it is not conceived of as a very dynamic power (bringing the “winds of change”) but as a power that stabilizes a certain, perhaps endangered, order – that is, the hierarchy of bishop, presbyters and deacons.20 1.2 Binitarian Expressions in the Epistles The prescripts are certainly not the only passages in Ignatius’s epistles where we find binitarian expressions of belief (often related to images of the Church): Perhaps the best example is Ign. Eph. already introduced above. While Ign. Eph 9:1 offers one of the very few examples of a clear trinitarian expression in Ignatius’s extant writings (see below, 2.1), binitarian expressions like the ones in the text’s prescript come back in many parts of the body of the letter. For example, when we look into the first six chapters of this text, which are in many ways concerned with order and the organisation of the community, we do not find anything related to the πνεῦµα. Ignatius’s Epistle to the Ephesians 3:1–2, for example, mentions Ignatius’s need to be trained “in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience”, and speaks about his “love”. Even if we do not find exactly this pattern in Paul’s writings, at least the combination of “love” and “faith” with “endurance” (ὑποµονή), which in writings of the third and later generation(s) of Christians often replaces “hope (ἐλπίς)”21, reminds us of Paul’s famous triad of

18

Very probably the Spirit is seen as Christ’s spirit here; nonetheless, for Ignatius, who places Father and Christ in very close relation, speaking about God’s and Christ’s Holy Spirit seems to be more or less interchangeable. 19 W. R. SCHOEDEL, Ignatius of Antioch (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, 1985), 195: The Spirit “is presumably conceived of not in distinctively trinitarian terms but in a more traditional way as a divine power closely connected with God or (as here) with Christ.” 20 The unity of the church seems to have been a problem especially in Philadelphia (see, for example, Ignatius’s use of the word µερισµός in Ign. Phld. 2:1; 3:1; 7:1–2; 8:1). For a more detailed argument, see M. ISACSON, “Follow Your Bishop! Rhetorical Strategies in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch,” in The Formation of the Early Church (WUNT 183; ed. J. Ådna; Tübingen, 2005), 317–340, esp. 328–331. 21 See, for example, the discussion of the term by W. TRILLING, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher (EKK 14; Zürich et al., 1980), 47.

412

Tobias Nicklas

“faith, love and hope”. The idea of charisms, however, is not mentioned.22 Is it implied?23 We cannot be certain; while we probably can assume that Pauline theology still had some influence in the early second-century community of Ephesus, we cannot be sure to what extent this connection can be presupposed.24 Ignatius’s Epistle to the Ephesians 3:2, in addition, admonishes the community to be “in harmony with the mind of God (συντρέχετε τῇ γνώµῃ τοῦ θεοῦ)”.25 The exact logic of the following sentences is a bit difficult; Ignatius first identifies Jesus Christ with the “mind of God” and compares that to the bishops who are “in the mind of Jesus Christ”. That reminds us of the Pauline idea that the members of the community “have the νοῦς of Christ” (1 Cor 2:16b), an idea that becomes an important principle in Paul’s ethical argumentation.26 While in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians every member of the community has this νοῦς of Christ, Ignatius focuses on the bishops who are in the γνώµη of Christ. Because they are in the mind of Christ, everybody should be in harmony with the mind of his / her bishop without whom this mind obviously cannot be mediated (Ign. Eph. 4:1). Ignatius’s Epistle to the Ephesians 4–5, where Ignatius speaks about the unity of the church, are thus closely connected to chapter 3. Comparable to what we have already seen in the prescript of Ephesians, the Spirit seems not 22 On the triad of faith, love, and hope in Pauline writings, see the important study of T. SÖDING, Die Trias Glaube, Hoffnung, Liebe bei Paulus. Eine exegetische Studie (Stuttgart, 1992). 23 In Ign. Eph. 14, both “love” and “faith” appear again: according to 14:1, they have to be directed toward Jesus Christ, “and the two, when they exist in unity, are God”. Again, we do not hear any indication that they are gifts of the spirit. 24 For further discussion of the situation in Ephesus, see P. R. TREBILCO, The Early Christians in Ephesus from Paul to Ignatius (WUNT 166; Tübingen, 2004), and S. WITETSCHEK, Ephesische Enthüllungen 1. Frühe Christen in einer antiken Großstadt: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frage nach den Kontexten der Johannesapokalypse (Biblical Tools and Studies 6; Leuven, 2008), 173–418. We cannot, however, be sure how much of the concrete situation in Ephesus Ignatius knew. As to the question of whether or not faith and love should be viewed as charisms, the prescript of Ignatius’s Epistle to the Smyrneans seems to suggest the answer “yes”: this passage addresses the community as “endowed with every spiritual gift (χάρισµα), filled with faith and love, not lacking in any spiritual gift (χάρισµα)”. “Faith” and “love” are so clearly framed with the idea that the Smyrneans do not lack χαρίσµατα that at least here (but certainly also in other passages), we can expect that they are considered to be charisms. It is not clear, however, whether charisms in Ignatius have to be understood as gifts of the Spirit. 25 The exact translation of the term γνώµη in this context is somewhat problematic. SCHOEDEL, Ignatius, 48–49 (n. 19), translates it as “purpose”, while A. LINDEMANN and H. PAULSEN, Die Apostolischen Väter (Tübingen, 1992), understand it as “Sinn”. 26 This idea has been discussed in broad detail by C. W. STRÜDER, Paulus und die Gesinnung Christi. Identität und Entscheidungsfindung aus der Mittel von 1 Kor 1–4 (BETL 190; Leuven, 2005); see also T. NICKLAS and H. SCHLÖGEL, “Mission” (n. 14).

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

413

to play any role for his concept of ecclesiastical unity: Ignatius first uses the image of a choir:27 bishop and presbyters are attuned to each other “as strings to a lyre” and the “lay” members of the community (if we are already allowed to use this term) should form a choir singing to Christ in harmony (Ign. Eph. 4:2): You must join this chorus, every one of you, so that by being harmonious in unanimity and taking your pitch from God you may sing in unison with one voice through Jesus Christ to the Father, in order that he may both hear you, and, on the basis of what you do well, acknowledge that you are limbs of his son. (translation adapted from Holmes)

While the closing expression µέλη ὄντας τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ recalls Pauline images of the community as (cosmic) Body of Christ (see mainly 1 Cor 12:12–27; 10:17; and Rom 12:4–5; but see also developments in Colossians, Ephesians and 1 Clement)28, the community’s unity is justified by its unity (or harmony) with the bishop (and the presbyters). Only if harmony with the bishop (who is in the “mind of Christ”!) is achieved, is the community’s connection to the Father through Jesus Christ possible.29 Within this notion of the unity of the church, there seems to be no room for the idea that the Spirit has been given to the individual members of the community (or even that it works freely and uncontrollably among them). In addition, the function (and perspective) of the image has changed: while Paul described the members of the community as the “body of Christ” to demonstrate their special status and, from this perspective, draws certain (partly ethical) conclusions, for Ignatius not everybody who could be called a follower of Christ is part of Christ’s body. This is only the case when he / she is in harmony with the bishop and his presbyters.30

27 Regarding the background idea of “concord” in Ignatius’s world and its use in his writings, see J.-P. LOTZ, Ignatius and Concord: The Background and Use of the Language of Concord in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Patristic Studies; New York et al., 2007). Lotz’s work is developed even further by A. BRENT, Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic: A Study on Early Christian Transformation of Pagan Culture (STAC 36; Tübingen, 2006), esp. 231–311. 28 On the backgrounds of this idea in pagan literature and its development from the New Testament to the Apostolic Fathers, see M. WALTER, Gemeinde als Leib Christi. Untersuchungen zum Corpus Paulinum und zu den ‘Apostolischen Vätern’ (NTOA 49; Fribourg/Göttingen, 2001). 29 A look at Ignatius’s use of different terms related to “unity” immediately shows how important concepts of unity were for his theology. This is not simply developed ad hoc due to the special situation he faces, because the concept of “unity” is too thoroughly connected to other ideas. See also the (at least partially) convincing examples given by L. WEHR, Arznei der Unsterblichkeit. Die Eucharistie bei Ignatius von Antiochien und im Johannesevangelium (NTA.NF 18; Münster, 1987), 48. 30 See also WALTER, Gemeinde, 265–266 (n. 28).

414

Tobias Nicklas

Ignatius’s Epistle to the Ephesians 5, finally, gives a highly interesting variation of this idea: the members of the community are united with the bishop “as the church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with God, so that all things may be harmonious in unity” (Ign. Eph. 5:1).31 The “unity” – or here, perhaps even better, “fellowship” (συνήθεια!) – with the bishop, in turn, is described as “not merely human, but spiritual (πνευµατική)” (Ign. Eph. 5:1). There is thus, in fact, an idea of a “spiritual” bond between community and bishop, and one can conclude that Ignatius presupposes comparable bonds between bishop and Christ, and Christ and the Father, respectively. As this pneumatic bond is described as not being human, it seems evident that Ignatius thinks of God’s Spirit – even if it is not clear how he concretely understands it – as a unifying bond between community and bishop, who – because of his (surely spiritual) relation to Christ – is not only mediator of Christ, but according to Ign. Eph. 6:1, should even be regarded “as the Lord himself”.32 In the Letter to the Magnesians, the faithful are compared to a coin, which is “in love bearing the imprint of God the Father through Jesus Christ” (instead of the “imprint of this world”) (Ign. Magn. 5:2; adapted from Holmes).33 The “binitarian” character of this passage, however, is only partly clear: again Father and Christ are, of course, the main “characters” who shape (or create an imprint on) the believer. This, however, is happening ἐν ἀγάπῃ, that is, in love, a gift that could be considered a charism (see Ign. Smyrn. prescr.). In Ign. Magn. 7:1, again, the unity of the community with the Bishop and his presbyters is stressed and compared with the unity of Jesus Christ, here called “the Lord”34, and the Father. Even if the text mentions the charisms of “hope” and “love”, the unifying principle is “Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is better” (see also Ign. Magn. 6:2); the spirit is not mentioned.35 The Epistle to the Trallians offers little new regarding our topic. We find formulaic expressions such as “by the will of God and Jesus Christ” (Ign. 31 Regarding the backgrounds of this idea in pagan literature, but also in the deuteroPauline Eph 4:2, see SCHOEDEL, Ignatius, 55 (n. 19). 32 One could add Ign. Eph. 21:2, the final greeting of the letter: “Farewell in God the Father and in Jesus Christ, our shared hope.” 33 Regarding the backgrounds of this imagery, see SCHOEDEL, Ignatius, 110 (n. 19), and LOTZ, Ignatius, 60–63 (n. 27). 34 This christological title is used quite regularly in Ignatius’s extant writings. See: Ign. Eph. 15:3; 19:1; Ign. Magn. 7:1; 13:1; Ign. Trall. 8:1; 10; Ign. Phld. prescr.; 1:1; 4; etc. See also LÖHR, Briefe, 124 (n. 12). 35 One could add, as a passage not directly connected to ecclesiology, Ign. Magn. 8:2. In a passage discussing the relation of “Christianity” and “Judaism”, we find the words: “there is one God who revealed himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word that came forth from silence, who in every respect pleased the one who sent him” (translation Holmes).

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

415

Trall. 1:1) or “to the honor of the Father and to the honor of Jesus Christ and of the apostles” (Ign. Trall. 12:2), along with the idea that “in Jesus Christ he [= the Father; TN] will fullfil” Ignatius and the community’s prayer. While this is also the case for Ign. Rom. 3:3 (“our God Jesus Christ is more visible now that he is in the Father”), Ign. Rom. 7:2–3 only appears to be a binitarian passage; it will be addressed later. Several passages in Philadelphians are relevant as well. While Ign. Phld. 1:1 offers a binitarian formula describing the bishop’s ministry as obtained “in the love of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ”, Ign. Phld. 3 is much more interesting: Stay away from the evil plants which are not cultivated by Jesus Christ, because they are not the Father’s planting. Not that I found any division among you: instead, I found that there had been a purification.² For all those who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop, and all those who repent and enter into the unity of the church will belong to God, so that they may be living in accordance with Jesus Christ.³ Do not be misled, my brothers: if any follow a schismatic, they will not inherit the kingdom of God. If any hold to alien views, they disassociate themselves from the passion. (translation adapted from Holmes)

Images related to the church as a “plant” can already be found in Paul’s writings; one of the most prominent passages is certainly 1 Cor 3:6 where we read about Paul’s having planted the seed, Apollos’s watering it, but God’s making it grow.36 Contrary to Paul, where even in a situation of dangerous divisions within the community of Corinth we get the image of just one plant, Ignatius focuses on the “evil plants, which are not cultivated by Jesus Christ, because they are not the Father’s planting”. This shift allows Ignatius to state that there is no division within the community – this is, however, perhaps only the case because for him there cannot be any division within. Anybody who is not “with the bishop” (Ign. Phld. 3:2) does not belong to “God and Jesus Christ”; everybody else is outside this unity, and only if one repents can he/she enter it again. Everybody else is a schismatic and thus belongs to the outside world, and following him/her means not to “inherit the kingdom of God” (Ign. Phld. 3:3). Again, the focus on Christology seems to have to do with the opponents Ignatius has in mind. The fact that we have to do with a “docetic” form of Christology (in whatever concrete sense) can be deduced

36

Interestingly, it is also used in the Ascension of Isaiah quoted above. See especially Ascen. Isa. 4:3. This fact only indicates, however, that the use of the image, which perhaps goes back to Old Testament and early Jewish images, has become traditional in Ignatius’s times. For more details, see P. VON GEMÜNDEN, Vegetationsmetaphorik im Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt (NTOA 18; Fribourg/Göttingen, 1993).

416

Tobias Nicklas

from the last sentence of this passage: “If any hold to alien views, they disassociate themselves from the passion.” (translation Holmes)37 The Epistle to the Smyrneans, besides its prescript discussed above and a (perhaps) “binitarian” expression in the personal greetings (12:2), does not offer spectacularly new material. The unity of the bishop, Christ, and God (the Father) is emphasized again in the farewell address of Ignatius’s Letter to Polycarp (Ign. Pol. 8:3); the spirit, however, is not mentioned. Here we might draw some preliminary conclusions: Instances where Ignatius uses binitarian expressions of belief, which are mainly in the prescripts of his epistles and are often connected to ideas of the church, abound. This is even the case if we consider the few exceptions found in passages like Ign. Phld. prescr. or Ign. Eph. 5. One crucial question, however, remains: in several cases Ignatius speaks about charisms or mentions virtues like “faith”, “love”, or “endurance”, which could be considered as such. Are these instances to be understood as signs of an implicit pneumatology? The question is not easy to answer.

2. Grace and Charisms While for Paul in 1 Corinthians “charisms” play a crucial role in the life of the community, we already hear much less about them in the Pastoral Epistles; in addition, at least some of the more special ones seem to be more and more bound to the holders of “offices” and “ministries”.38 The situation in Ignatius’s writings is partly comparable: while Ignatius, here and there, truly speaks about special Christian virtues, he only rarely connects them with the idea that they are gifts of the spirit. If we follow Michael Holmes’s translation of the prescript of Smyrneans, we read that the community is “mercifully endowed with every spiritual gift, filled with faith and love, not lacking in any spiritual gift”. This seems to reflect a community situation not too far from what we find in 1 Corinthians. The question, however, could be raised 37 The overall problem of the identity of the “heretics” addressed by Ignatius’s writings is still a matter of debate. For an overview of the scholarly literature regarding the (probable) teachings of Ignatius’s opponents, see C. MUNIER, “Question,” 398–413 (n. 10), and M. MYLLYKOSKI, “Wild Beasts and Rabid Dogs: The Riddle of the Heretics in the Letters of Ignatius,” in The Formation of the Early Church, 341–377, esp. 345–350 (n. 20). I think that one has to distinguish between at least two different groups: on the one hand, groups denying the reality of Christ’s suffering, and on the other hand, so-called “Judaizers”. Regarding the possibility of a third group, see C. TREVETT, “Prophecy and Anti-Episcopal Activity: a Third Error Combatted by Ignatius?” JEH 34 (1983), 1–18. 38 Regarding this development and its cultural background, see now the important work of K. ZAMFIR, Men and Women in the Household of God: A Contextual Approach to Roles and Ministries in the Pastoral Epistles (NTOA 103; Göttingen, 2013).

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

417

as to whether the term χάρισµα in Ignatius’s writings should really be translated and understood as “spiritual” gifts in the sense of a gift from the “Holy Spirit”. A look at Ign. Eph. 17:2, one of the very few instances where the concept occurs again in Ignatius’s writings, is revealing. Ignatius is concerned with the gift of “true knowledge”. This true knowledge is identified with Jesus Christ, the bodily reality of whose birth, life, and death Ignatius stresses in Ign. Eph. 18. He writes: Why do we not all become wise by receiving the knowledge of God (θεοῦ γνῶσιν) which is Jesus Christ? Why do we foolishly perish, ignoring the gracious gift (χάρισµα) that the Lord has truly sent? (Ign. Eph. 17:2; translation adapted from Holmes)

According to this passage at least, the charism of “the knowledge of God”, understood as Jesus Christ himself, is not portrayed as sent or given by God’s Spirit, but by “the Lord” himself, who is here very probably understood as God the Father. Therefore, we should not be too quick to take Ignatius’s other (very few) references to charisms or related topics as signs of interest in pneumatological issues. The most important counter-example, however, can also be found in Ignatius’s Epistle to the Ephesians. In a context devoted to the danger of false teachers and their doctrines, Ign. Eph. 9:1 describes a fascinating image: But I have learned that certain people from elsewhere have passed your way with evil doctrine, but you did not allow them to sow it among you. You covered up your ears in order to avoid receiving the things being sown by them, because you are stones of a temple, prepared beforehand for the building of God the Father, hoisted up to the heights by the crane of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, using as a rope the Holy Spirit; your faith is what lifts you up, and love is the way that leads up to God.

Ignatius combines aspects of the paraenetic and the anti-heretical potential of ancient Christian language about the community as God’s dwelling place.39 He makes clear that the community was able to remain unaffected by the “evil doctrine” brought from “certain people” because they are “stones of a temple”; this is encouragement and warning at the same time and helps to develop “identity” vis-à-vis the others who are outside. The image of the community as the building of a temple is developed further in a threedimensional image: stones have to be prepared to become part of such a building. They must be hoisted up, and for this a rope is needed. This “rope”, then, is identified with the Holy Spirit, who is put on a level quite comparable 39

Regarding the development of ideas of God’s Shekinah in ancient Christian literature after the New Testament, see my overview in T. NICKLAS, “Altkirchliche Diskurse um das ‘Wohnen Gottes’. Eine Spurensuche bis zur Konstantinischen Wende,” in Das Geheimnis der Gegenwart Gottes. Zur Schechina-Vorstellung im Judentum und Christentum (WUNT; ed. E. E. Popkes; Tübingen, 2013), 305–324 [forthcoming].

418

Tobias Nicklas

to God the Father and Jesus Christ.40 In addition, the process of “lifting up” is further developed and connected to the charisms of “faith” and “love”. The text thus does not develop a direct connection between the idea of “charisms” and “spiritual gifts”; if, however, we take the image seriously (without pressing it too much), at least “faith” seems to have a function very comparable to what the Holy Spirit does for a believer. Comparable things can be said about many instances where Ignatius speaks of “grace”. In most cases, “grace” seems not to be a concept clearly related to the Holy Spirit. (1) The only exception is perhaps Ign. Magn. 8:1–2, a passage in a context dealing with the relation of “Judaism” and “Christianity”.41 According to Ign. Magn. 8:1, everybody who still lives “in accordance with Judaism” shows that he has not received “grace” (χάρις). Thus “grace” in this context must be something that marks a difference from “Judaism”. This difference between “Judaism” and “grace” has its roots in the Pauline contrast of “grace” and “law”.42 If this is the case, then “grace” seems to be a term related to Christology (or, perhaps better, a soteriology closely related to Christology). At least here, a little hint of pneumatology can be found. In Ign. Magn. 8:2, Ignatius speaks about the prophets, who, like the true “Christian” community of Ignatius’s days, had “lived in accordance with Christ Jesus” and were “inspired … by his grace”. Even if Ignatius does not speak about God’s Spirit here, his use of the participle ἐνπνεόµενοι makes it very probable that he understands Israel’s prophets (who, in his view, were never living in accordance with Judaism) as “inspired” by the Spirit (see also Ign. Magn. 9:2). (2) With the exception of a short passage in Ign. Pol. 7:3 (“by grace I trust”), we have to look into Ignatius’s Letter to the Smyrneans to find further occurrences of the terms “charism” and “grace” in Ignatius’s writings. The term “charism”, however, appears only in the prescript, where Ignatius, as we

40 As J. P. MARTÍN, “La pneumatologià en Ignacio de Antioquía,” Salesianum 33 (1971), 379–454, esp. 410–411, has already observed, the exact relationship between the Spirit and the other two persons of the Trinity is not easily to be discerned here. 41 For a more thorough discussion of Jewish-Christian relations as mirrored in the writings of Ignatius, see T. A. ROBINSON, Ignatius of Antioch and the Parting of the Ways: Early Jewish-Christian Relations (Peabody, 2009); for a somewhat different view, see T. NICKLAS, Lines of Contact – Lines of Division: Second-Century ‘Christian’ Perspectives on the ‘Parting of the Ways’ (Tübingen, 2014) [forthcoming]. 42 Of course, this passage goes a decisive step further than Paul, and we could even discuss the exact meaning of “law” (or even more “works of the law”) in his writings. Regarding Ignatius, W. R. SCHOEDEL, Ignatius, 118 (n. 19) writes: “We may observe in this connection that Ignatius speaks of Judaism where Paul would more naturally have spoken of the law. Thus Ignatius’ contrast is between grace and Judaism and not, as in Paul, between grace and law (cf. Rom 6:14). For Ignatius the teachings and myths of Judaism are ‘old’… – a term that he uses to describe what is opposed to God.”

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

419

have seen, addresses the abundance of charisms in the community of Smyrna. Unfortunately, the few references about being “in grace” (Ign. Smyrn. 9:2), or about “God’s grace” (Ign. Smyrn. 11:1; 13:2), which helps Ignatius to “reach God” (Ign. Smyrn. 11:1), or about “grace” that will reward Burrus for everything he has done for Ignatius (Ign. Smyrn. 12:1), do not even allow one to draw rough lines of an Ignatian “theology of grace”. In addition, they are in no way explicitly connected to a theology of “spirit”. Ignatius’s Epistle to the Smyrnaeans 6:2 is a bit more detailed: it speaks about teachers “who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ that came to us”. Their concrete teachings are not made clear. It seems, however, that ethical questions like “concern for love” (Ign. Smyrn. 6:2) and its expression in behaviour towards widows, orphans, the oppressed, prisoners, and so forth, played a role in this regard. In addition (and probably connected to it), Ignatius attacks the opponents for not believing “that the Eucharist is the flesh of our saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up” (Ign. Smyrn. 6:2).43 There is, however, no explicit connection between “grace” and “God’s spirit”. Ignatius’s writings thus do not allow us to reconstruct an Ignatian theology of “grace” and “charisms”. Both concepts appear, but they are mostly used in quite traditional ways. The few instances that allow us to say a bit more about them show that both the concepts of “charisms” and “grace” can be bound to pneumatological ideas but are not necessarily so. This leads us, finally, to the question of whether there are at least a few texts in Ignatius’s writings that help us to describe his ideas about God’s pneuma.

3. Expressions of Possible Pneumatological Relevance Again, the Epistle to the Ephesians offers two important passages for our study. While I have already mentioned Ign. Eph. 9:1 above, according to Ign. Eph. 18:2, probably part of an older, traditional expression (possibly reworked), “our God Jesus the Christ was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and of the Holy Spirit”.44 While the reference to the Spirit is used to show both Christ’s human and divine origins, the focus seems to be on the first dimension.45 Ignatius repeats something that 43 One could add Ign. Smyrn. 13:1, where we read about the “house of Gavia” (or “Tavia”) who should “be firmly grounded in faith and love both physically and spiritually.” 44 For a detailed discussion of the special character of this small passage, see W. R. SCHOEDEL, Ignatius, 84 (n. 19). 45 Regarding the impact of Christ’s being conceived by Mary and – related to it – Mary’s career in early “proto-orthodox” Christian circles, see C. TREVETT, Christian Women and the Time of the Apostolic Fathers (AD c.80–160) (Cardiff, 2006), 267–270.

420

Tobias Nicklas

he could expect his audience already to know, and he uses it for his “antidocetic” argument. The statement about the Spirit, however, remains isolated.46 The only example in the Letter to the Magnesians causes several problems:47 in Ign. Magn. 1:2 Ignatius writes that he “sings” to (or “praises”) the communities: … ᾄδω τὰς ἐκκλησίας ἐν αἷς ἕνωσιν εὔχοµαι (1) σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύµατος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ … (2) πίστεώς τε καὶ ἀγάπης … (3) τὸ δὲ κυριώτερον Ἰησοῦ καὶ πατρός

Does Ignatius pray that there should be unity in the communities (as the translations of Holmes and Lindemann/Paulsen would suggest) or does he pray in the communities (Schoedel)? To my mind, only the former makes sense. The inner relationship of the many genitives of this passage, however, is much more problematic. Does passage (1) mean that the unity of the churches comes from the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ? In this case, the parallel genitives in (1) – (3) could be understood as “genitives of origin”. This would, of course, be highly significant for our question.48 If this is the case, one could argue that Ignatius both re-uses the Pauline image of the community as “body of Christ” and understands the Spirit – which is seen as Christ’s spirit – as a unifying principle of the church. I think, however, that this is not the case. Interestingly, Ign. Magn. 13:1–2, at the end of the body of the letter, comes back to a comparable problem. Here, we find one of the very few clearly trinitarian formulae in Ignatius’s extant writings (Ign. Magn. 13:1: ἐν υἱῷ καὶ πατρὶ καὶ ἐν πνεύµατι, cf. 13:2: τῷ Χρίστῳ καὶ τῷ πατρὶ [καὶ τῷ πνεύµατι]49) and read about the council of presbyters as a “beautifully woven spiritual crown”. Ignatius exhorts the community to “be subject to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ in the flesh was to the 46

This is quite astonishing, for example, for the case of Jesus’s baptism, mentioned only a bit later, where one would expect Ignatius to speak about God’s Spirit. 47 I skip Ign. Magn. 9:2, which speaks about the prophets as Christ’s “disciples in the Spirit” and the christological expression of Ign. Magn. 15, which describes Christ as the “undivided Spirit”, both of which may be of lesser import for our focal question of the relationship of spirit and church. 48 According to SCHOEDEL, Ignatius, 104 (n. 19), however, Ignatius prays for the unity of the flesh and spirit of Jesus Christ, and according to LINDEMANN and PAULSEN, Apostolische Väter, 193 (n. 25), Ignatius speaks about the “Einigung … des Fleisches und des Geistes Jesu Christi”. 49 Unfortunately, the words cannot be found in all witnesses of Ign. Magn. That is why M. W. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 106 (n. 13), assumes that they are a later addition to the original text.

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

421

Father and as the apostles were to Christ and to the Father (and the Spirit)” (Ign. Magn. 13:2). The purpose of this is expressed with the words ἵνα ἕνωσις ᾖ σαρκική τε καὶ πνευµατική – “that there may be unity, both physical and spiritual”. The closeness of Ign. Magn. 1:2 (ἕνωσιν εὔχοµαι σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύµατος …) and 13:2 (ἕνωσις … σαρκική τε καὶ πνευµατική) to the beginning and the end of the body of the letter, makes it highly plausible that 1:2 should be understood in the sense of 13:2. Thus, Ignatius does not speak about Jesus Christ’s spirit as a unifying principle for the church, but about the unification of “flesh and spirit that comes from Jesus Christ”. In other words, the phrase is not relevant for our question.50 The most well-known, and perhaps most important passage related to pneumatology, is Ign. Phld. 7:1–2.51 This passage is not only important because of its statements about the spirit but because of its relation to Ignatius’s ecclesiology. Some aspects of the text are quite traditional: – The Spirit cannot “be deceived” because it is “from God”. – The Spirit knows “from where it comes and where it is going” – interestingly, we do not hear that the Spirit blows where it wants to blow. – The Spirit “exposes the hidden things”. While these ideas are not very exciting, the most important point, which, as far as I know, has no early parallel, is the fact that Ignatius, as the bishop, understands himself as speaking with “a loud voice”52, the voice of the Spirit which is understood as “God’s voice” (Ign. Phld. 7:1). The contents of the spirit’s message given via Ignatius’s preaching are quite simple: “Pay attention to the bishop, the council of presbyters, and the deacons” (Ign. Phld. 7:1), and a bit later, “Do nothing without the bishop. Guard your bodies as the temple of God. Love unity. Flee from divisions. Become imitators of Christ, just as he is of his Father” (Ign. Phld. 7:2). With these words, the most burning issues for the community of Philadelphia are addressed. Even if the text does not say that the bishop is the only bearer of the Spirit, he is the one through whom the Spirit is speaking, and he is the one without whom and without whose advice nothing can be done. As Henning Paulsen has shown, Ign. Phld. 7:1–2 also throws light on Ign. Rom. 7:2.53 At first glance, we detect another binitarian expression of thought. 50

I thus follow the understanding of M. W. Holmes, Apostolic Fathers, 103 (n. 13). This passage is crucial for the argument of H. PAULSEN, Studien, 126–127 (n. 10), but see also C. MUNIER, “Question,” 439 (n. 10), and F. HAHN and H. KLEIN, Die frühchristliche Prophetie. Ihre Voraussetzungen, ihre Anfänge und ihre Entwicklung bis zum Montanismus (BThSt 116; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 2011), 153. 52 According to SCHOEDEL, Ignatius, 205 (n. 19), Ignatius “shared with many others in the Graeco-Roman world the belief that a sudden loud utterance marked the inrush of the divine.” 53 Cf. PAULSEN, Studien, 126–127 (n. 10). Perhaps a statement about obedience to the silent bishop, like we find in Ign. Eph. 6:1 (see also Ign. Phld. 1:1), can be understood in 51

422

Tobias Nicklas

In a context where Ignatius reflects on his desire to die as a martyr (Ign. Rom. 7:2) and on his lack of interest in “corruptible food or the pleasures of this life”, he concludes with the following sentence: “I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love.” This is clearly an allusion to the Eucharist, but should certainly also be put in the context of Ignatius’s future martyrdom.54 W. R. Schoedel writes: What Ignatius basically ‘wants’, of course, is Jesus Christ who died and rose for us … The bread and drink … are simply specifications of that fundamental wish. … The reference in the passage before us to Christ being ‘of the seed of David’ probably functions … to underscore the realty of the Lord’s earthly ministry … All of this is relevant to Ignatius himself who longs for death (7.2) and elsewhere makes the meaningfulness of his martyrdom dependent on the reality of Christ’s passion … It is likely, then, that the reference here to Christ’s flesh and blood marks a reaffirmation of the bishop’s desire to authenticate his Christianity in martyrdom.

This interpretation is, of course, not new; it could, however, help us to understand Ignatius’s focus on the connection with Christology when he employs eucharistic imagery. It has to do with the concrete context of his speech: the materiality and concreteness of Christ’s suffering is of decisive relevance for Ignatius’s self-understanding, but too much attention to the role of the Spirit could, in this context, lead to docetic misinterpretations. Even if we do not explicitly read about the Spirit in this passage, one could argue that in Ign. Rom. 7:2 God’s spirit implicitly plays a role. In fact, Ignatius’s desire to become a martyr is understood as not purely human but coming from a voice inside Ignatius: My passionate love has been crucified and there is no fire of material longing within me, but only water living and speaking in me, saying within me, ‘Come to the Father’. (translation Holmes)55

If we take Ign. Phld. 7 into account along with the idea that the connection of “living water” and Spirit is a traditional one (see e.g., Isa 58:11; John 4:7–26; 7:37–39; Rev 7:17; 21:6; 22:2,17), the “water living and speaking in me, saying with me, ‘Come to the Father’” can be nothing other than God’s Spirit.

the same context. Contrary to the opponents, the bishop who is the voice of the Spirit should be distinguished from the opponents and the “’vain babble’ of their heterodox confession” (H. O. MAIER, “The Politics of the Silent Bishop: Silence and Persuasion in Ignatius of Antioch,” JTS 55 [2004], 503–519, esp. 519). 54 Regarding this dimension of the passage, see WEHR, Arznei, 130–141 (n. 29). 55 One could discuss the exact translation. LINDEMANN and PAULSEN, Apostolische Väter, 215 (n. 25), understand the phrase in the following way: “living water speaking in me”, which would make the reference to the Spirit even clearer. I think, however, that Holmes’s understanding of the Greek syntax is more convincing.

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

423

The focus of both Ign. Phld. 7:1–2 and Ign. Rom. 7:2, however, is not on pneumatology, but on the function of the bishop for communities in trouble. The overall idea that the Spirit speaks through Ignatius as the bishop is, of course, in line with many other passages in Ignatius’s epistles where the community is exhorted to follow the bishop (Ign. Magn. 3:1), where the bishop is compared to Christ (Ign. Trall. 2:1; Ign. Smyrn. 8:1; see also Ign. Magn. 3:1 [Christ as the “bishop of all”] or Ign. Rom. 9:2 [Christ as the bishop of the church of Syria]) or even the Father (Ign. Trall. 3:1; see also Ign. Smyrn. 9:1). In other passages, we read that nothing can be done without the bishop (plus his presbyters and deacons, Ign. Trall. 7:2, see also Ign. Pol.). The bishop thus fulfills two roles: On the one hand, he is “not simply the symbolic representation of the presence of divinity within each faith community, but … in fact the living embodiment of that presence”. Through his office “the living word of God was most likely heard among God’s people”.56 On the other hand, he becomes “equivalent to a prophet, and, as such, it is the prophetbishop whose clear voice of divinity reigns supreme on all issues of ecclesiastical control”.57 With this idea in mind, it also becomes clear why for Ignatius’s church the prophets seem to be a phenomenon of the past. While he can speak about them as disciples of Christ “in the Spirit” who had expected him as a teacher (Ign. Magn. 9:2; see also 8:2), there is not even a single hint that “prophets” still play a role in Ignatius’s present churches; Ignatius’s episcopal selfunderstanding as the Christ-like and decisive bearer of the Spirit, without whom neither unity of the churches among each other nor unity of “Christians” with Christ is possible, simply does not leave room for them anymore.

4. Conclusion Is it possible to make a system out of these rather disparate observations? And should we do so? Ignatius, after all, writes to different communities – “to each their own letter”, one could say.58 Even if it is clear that we are not dealing with a systematic tractate when we read Ignatius’s letters, and even when we recognize that Ignatius stresses different points of his theological thinking in different letters, a few main ideas can be found again and again. 56 Both quotations from C. N. JEFFORD, “Prophecy and Prophetism in the Apostolic Fathers,” in Prophets and Prophecy in Jewish and Early Christian Literature (WUNT II.286; eds. J. Verheyden, K. Zamfir, and T. Nicklas; Tübingen, 2010), 295–316, esp. 307. For a more detailed discussion of this idea, see BRENT, Martyr Bishop, 71–94 (n. 4). 57 JEFFORD, “Prophecy,” 308 (n. 56). 58 See the title of M. ISACSON, To Each Their Own Letter: Structure, Themes, and Rhetorical Strategies in the Letters of Ignatius of Antioch (ConBNT 42; Stockholm, 2004).

424

Tobias Nicklas

Henning Paulsen is certainly not wrong when he says that there are passages in Ignatius’s letters where we do not read about God’s Spirit but pneumatology plays at least an implicit role – the best example being Ign. Rom. 7:2. I would, however, like to replace Paulsen’s concept of an “implicit” pneumatology with the idea of a partly “hidden” pneumatology. While, as far as I can see, it would be possible to re-construct the stories of God’s involvement with the world and the story of salvation through Christ underlying Ignatius’s theology, such reconstruction seems impossible for the Spirit. The instances in Ignatius’s writings where we expect to hear about the Holy Spirit but do not, are too numerous to allow for any other conclusion. In addition, many of the instances where traditional ideas of the Spirit appear are quite isolated and easily overlooked. This does not mean that Ignatius systematically avoided speaking about the Spirit. Nevertheless, one has the impression that it is not by chance that a few important ideas are absent, such as the Spirit’s free and uncontrollable work within the world, as we find it, for example, in John 3:8. Instead, Ignatius’s theology limits the role of the Spirit to a few areas. While it is almost impossible to give answers to later dogmatic questions about Ignatius’s precise understanding of the Holy Spirit as the third “person” of a holy trinity and its relation to the Father and the Son, at least in a few instances Ignatius re-uses traditional ideas about the role of the Spirit. This is the case when Ignatius speaks about Christ’s incarnation (Ign. Eph. 18:2) and about the prophets of the past (Ign. Magn. 8:2 and 9:2) being disciples of Christ “in the spirit”.59 In all these instances, Ignatius’s first interests are, however, not questions of systematic pneumatology but are related to concrete problems in the communities – questions of the reality of Christ’s suffering and questions of “Christian” identity over against “Judaism”. The negative side of the coin is even more noticeable. In Ignatius’s eyes, most of the spirit’s activities are past activities; they are always related to the Christ event, the focus of Ignatius’s theological argument. This can even be said in the very case where Ignatius’s pneumatology is most original – the idea that the Spirit speaks, works, and acts in the bishop who, in this way, replaces the prophets, becoming Christ’s representative in the community and guaranteeing both its internal unity and its unity with Christ and God the Father. Interestingly, this is expressed most clearly in Ignatius’s Epistle to the Philadelphians, perhaps the community that, in Ignatius’s eyes, was in greatest danger of losing its unity. From Ignatius’s perspective, his communities are not churches without Spirit, as long as they remain in unity with the bishop, the council of presbyters, and the deacons, a unity that also guarantees their unity with “their God Christ” and the Father. This unity, however, is always mediated via the bish59

See also SCHOEDEL, Ignatius, 195 (n. 19).

Pneumatology in the Writings of Ignatius of Antioch

425

op. Anything else, in his eyes, is outside, is “heresy”, and thus is cut off from Christ. Even if the spirit (e.g., in Ign. Phld. prescr.) is seen as a divine power, this power is not bringing the “winds of change” but is a power of stabilisation, setting borders around the community and uniting it around its visible centre, the bishop. In this context, the idea of Allen Brent according to which “Ignatius claims to be the θεοφόρος in a mystery procession, so that he is ‘pre-eminently in front of “… other θεοφόροι, χριστοφόροι, ἁγιοφόροι, and ναοφόροι”, the idea that he is “the priest who leads as the representative of the divinity of the cult”60, makes especially good sense. As such, he is not only the guarantor of “concord”, but also the one who, being in the Spirit, offers access to the mystery of the story of God and his divine Christ. The reasons for this seem quite clear when we look at Ignatius’s focus on Christology (over against pneumatology). As we have seen, Ignatius could call Christ “our God” while at the same time defending Christ’s suffering as a human being born from Mary and conceived of David’s seed (Ign. Eph 18:2). Developing his theology from the centre of this Christology offered the advantage of coping with the present situation: an ecclesiology connected to such a Christology not only allowed him to mark a clear difference from “Judaism”, but it also made it possible to define the borders with respect to any kind of “docetic” ideas (see, e.g., our discussions of Ign. Rom. 7:1–3 and Ign. Phld. 3), and it helped Ignatius to make sense of his own fate as a martyr.61 All this makes even more sense if we imagine Christ-followers like the ones we find behind the Ascension of Isaiah among Ignatius’s opponents. Even if this group seems fascinating in our eyes today, groups comparable to this must have seemed extremely dangerous in the eyes of a bishop like Ignatius: not discerning between Judaism and Christianity, not insisting clearly enough on Jesus’s humanity, being polemical against the emerging Church order, and finally, focussing on their own spiritual experiences without having clear criteria for discerning the spirits – these characteristics must have seemed threatening indeed. Be that as it may, from Ignatius’s perspective, a theology developed around the idea of God’s free spirit’s being given to the community of his elect would have been dangerous. The problems of a community where (almost) everybody lays claims to the importance of his or her own special charisms can already be seen very well in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. In his own attempt to control and even restrain the obviously diverging groups and powers in the communities Ignatius addresses, the uncontrollable Spirit of God only plays a major role where it supports the authority of the bishop who

60

Both quotations from BRENT, “Second Sophistic,” 321 (n. 27). Regarding Christology as the centre of Ignatius’s theological thinking, see also WEHR, Arznei, 37–40 (n. 29). 61

426

Tobias Nicklas

wants to rescue the unity of the churches with the help of a visual principle: the emerging hierarchy of bishop, council of presbyters, and deacons.

From Maranatha to Epiclesis? An Inquiry into the Origins of Spirit Invocations in Early Christianity Taras Khomych

1. Introduction In his short yet influential study on the early history of the epiclesis, Robert Taft stated some two decades ago that the prehistory of the epiclesis “anterior to the earliest extant anaphoras [of the fourth century] … is sheer speculation”.1 However, precisely this history attracts increasing scholarly attention today.2 In Christian tradition, both Eastern and Western, the epiclesis emerged as an important liturgical expression of the role the Holy Spirit plays in the life of the Church. Since the origins of the epiclesis are often traced back to New Testament times, it is not unwarranted to deal with this issue in the framework of this volume. First, however, a few terminological remarks are due. In general, the word “epiclesis” (from the Greek noun ἐπίκλησις) can refer to any invocation, but as a liturgical term, it has a technical meaning, referring to a specific form of prayer that asks God the Father to send the Holy Spirit in order to consecrate the Eucharistic elements.3 This pattern of prayer that emerges from the major Greek Eucharistic liturgies seems to be of a comparatively late period, getting more or less established only in the fifth 1

R. F. TAFT, “From Logos to Spirit: On the Early History of the Epiclesis,” in Gratias agamus. Studien zum eucharistischen Hochgebet. FS Balthasar Fischer (eds. A. Heinz and H. Rennings; Freiburg, 1992), 489–502, 491. 2 For useful summaries of research, see P. F. BRADSHAW, Eucharistic Origins (London, 2004), 93–94, 124–128; R. MESSNER, “Grundlinien des eucharistischen Gebets in der frühen Kirche,” in Prex eucharistica 3,1 (eds. A. Gerhards, H. Brakmann, and M. Klöckener; Fribourg, 2005), 3–41; J. MCKENNA, The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern Era (Chicago, 2009), 2–7; cf. P. F. BRADSHAW and M. E. JOHNSON, The Eucharistic Liturgies: Their Evolution and Interpretation (Collegeville, 2012), 37–50. 3 For a definition of the term and a useful overview of ancient evidence, see S. SALAVILLE, “Epiclèse,” in DThC 5 (Paris, 1911), 194–300. For more recent scholarship on this topic see the first two footnotes.

428

Taras Khomych

century C.E. Earlier forms of epicleses presumably consisted of less complex invocations of the Divine.4 One of its most primitive examples emerges first in the context of the earliest Syrian initiatory rites, as attested in the so-called Acts of Thomas. This early Christian writing, which is usually classified as an apocryphal work, includes a series of invocations beginning with the imperative “come” directed to Christ and/or His Spirit. This text appears in virtually all discussions surrounding the question of the development of Eucharistic epicleses. Some suggested a magic5 or Orphic6 background for the invocations. Most scholars, however, opted for the Jewish/Christian milieu. One theory, which today receives increasing, albeit not unanimous, scholarly support, traces the origins of the epiclesis back to earlier sources, associating the beginnings of these invocations with an Aramaic expression, maranatha. This contribution will discuss several aspects of this widely accepted theory in order to cast more light on the obscure question of the origins of the epiclesis. In what follows, we will first introduce this theory and then discuss some of its weak points, using the ancient evidence. Concluding remarks will summarize our findings.

2. Maranatha as Epiclesis In the course of the previous century, several scholars suggested that in the earliest Christian sources maranatha functioned as an invocation of the Divine, a sort of a proto-epiclesis.7 This view gained increasing popularity during the last few decades. In particular, Sebastian Brock, in his influential essay on “The Epiclesis in the Antiochene Baptismal Ordines”, notes the importance of early rites of initiation, in which he finds the earliest evidence of ritual invocations. Brock convincingly argues for the greater antiquity of 4 See MESSNER, “Grundlinien,” 26–27 (n. 2). The author argues that the crucial element in early Christian epicleses was the invocation of God’s name. 5 C. JOHNSON, “Ritual Epicleses in the Greek Acts of Thomas,” in The Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles: Harvard Divinity School Studies (eds. F. Bovon, A. G. Brock, and Chr. R. Matthews; Cambridge, 1999), 171–204. The author points out that ritual epicleses are found more often in relation to the Eucharist during the first centuries C.E. She suggests therefore that it is more probable that at first epicleses were Eucharistic and only later on such invocations were adapted to the rites of baptism or/and anointing (see pp. 177–179). Contra G. ROUWHORST, “Die Rolle des Heiligen Geistes in der Eucharistie und der Taufe im frühsyrischen Christentum,” in Liturgie und Trinität (QD 239; eds. B. Groen and B. Kranemann; Freibburg/Basel/Wien, 2008), 161–184. This author argues that in Syria an early form of epiclesis, which included an invocation of Christ’s Name and His Mother, originated in a baptismal context, from where it travelled later on into the Eucharist. 6 S. E. MYERS, Spirit Epicleses in the Acts of Thomas (WUNT II.281; Tübingen, 2010). 7 See references in the literature mentioned in note 2.

Spirit Invocations in Early Christianity

429

the imperative “come” as compared to that of “send” in the baptismal epicleses. He suggests that the earliest form of baptismal epiclesis used the verb “come”, which later on was substituted by the verb “send”. Along with the change of the verb from “come” to “send”, he points to the change of addressee. According to Brock, the petition to God (the Father) to send the Holy Spirit is a late form, which developed from the original address to Christ. He argues that the earliest initiatory epicleses were directed to Christ, asking Him to come (to the celebration). Then, Brock continues, Christ was asked that the Spirit might come. Finally, the address switched to the Father, Who was implored that the Spirit may come or, alternatively, that the Father may send the Spirit. Brock finds one of the earliest attestations of the primitive epiclesis in the Acts of Thomas and traces its origins back to the phrase maranatha of Did. 10.6, which he interprets as a call directed to Christ.8 This theory has been essentially endorsed by many other scholars who tend to agree that the more primitive pattern of the epicleses was directed to Christ and/or his Spirit, and employed the imperative “come” instead of “send”.9 The supporters of this theory associate the origins of these epicleses with the ancient Aramaic phrase marantha, attested to by the New Testament and the Didache. In this respect, the appeal maranatha is commonly interpreted as an imperative expression, “Our Lord, come”, wherein “Lord” would refer to Christ. The Didache provides the earliest firm evidence for the use of this expression in the Eucharistic prayers, and hence its importance for the reconstruction of the development of Eucharistic epicleses. Notwithstanding some minor variations, proponents of this theory tend to agree with respect to the following two points: (1) one of the earliest available texts of a Eucharistic epiclesis may be found in Acts of Thomas 50, which contains a series of invocations, each one beginning with the imperative “come” and directed to Christ and/or His Spirit; (2) the origins of this form of prayer are to be found in the expression maranatha as exemplified by Did. 10.6. In this context, maranatha emerges as a primitive form of Eucharistic epiclesis, a proto-epiclesis. In what follows, we will focus on the second point – namely, on the alleged connection between the phrase maranatha and the earliest baptismal invocations. We will compare the meaning and function of these liturgical 8

S. BROCK, “The Epiclesis in the Antiochene Baptismal Ordines,” in Symposium Syriacum 1972 (OCA 197; Rome, 1974), 183–218, here 200, 213. In a personal communication, however, Sebastian Brock told me recently that he would not insist on the theory, which traces the origins of the epiclesis back to the expression maranatha. 9 See G. WINKLER, “Nochmals zu den Anfängen der Epiklese und des Sanctus im Eucharistischen Hochgebet,” ThQ 174 (1994), 214–231; WINKLER, “Weitere Beobachtungen zur frühen Epiklese (den Doxologien und dem Sanctus). Über die Bedeutung der Apokryphen für die Erforschung der Entwicklung der Riten,” OrChr 80 (1996), 177–200.

430

Taras Khomych

expressions, maranatha of the Didache and the invocations from the Acts of Thomas, within their respective contexts. First we will deal with the Acts of Thomas.

3. Ritual Invocations in the Acts of Thomas The Acts of Thomas is an extensive work written in the form of a novel in the late second century or in the course of the third century C.E. It relates the missionary activities of the apostle Judas Thomas in India. The narrative can be divided into a number of separate acts, with the story of the apostle’s martyrdom at the end. Edessa is usually suggested as the most probable place of origin for the Acts of Thomas, although there is no decisive proof for this.10 It is widely recognised that the Acts of Thomas were originally composed in Syriac; “an early Greek translation, however survives and this happens to preserve some archaic features which have been removed in the surviving form of the Syriac text” in the course of its transmission.11 In view of this, the Greek version of the Acts is generally recognised as the more primitive one. Among the distinctive features of the Acts of Thomas, the extensive descriptions of initiation rites are worth mentioning. This element – namely, the action of reception into the community of believers, the Church – is of particular importance for our investigation, since the epicleses are found as a part of initiation. In the Acts of Thomas, we find the first reference to a Christian initiation process embedded within a common meal celebration in chapters 26–27. This passage is preceded by the story of the miraculous conversion of the Indian King Gundaphoros and his brother Gad, who subsequently come to Thomas with the request that they might “receive the seal” (chapter 26), a 10 J. N. BREMMER, “The Acts of Thomas: Place, Date and Women,” in The Apocryphal Acts of Thomas (ed. J. N. Bremmer; Leuven, 2001), 74–90. Cf. A. DIBERARDINO, ed., Patrologia. V. Dal Concilio di Calcedonia (451) a Giovanni Damasceno (+750). I Padri orientali (Genova, 2000), 439–440. A. F. J. KLIJN, The Acts of Thomas: Introduction, Text, Commentary, (2nd ed.; NovTSup 5; Leiden/Boston, 2003), 1–26. Some contemporary scholars, however, dispute the general tendency to date the text to the beginning of the third century C.E. Albert, for instance, makes the following remark about the Acts of Thomas: “Ecrit encratite syriaque probablement composé à l’occasion du transfert à Edesse, à la fin du troisième siècle, des reliques de l’apôtre”; see M. ALBERT, “Langue et literature syriaques,” in Christianismes orientaux: Introduction à l’étude des langues et des litératures (eds. M. Albert, R. Beylot and R.-G. Coquin; Paris, 1993), 320. Similarly, Myers tends to date the composition of this writing as a whole to the second half of the third century; see S. E. MYERS, “Revisiting Preliminary Issues in the Acts of Thomas,” Apocrypha 17 (2006) 95–112. 11 S. BROCK, “The Earliest Syriac Literature,” in The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature (eds. F. Young, L. Ayres, and A. Louth; Cambridge, 2004), 161–171, 167.

Spirit Invocations in Early Christianity

431

cryptic phrase referring most probably to the rite of anointing as an initiation.12 Following a short conversation, the apostle utters an extensive invocation as follows: Come (ἐλθέ), holy name of the Annointed, which is above every name; Come, power of the Most High and perfect compassion; Come, highest charism; Come, compassionate mother; Come, fellowship of the male; Come, revealer of hidden mysteries; Come, mother of the seven houses, so that your rest might be in the eighth house; Come, one who is older than five members – mind, conception, thought, reflection, reason – commune with these youths; Come, holy spirit (τò ἅγιον πνεῦµα) and cleanse their kidneys and heart, and seal them. 13

This invocation is related to the ritual sealing of the initiates. At this point it is important to note the repeated use of the imperative “come (ἐλθέ)” in this prayer, which employs a variety of images, referring to the Holy Spirit (τò ἅγιον πνεῦµα). The Spirit is asked to come to/upon the initiates. A very similar invocation, embedded within the context of a Eucharistic celebration, is found somewhat later in the narrative, in chapter 50.14 It begins with the following prayer: Jesus, who have deemed us worthy to partake of the Eucharist of your holy body and blood, behold, we are emboldened to come to your Eucharist and to invoke your holy name; come and commune with us.

The prayer clearly focuses on the person of Jesus. The surrounding narrative includes expressions such as “τῆς εὐχαριστίας τοῦ Χριστοῦ (of the Eucha-

12

For a detailed analysis of the notion of the “seal” or “sign” (Greek: σφραγίς, Syriac: ‫ )ܪܘ‬in the initiation rites in Antiquity, see J. YSEBAERT, Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development (Nijmegen, 1962), 182–426. On the meaning of this term in the Acts of Thomas, cf. S. E. MYERS, “Initiation by Anointing in Early SyriacSpeaking Christianity,” SL 31 (2001), 150–170, and more recently MYERS, Spirit Epicleses, 109–132 (n. 6). For an overview of the scholarship on early Christian initiation rites in general, and initiation by anointing in particular, see P. F. BRADSHAW, The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship: Sources and Methods for the Study of Early Liturgy (SPCK; London, 2002), 146–153. 13 The English translation is that of MYERS, Spirit Epicleses, 225–226 (n. 6). 14 Useful studies of Eucharistic passages in the Acts of Thomas include G. ROUWHORST, “La célébration de l’eucharistie selon les Actes de Thomas,” in Omnes circumstantes: Contributions towards a History of the Role of the People in the Liturgy (eds. C. Caspers and M. Schneiders; Kampen, 1990), 51–77, and R. MESSNER, “Zur Eucharistie in den Thomasakten. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Frühgeschichte der eucharistischen Epiklese,” in Crossroad of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honour of Gabriele Winkler (eds. H.-J. Feulner, E. Velkovska, and R. F. Taft; Rome, 2000), 493–513.

432

Taras Khomych

rist of Christ)” and the Syriac “ ‫ܘܪܗ ܕ‬ (the table of the Messiah)”15, alluding to the idea of a messianic, eschatological banquet,16 but also to the Messiah’s presence in the actual celebration. Jesus is asked to come into fellowship with those who celebrate the Eucharist. Within this context, we might expect that the ensuing epiclesis would likewise be directed to Christ. The text of the prayer, however, appears to have a different addressee. It goes as follows: Come (ἐλθέ), perfect compassion (τὰ σπλάγχνα τὰ τέλεια); Come, fellowship (ἡ κοινωνία) of the male; Come, one who understands (ἡ ἐπισταµένη) the mysteries of the chosen one; Come, one who communes (ἡ κοινωνοῦσα) in all the contests of the noble athlete; Come, rest (ἡ ἡσυχία) which reveals the great things of every greatness; Come revealer (ἡ ἐκφαίνουσα) of secrets and make visible what is hidden; Holy dove (ἡ ἱερὰ περιστερά) which bears twin nestlings; Come, hidden mother (ἡ ἀπόκρυφος µήτηρ); Come, the one visible (ἡ φανερά) in her actions, and the one who gives joy and rest to those who cling to her; Come and commune with us in this Eucharist, which we celebrate in your name, and in the love in which we are united at your calling.17

It is worth noting that all these invocations, with the exception of the first one, are formulated in the feminine (ἡ κοινωνία, ἡ ἐπισταµένη, etc). This fact alone undermines the view that Jesus is the intended addressee of the epiclesis. This issue is further complicated by the fact that this prayer corresponds closely to another prayer, from chapter 27, which is directed unambiguously to the Spirit. The invocations also explicitly mention a “holy dove (ἡ ἱερὰ περιστερά)”, the bird that represents the presence of the Spirit in the Synoptic portrayals of the baptism of Jesus (Matt 3:16; Mark 1:10; and see esp. Luke 3:22). The evidence at hand appears to suggest that a prayer originally directed to the Spirit was inserted, without much modification, into a narrative about Jesus.18 The prayer reveals the main purpose of the celebration – namely, achieving communion with the Messiah/Christ or, alternatively, with the Spirit. As part of the initiation process, which involves the reception of a new member into the community of believers, this piece of liturgy 15

The variant Syriac reading “‫ܕ ܢ‬ ‫( ܘ‬in the commemoration of our Lord)” found in the apparatus of Bedjan’s edition, should be rejected for the following two reasons. First, this phrase is found only in the later Syriac MSS of the Acts of Thomas. Second, and more importantly, it introduces a notion that does not conform to the rest of the passage, since in the text there is no reference to any other element of remembrance which could support the idea that this celebration was indeed a commemoration meal. 16 D. E. SMITH, From Symposium to Eucharist: The Banquet in the Early Christian World (Minneapolis, 2003), 168–172. 17 MYERS, Spirit Epicleses, 226–227 (n.6). 18 MYERS, Spirit Epicleses, 146–152 (n.6).

Spirit Invocations in Early Christianity

433

provides evidence for the importance of the Spirit for the life of the Church. It is worth remembering, however, that the (Holy) Spirit is not clearly identified as a person in the Acts of Thomas. In any case, this invocation has a clear, present-time orientation, inviting the Divine into communion with the faithful here and now. As such, this prayer could be seen as an earlier form of what later on became the Eucharistic epiclesis. At this point, we need to turn our attention to the second question – namely, to the suggestion that the expression µαραναθά in Did. 10.6 could be envisaged as an earlier stage of the developing epiclesis.

4. Origins of the Expression Maranatha Investigation of the earliest attestations of the use of maranatha leads scholars to the conclusion that this short phrase originated in an Aramaic-speaking milieu (within either the early Jesus movement or an earlier trend in Judaism), where it was used as a fixed formula, most likely during worship. Later on, this term, like Hebrew hosanna and amen, was adopted untranslated into worship by Greek-speaking Christian communities.19 Linguistically, maranatha is a short expression, consisting of (at least) two Aramaic words, the noun arm “lord” and the verb ‫“ אתא‬to come”. There exist the following three possibilities for interpreting this phrase, all of which are equally plausible philologically: (1) a future oriented imperative or petition, “Lord, come”; (2) a confession in the perfect, “our Lord has come” (into this world); (3) the statement, “our Lord is now present” (at the worship).20

Thus, a more precise meaning of the term should be determined from the particular context in which it appears. Since the Didache provides one of the earliest attestations of its use in Eucharistic liturgy, it is vital to investigate this evidence in the context of this study. It is necessary to begin with some introductory remarks.

5. Maranatha in the Didache The Didache is one of the earliest Christian writings, dated variously either to the third quarter or to the end of the first century C.E.21 This text can roughly be divided into four unequal parts as follows: 19 K. G. KUHN, “µαραναθά,” ThDNT 4: 466–472, 470. See also M. WILCOX, “Maranatha,” ABD 4: 517. 20 KUHN, “µαραναθά,” 467–470 (n. 19).

434

Taras Khomych

(1) the teaching of the Two Ways (chapters 1–6); (2) liturgical instructions (chapters 7–10); (3) regulations concerning community life (chapters 11–15) and (4) eschatological warnings (chapter 16).

As regards the literary form, the Didache is usually classified as a church order, although an increasing number of scholars today finds this definition misleading22 and tends to identify this text as a “community Rule”, resembling the Serek Hayaḥad (Rule of the Community) and similar documents found among the Qumran Scrolls.23 Didache 9–10 include unique prayers. Kurt Niederwimmer expresses a majority opinion when he states that “this material is without peer in the early Christian literature” as it represents “the oldest formula for Christian Eucharistic liturgy”24, dating, most probably, to the mid-first century.25 These extensive Eucharistic prayers conclude the liturgical section of this writing (chapters 7–10). The expression maranatha26 appears at the end of these prayers, which flow into petitions for the final ingathering of the Church at 21

For the status quaestionis on the Didache, see e.g., F. E. VOKES, “Life and Order in an Early Church: The Didache,” ANRW II 27.1: 209–233; J. A. DRAPER, “The Didache in Modern Research,” in The Didache in Modern Research (ed. J. A. Draper; AGJU 37; Leiden, 1996), 1–42; K. NIEDERWIMMER, The Didache: A Commentary (Minneapolis, 1998). For the most recent (annotated) bibliography, consult M. DEL VERME, Didache and Judaism: Jewish Roots of an Ancient Christian-Jewish Work (New York, 2004). 22 See J. G. MUELLER, “The Ancient Church Order Literature: Genre or Tradition?” in JECS 15 (2007), 337–380. Mueller argues that the expression “church order literature” is misleading and inappropriate not only for the Didache, but also for all the other early Christian documents, composed during the period of the first six centuries C.E., which are usually called so from the seventeenth century on. The author observes that this expression refers primarily to the collections of laws, governing church life, composed during the period of the Reformation. Despite apparent similarities between the Reformation Kirchenordnungen and the ancient Christian texts, the association is rather misleading. The latter are better understood against the background of an ancient Jewish exegetical tradition. 23 H. VAN DE SANDT and D. FLUSSER, The Didache: Its Jewish Sources and Its Place in Early Judaism and Christianity (Assen/Minneapolis, 2002), 24–25; J. A. DRAPER, “Do the Didache and Matthew Reflect an ‘Irrevocable Parting of the Ways’ with Judaism?” in Matthew and the Didache: Two Documents from the Same Jewish-Christian Milieu? (ed. H. VAN DE SANDT; Assen/Minneapolis, 2005), 217. For a more recent inquiry into the genre of the Didache, see N. PARDEE, The Genre and Development of the Didache: A TextLinguistic Analysis (WUNT II.339; Tübingen, 2012). 24 NIEDERWIMMER, Didache, 139 (n. 21). 25 So J. SCHWIEBERT, Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: The Didache's Meal Ritual and Its Place in Early Christianity (LNTS 373; London/New York, 2008), 110, 121. Compare E. MAZZA, The Origins of the Eucharistic Prayer (Collegeville, 1995), 40–41. 26 It appears as a single word in the eleventh-century Jerusalem manuscript (H), the principal textual witness to the Didache.

Spirit Invocations in Early Christianity

435

the end of the times (Did. 10.5). This eschatological mood of the prayer reaches its climax in verse 10.6. It consists of short appeals, which express the desire of the eucharistic community for eschatological salvation – that is, the passing away of the present and the coming of the future world, which is directly associated with the coming of the Lord. The text of Did. 10.6 runs as follows: ἐλθέτω χάρις καὶ παρελθέτω κόσµος οὗτος ὡσαννὰ τῷ θεῷ ∆αυίδ εἴ τις ἅγιός ἐστιν, ἐρχέσθω· εἴ τις οὐκ ἐστί, µετανοείτω· µαραναθά. ἀµήν.

ὁ

May grace come, and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone is holy, let him come; If anyone is not, let him repent. Maranatha! Amen.

It is worth noting that the motif of coming/going dominates in this passage, which opens with the acclamation or the petition for the coming of grace and the passing away of the present world.27 The same passage concludes with the appeal µαραναθά ἀµήν. Since the entire context is clearly eschatological, any interpretation of µαραναθά as an expression oriented towards the present and inviting the Divine into the celebration, is not convincing. It is much more probable, instead, to understand the expression µαραναθά as an imperative or rather a future-oriented appeal, “come o Lord!”28 Having dealt with the temporal aspect, it is important to clarify next, who is the addressee of this appeal – that is, who is the “Lord” in this passage? As mentioned above, it is often assumed that μαραναθά is an appeal to Christ as the Lord.29 This understanding of the phrase is usually supported by the evi27 T. KHOMYCH, “‘If Anyone is Holy ...’: Didache 10:6 Reconsidered,” in Your Sun Shall Never Set Again, and Your Moon Shall Wane No More. Essays in Honour of Fr. Alexander Nadson (eds. I. Dubianetskaya, A. McMillin, and H. Sahanovic; Minsk, 2009), 517–524. 28 This parallels the view expressed in Did. 16.7 that in the last days “ἥξει ὁ κύριος καὶ πάντες οἱ ἅγιοι µετ᾿ αὐτοῦ (the Lord will come and all the holy ones with him)”. Cf. Zech 14:5. See J. A. DRAPER, “Resurrection and Zechariah 14.5 in the Didache Apocalypse,” in JECS 5 (1997), 155–179, 176. 29 KUHN, “µαραναθά,” 470 (n. 19). This view is further supported by the presence of the expression “ἐλθέτω χάρις (may grace come)” in the same passage of the Didache. Interpreted through Christological lenses, this phrase is seen as “die älteste Form einer Christus-Epiklese”: MESSNER, “Grundlinien,” 29 (n. 2). Some other scholars read the epiclesis into the phrase “εὐχαριστοῦµέν σοι, πάτερ ἅγιε, ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἁγίου ὀνόµατός σου οὗ κατεσκήνωσας ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ἡµῶν (we thank you, holy Father, for your holy name, which you made dwell in our hearts …)” of Did. 10.2, suggesting that there is a similarity with the expression, “Come, o holy name of the Annointed” from Acts Thom. 27. For a critical evaluation that rejects (rightly, in my view) this proposal, see A. VÖÖBUS, Liturgical Traditions in the Didache (PETSE 16; Stockholm, 1968), 96–99, 113–120. While discussing the above-mentioned suggestion, Vööbus, however, seems to miss one crucial point. He does not pay enough attention to the form of the prayer in Did. 10.2. It is

436

Taras Khomych

dence from other sources, the earliest of which appear in the New Testament. Paul thus addresses the Corinthian community as follows30: Let anyone be accursed who has no love for the Lord. maranatha! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with you.

εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον, ἤτω ἀνάθεµα. µαράνα θά. ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ µεθ’ ὑµῶν.

In the Book of Revelation, we find the following expression31: The one who testifies to these things says, ‘Surely I am coming soon.’ Amen. Come, Lord Jesus! The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all the saints.

Λέγει ὁ µαρτυρῶν ταῦτα ναί, ἔρχοµαι ταχύ. Ἀµήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ. Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ µετὰ πάντων.

The passages from 1 Corinthians32 and the book of Revelation indicate that invocations of Jesus were practiced in Aramaic-speaking as well as in Greekspeaking circles of Jesus followers.33 These invocations are clearly future oriented. It is essential, however, to ask: To what extent is this evidence relevant for our understanding of the Didache? With this question we approach one of the most crucial problems of scholarship on the Didache. Does the Didache use 1 Corinthians here? More generally, does the Didache use the writings that later on became part of the New Testament? This problem is related to a series of other questions, such as: When was the Didache composed? What sort of writing is it? The question of the possible literary relationship between the Didache and the New Testament in general is highly complex.34 Whereas early scholarship tended to argue for the Didache’s literary dependence on virtually all the New Testament writings,35 most contemworth noting that in distinction to an obvious invocation in Acts Thom. 27, Did. 10.2 presents a prayer of thanksgiving, which can hardly fit any, even a very broad, definition of the notion of “epiclesis.” 30 1 Cor 16:22–23 (NA28/NRSV). 31 Rev 22:20–21 (NA28/NRSV). 32 Cf. 1 Cor 1:2, where Paul refers to his fellow believers simply as those who everywhere “call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ”: “To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, together with all those who in every place call on (ἐπικαλουµένοις) the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours” (NRSV). 33 K.-H. OSTMEYER, Kommunikation mit Gott und Christus. Sprache und Theologie des Gebetes im Neuen Testament (WUNT 197; Tübingen, 2006). 34 For a useful survey of research on this question, see NIEDERWIMMER, Didache, 42– 52 (n. 21). 35 Thus, Robinson characterised the Didache as a “perverse imitation, almost a parody” of certain New Testament texts: A. ROBINSON, “The Problem of the Didache,” JThS 13 (1912), 339–356, 347. Cf. ROBINSON, Barnabas, Hermas and the Didache (London, 1920).

Spirit Invocations in Early Christianity

437

porary scholars have become increasingly cautious about this issue.36 However that may be, we do not need to delve into this thorny discussion for the purposes of this particular study, because the Eucharistic prayers (Did. 9–10) are widely recognised as special material, which probably predates the final composition, and thus, they could be treated in their own right.37 As a matter of fact, the Eucharistic prayers are directed exclusively to God, addressing Him as “πάτερ ἅγιε (holy Father)”, “δέσποτα παντοκράτορ (almighty Master)” and, most importantly, the “κύριος (Lord)”. At the same time, they present Jesus as the “servant (παῖς) of God”.38 More specifically, the Didache shows Jesus as the “servant” through whom the Lord God acts on behalf of the believers. The prayers designate Jesus as the servant only after they have referred to King David with the same title first in the previous chapter (chapter 9).39 In this context, the link between David and Jesus as servants implies only comparison between their missions:

This view gained much support from a number of scholars, including R. H. CONNOLY, “The Use of the Didache in the Didascalia,” JThS 24 (1923), 147–157; CONNOLY, “The Didache in Relation to the Epistle of Barnabas,” JThS 33 (1932), 237–253; CONNOLY, “The Didache and Montanism,” DR 55 (1937), 339–347; J. MUILENBURG, The Literary Relations of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (Marburg, 1929); F. C. BURKITT, “Barnabas and the Didache,” JThS 32 (1931), 25–27; W. TELFER, “The 'Didache' and the Apostolic Synod in Antioch,” JThS 40 (1939), 133–146, 258–271; TELFER, “The 'Plot' of the Didache,” JThS 45 (1944), 141–151. 36 This difference can clearly be demonstrated by comparing two publications by the same author, F. E. Vokes, on the Didache. At first he followed closely the thesis of Armitage Robinson about the Didache’s dependence on the Letter of Barnabas and on various New Testament writings; see F. E. VOKES, The Riddle of the Didache: Fact or Fiction, Heresy or Catholicism? (London/New York, 1938). Later on, however, Vokes presented this issue in a much more nuanced way; see VOKES, “Life and Order” (n. 21). With respect to the writings of the Apostolic Fathers more generally, a comparison of the influential reference works published in different periods of time is worth noting. Cf. contributions in the following volume of the Committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology, The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (Oxford, 1905), with the relevant articles in A. Gregory and C. A. Tuckett, eds., The New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers: The Reception of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers (vol. 1), and Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers (vol. 2) (Oxford, 2005), published to celebrate the centenary of the 1905 volume. As a matter of fact, the change of the general approach to this field of study is reflected already in the titles of these publications, as the preposition “in” of the 1905 volume is substituted by the coordinating conjunction “and” in 2005. 37 For an excellent study of the Jewish background of the Didache, see VAN DE SANDT and FLUSSER, Didache (n. 21). 38 SCHWIEBERT, Knowledge, 83–88 (n. 24). 39 A. MILAVEC, The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50–70 C.E. (New York, 2003), 365–371.

438

Taras Khomych

David was the servant sent to rescue powerfully and to protect ‘the holy vine’ Israel in the name of the Father. Jesus, on the other hand, is not named as succeeding David but rather as revealing faith, knowledge and immortality.40

Taking into consideration that the Eucharistic prayers are directed exclusively to God, who alone is called κύριος,41 while Jesus is presented as God’s servant, it may be concluded that the expression µαραναθά does not refer to Jesus, as is commonly assumed, but to the Lord God.42 In this case, the meaning of the expression µαραναθά in Did. 10.6 should be distinguished from that of 1 Cor 16:22. Whereas Paul invokes Jesus to come, the appeal of the Didache is directed not to Jesus but to God the Father.43 At this point, we can observe an important difference between this liturgical element of the Didache and the epicleses in the Acts of Thomas. Whereas the latter invoke either the Spirit or Christ to come to the celebration, the former one expresses the expectation of God’s arrival in the eschaton, which marks the final ingathering of the Church, understood as the assembly of the Lord. It is worth noting that, in comparison to the Acts of Thomas, the Didache does not refer to the (Holy) Spirit in this context. The/a spirit, to be sure, appears in the subsequent text in connection to the ministry of prophets (Did. 11), which apparently were known to the author(s) of the Didache. The prophets are presented as those who speak “in spirit (ἐν πνεύµατι)” (Did. 11.8) or even order a meal “in spirit” (Did. 11.9). What exactly the phrase “in

40

MILAVEC, Didache, 368. It needs to be recognized that besides clear references to God (θεός and πάτερ) on the one hand and to Jesus (᾿Ιησούς) on the other, the Didache uses a more ambiguous term κύριος (lord). Some scholars suggest that the meaning of κύριος fluctuates in this writing, referring sometimes to the “Lord-God” and sometimes to the “Lord-Jesus”, so, e.g., J. A. DRAPER, “The Didache,” in The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction (W. Pratscher, ed., Waco, Tex., 2010), 9–26. It is worth mentioning, however, that while the Didache employs πάτερ and κύριος interchangeably (e.g., in chapter 10) it never does the same with the terms κύριος and ᾿Ιησούς. In view of this and some other features of this document, such as the absence of an elaborate Christology, Aaron Milavec’s suggestion that the Didache consistently uses κύριος in the sense of the “Lord-God” appears particularly convincing. 42 It is also worth mentioning that the Didache does not link the resurrection of the dead with the resurrection of Christ, as Paul does (cf. 1 Thess 4:16), nor even with the final coming of Christ, as it is presented in the Synoptic tradition (cf. Matt 24). The Didache’s concept of the selective resurrection of the righteous in preparation for their final gathering when the Lord God appears seems to correspond best to contemporaneous Jewish eschatological expectations; see T. H. C. VAN EIJK, La résurrection des morts chez les Pères apostoliques (ThH25; Paris, 1974), 19–28. 43 Cf. T. KHOMYCH, “‘Another Gospel: Exploring Early Christian Diversity with Paul and the Didache,” in The Didache: A Missing Piece of the Puzzle in Early Christianity (SBL Early Christianity and its Literature 14; eds. J. A. Draper and C. N. Jefford; Atlanta, 2015), 455–476. 41

Spirit Invocations in Early Christianity

439

spirit” involves is unclear, but it is notably followed by warnings against possible abuses. In the case of speaking, the passage runs as follows: But not everyone who speaks in spirit is a prophet unless that person has the ways of the Lord. Therefore the false prophet and the prophet shall be known from their ways. (11:8)

Further on, an approved prophet is said to enact “the worldly mystery of the Church” (Did. 11.11). This short statement implies that a certain prophetic action or activity is somehow related to the entire Church community, but the meaning of this enigmatic passage is hard to decipher due to its cryptic nature. Whatever its meaning, the spirit in the Didache appears primarily in relation to the ministry of prophets and can thus be identified as the spirit of prophecy.44 In addition to that, the spirit is also mentioned in another obscure passage from the Two Ways section, which runs as follows: You shall not give orders to your male slave or your female servant, who hope in the same God, when you are angry, lest they cease to fear the God who is over you both. For he comes to call not with regard to reputation but those whom the spirit has prepared. (Did. 4.10)

Although this text appears to extend the activity of the spirit to the wider circle of believers, and not only to the prophets, this idea is not developed any further. The evidence at hand appears to suggest that the Didache envisages the spirit along the lines of the Hebrew Scriptures and the writings of first century Judaism, as the spirit of prophecy and the power of God, Who alone stands as a possible addressee of worship.45 To conclude, the µαραναθά call in the Didache is future oriented, and it expresses the expectation for the final consummation of the world and the arrival of the Lord God. As such, it has very little, if anything, to do with what later on became the epiclesis, an invocation of the Holy Spirit over the Eucharistic gifts.

6. Concluding Remarks In conclusion, we can compare the expression µαραναθά and the ritual invocations. The aim of this contribution was to inquire into the origins of the epiclesis by focusing on a widely accepted theory, which traces the develop44 J. A. DRAPER, “Apostles, Teachers, and Evangelists: Stability and Movement of Functionaries in Matthew, James, and the Didache,” in Matthew, James, and Didache: Three Related Documents in Their Jewish and Christian Settings (SBLSymS 45; eds. H. van de Sandt and J. K. Zangenberg; Atlanta, 2008), 139–176. 45 In the Didache there are also two references to the Holy Spirit (7.1,3) in the baptismal Trinitarian formula. Most of the scholars, however, regard this formula as redactional. On the spirit in the Didache, see further DRAPER, “Didache,” 17–18 (n. 41).

440

Taras Khomych

ment of early Christian invocations to the Aramaic expression maranatha. Taking into account the foregoing analysis, it is important to note that whereas it is not possible to exclude entirely the possibility that this short phrase triggered the development of the epiclesis, one has also to keep in mind several points that problematize this scenario. First of all, it is important to remember that our evidence is fragmentary. There is no extant proof for the use of µαραναθά prior to and separate from the early Jesus movement. However, the very use of this Aramaic phrase, and not its Greek equivalent, indicates its origin in a Semitic milieu. Second, our earliest testimonies are not univocal – µαραναθά appears as an appeal either to the Lord God (in the Didache) or to the Lord Jesus (in Paul). On the other hand, the epicleses in the Acts of Thomas are directed either to the Spirit or to Christ. Third, irrespective of the addressee, we can observe a difference in the temporal orientation. Whereas µαραναθά is clearly an eschatological appeal, especially in the Didache, the prayers in the Acts of Thomas are geared towards the present. Fourth, µαραναθά is used as a short exclamation, which concludes a prayer or a discourse. The epicleses in the Acts of Thomas, on the other hand, are repetitive and much more extensive. These various points are at odds with scholarly attempts to draw a single line of development of early Christian liturgical invocations.46 Taking the foregoing into consideration, it may be concluded that the ritual invocations found in the Acts of Thomas, which most probably stand at the origins of the development of the later epicleses, originated independently from the expression µαραναθά. This short Aramaic phrase had such a strong eschatological connotation that once this future orientation of the Eucharistic celebration was transformed, µαραναθά was probably removed from the liturgy.

46 See TAFT, "From Logos to Spirit” (n. 1). The much debated expression “from Logos to Spirit” (for criticism, see, e.g., MYERS, Spirit Epicleses, 147 [n.6]), coined to capture the essence of this development, fails to account for the diversity attested in our earliest sources – namely, the diversity in the addressee.

Part Four: Reflections

A Talk Continued Notes and Deliberations on the Belgrade Conference1 Manuel Vogel My main impression during the week we spent together was that we met in a spirit of concord. Compared to our conference on Gospel images of Jesus three years ago, the cultural and theological differences between East and West played only a minor role, if any. Since according to Luke 12:10 a word against the Son of Man – and let us for the moment include any erroneous teaching as such a word – may be forgiven but a word against the Holy Spirit may not, it was well done that we engaged in controversy regarding Jesus in Minsk but were in essential agreement about the Holy Spirit in Belgrade. All of our teaching, listening, and discussing was shaped by an atmosphere of sincere interest in one another, by an atmosphere of sympathy, even of love, which is of some importance insofar as according to 1 Peter 4:8, quoting Solomon, love covers over a multitude of sins. So if there should have been some erroneous teaching amongst us during these days, we can be optimistic that no harm will be done to anybody. Since this short résumé is based on the lectures actually given during the conference, it also includes references to some contributions that will be published elsewhere. The spirit of concord was especially perceptible at the very moment when, with the filioque, the core of the Eastern-Western dissent came on the table in the lectures of Katharina Bracht and Demetrios Bathrellos. Both contributions were offered in the tone not of apologetic defense but of historical explanation, and both clarified the rationale of each position by discussing the exegetical basis of the Fathers’ arguments. Similarly, the lectures on ancient liturgies by Harald Buchinger and Nino Sakvarlidze showed how the reconstruction of dogmatic controversies can reveal aspects of an ecumenical dialogue, and how a holistic view of the extremely rich liturgical tradition, which Dr. Sakvarlidze exemplified in the 1 For the title compare my “A talk to be continued: A Minsk group report,” in C. Karakolis et al., eds., Gospel Images of Jesus Christ in Church Tradition and in Biblical Scholarship: Fifth International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars, Minsk, September 2 to 9, 2010 (WUNT 288; Tübingen, 2012), 413–419.

444

Manuel Vogel

field of old Georgian liturgies, can replace the paradigm of opposition through the paradigm of complementarity. That we are part of an ecumenical dialogue in our exegetical work could be seen and heard, for example, when Volker Rabens gave his lecture on deification in Paul, or when John Fotopulos, through the voice of David Moesser, reflected on what it means to hold an Orthodox perspective, coming to the conclusion that at least in the field of his paper´s topic (Holy Spirit and the church in Paul), there is no such thing in the sense of a “monolithic” Orthodoxy. He therewith elegantly undermined the possible Western stereotype of Orthodoxy as a tradition confined to uniform dogmatics. Throughout the lectures, one could notice that general concord does not mean that there remains nothing to discuss; on the contrary, arguments were developed on the basis of high philological and theological standards. Among the many highlights for me personally, I would like to mention Andreas Dettwiler’s analysis of the Johannine Paraclete as a concept not of charismatic experience but of understanding, Daniel Marguerat’s insights into the Lukan explanations of glossolalia as prophetic speech and as praise of God, and Joel Marcus’s plausible speculations about John the Baptist’s understanding of the Spirit as analogous to Qumran spirituality. I also enjoyed being introduced by Ratomir Grosdanoski to the works of the famous Father Justin Popović, who was also mentioned by Vladan Tatalović as a representative of the neo-patristic movement. Last but not least is to be mentioned the presentation by Oksana Gubareva, who explored the impressive insights that iconography offers into the biblical imagery of the Spirit. As far as the Fathers are concerned, the challenge is to bring patristic exegesis and the so-called critical exegesis of the West into deeper dialogue, and I wonder where the path will lead us. Regarding methodology, we might observe that traditional diachronical methods were supplemented, for example, by narrative analysis in the paper of Christos Karakolis and discourse analysis as applied by Predrag Dragotinović. Of special interest for me was Predrag’s remark that the Orthodox position can be shown as firmly rooted in the NT texts and that there is no antagonism between discourse analysis and the approach of the Fathers. For me, this hints at a dialogue that does not mean a one-way road to modernization, since the first and foremost task may not be to “modernize” Orthodoxy but to keep it alive in its spiritual wealth. If some more detailed deliberations on selected contributions are allowed, I would like first to comment on Bishop Irinej’s opening address. His diagnosis that “not even the most conservative among Roman Catholic and Orthodox theologians venture to interpret the saying Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus by positing limits and conditions onto the love of God and power of the Spirit of God”, sounds most promising. Since according to Rom 8:22–23 the children of God, being gifted with the Spirit, “sigh together” with an unredeemed creation from a perspective of hope, an increased consciousness of the cosmic

A Talk Continued

445

activity of the Spirit may engage theology more deeply in ecological, social, and related political concerns. But this would also mean that “extra muros” traces of God’s spirit cannot be identified without christological criteria to avoid being confused by the delusions of false spirits. I would next like to point to the rich material on early encounters of Orthodox theologians with Western exegesis that was presented by Vladan Tatalović at the conference. Might this be a field for further research under the guiding question of how those theologians took over and/or rejected premises and results of Western exegetes? To study their arguments, which we may call “apologetic”, from a scholarly, historical perspective may help to clarify further today´s Orthodox reflections on exegetical methods. In any case, there is a history of research, as Tatalović´s contribution impressively showed. In a further step, scholarly perspectives on Orthodox exegesis from the eighteenth to the twentieth century might be combined with the analysis of parallel discussions in Western Europe, which were by no means unilinear. The lecture given by Nicolas T. Wright was suggestive of the perspective of biblical theology and thus opened up yet another alternative interpretative framework for pneumatological debates. Wright showed very vividly that those debates are well advised not to disregard the biblical story of the exodus and the wilderness tabernacle prefiguring the temple. One may question his overall characterization of Second Temple Judaism as conscious that God had not returned to the Jerusalem temple after the exile, but his sketch of a pneumatology that explores the role of the Spirit within the biblical narrative pointed to a blind spot of many dogmatic controversies. Daniel Marguerat presented a nuanced analysis of the role of the Spirit in Luke-Acts. By doing so, he demonstrated the peculiar benefit of the compositional-critical method: In choosing the mid-level of a defined literary unit, one is on the one hand methodologically restricted to a single (here: two-part) source, but on the other hand, one is stimulated to discover a multifaceted web of meanings within this unit. This tames uncontrolled associations between texts from all over the New Testament, but at the same time, this approach allows and requires the working hypothesis of a coherent concept, which may itself be the basis for further theological discussion. One would then ask not for the meaning of this or that verse within a web of meaning drawn from the NT as a whole, but one would take, for example, Lukan pneumatology as a criterion for the sustainability of one’s own position. What Marguerat did is comparable to N.T. Wright’s contribution insofar as both were concerned with specific biblical stories: Wright with the story of the exodus and the tabernacle, and Marguerat with the story of Pentecost. This again poses the question of whether theology, insofar as it relies on Scripture, is to be taken as something based on notions or on narratives. Narrative theology seems to be the preferred biblical option. As a parenthetical but important remark, Marguerat mentions the initial plurality of early Christian

446

Manuel Vogel

concepts. This plurality has, one may add, ecumenical implications: If doctrinal plurality was allowed in the beginning, it may be allowed today as well. Regarding Andreas Dettwiler’s contribution, I would like to add two reflections to the brief remark I already made. First, it may sound like good news for the predominantly rational and intellectual tradition of Western theology that the Spirit in the Fourth Gospel is predominantly linked with the word and with religious discourse, and is thus to be described as a noetic phenomenon, not a charismatic or ecstatic one. But that cannot mean to ennoble Cartesian rationality with the dignity of Johannine pneumatology, particularly since true understanding under the guidance of the Paraclete is, as Dettwiler paraphrases, “impossible from a human standpoint” (p. 161 in this volume). Here again, from a Western standpoint one may discover aspects of Eastern theology that are “spiritual” in a sense possibly quite close to the Johannine notion, but to be (re)discovered for Western thought. Second, I wonder whether the interrelationship of the hermeneutic work of the Paraclete and the literary work of the Gospel of John can be further clarified. If, as Dettwiler has it, the “anamnetic work of the Paraclete” is “ʻmaterialized’ in the Fourth Gospel as Scripture” (p. 170 in this volume), does this imply a structure of delegation and sub-delegation from the Father to the Son, from the Son to the Paraclete – and from the Paraclete to the written Gospel of John? Is this Gospel conceptualized as the one and sufficient medium through which the word of the Paraclete can be heard? Or, to put it slightly differently, is the Fourth Gospel the one and exclusive literary entity to be interpreted with the help of the Paraclete? If not, does the Johannine Paraclete concept suggest that further insights are to be expected regarding the truth of the mission of Jesus that may likewise gain a literary form? In other words, given that there is actually no (or not much of) apocalyptic eschatology left in the Gospel of John, is there at least a sort of intellectual eschatology beyond the limits of the text of the Gospel? As far as the seminars are concerned, one of them was occupied with the field of ancient Judaism. As I conclude my reflections, I would like to underline that this perspective was of special relevance insofar as a third field of inquiry was opened where Western and Orthodox stances were not directly challenged by each other but were free to discuss a topic that does not (at least not directly) affect matters that are controversial between East and West. The contribution of Rodoljub Kubat is most instructive, as he unfolds the notion of the Spirit in the Wisdom of Solomon against a broad biblical horizon. By giving a nuanced analysis of the various aspects of the Spirit in this essential text of Hellenistic Judaism, he not only clarifies the manifold traces that lead from biblical times and texts to the Hellenistic-Roman era, but he also gives a vivid impression that both Western and Orthodox pneumatologies are deeply rooted in biblical and Jewish concepts as their common

A Talk Continued

447

soil. The joint work on Jewish texts was and is a preeminent ecumenical endeavor. Carl Holladay contributes substantially to this field when, on the basis of rich textual evidence, he explores the multifaceted meanings of “spirit” in Philo. In general, this reminds us that prior to the often criticized “Hellenization of Christianity”, there was a “Hellenization of Judaism”, on which Christianity relies in manifold ways. And it becomes clear that with the prophetic aspects of Philo´s notion of the spirit, every possible stereotype of “mere rationality” is falsified. There are indeed traces within Greek thought, adopted by Jews and later on by Christians, that lead to a sincere spirituality.

A Reflection on the Conference from the Orthodox Perspective Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni For an Orthodox biblical scholar, a discussion about the place the Holy Spirit occupies in the life of the Church and about its significance for the members of the Christian community addresses the very core of the Church’s identity. This comes as no surprise, since for every Orthodox Christian the Church constitutes the dwelling place of the Spirit and the Spirit is the Church’s source of existence and power. I think that I express the feelings of all other Orthodox participants when I say that the 6th International East-West Symposium of New Testament Scholars at the hospitable and most generous Faculty of Theology in Belgrade under the initiative of the Eastern Europe Liaison Committee offered a wonderful opportunity for the discussion of those New Testament texts that form the basis of Christian faith and tradition regarding the Holy Spirit and the Church. Moreover, it created, through the papers read and the discussions that followed, the context for reflection, for re-reading one's own Christian tradition, and for constructive self-criticism. Among the many stimulating points that could serve as springboards for further discussion in our communities and with our students, I would like to highlight the following four points: (1) The rich diversity of the ways that the Holy Spirit and its presence are conceived and presented in the various New Testament texts was made evident in the various papers and the discussions that followed. Despite this polyphony, which should be attributed to the powerful and dynamic role of the Holy Spirit in the Church, there are some complementary features in all these conceptions that are of particular ecclesiological and soteriological significance – namely, the sanctifying and transforming power of the Spirit who in many New Testament texts acts as a distinct personal reality and leads, instructs, and guides the members of the Church, as well as sanctifies the whole world. Being the Paraclete of the Church, the Holy Spirit “represents” Christ in the time of his physical absence and helps the members of the Christian community to understand the true meaning of the incarnate Logos.

450

Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni

(2) Such anamnesis, however, cannot be restricted to a merely intellectual process but also has both existential and ethical consequences, since the Spirit makes itself evident through the various gifts – and especially through the gift of love – that determine the identity of Church members and defines the quality of their interpersonal relations. The Holy Spirit's dwelling or living in each believer leads to her or his transformation and creates an intimate relationship with God, Jesus, and fellow believers. Therefore, the Spirit can never be understood as a static reality. On the contrary, the Spirit’s presence is manifested through a dynamic transformation and empowering of each member of the Church, which certainly has significant ecclesiological and existential consequences. (3) The discussion of the patristic treatment of various texts, especially in relation to the theological debate about the fillioque clause, brought up some interesting issues regarding methodology and how to appropriate patristic exegetical discourse. It has been made clear that from very early times the Church Fathers – either through direct quotations or more subtle intertextual associations – made use of the biblical tradition in order to understand and explain the inter-trinitarian relations and the unity of the Trinity, and to develop their rich, Scripture-based Pneumatology. The centrality of biblical texts for their arguments highlights the importance of the Scriptures in Christian tradition. For the Church Fathers, both in the East and the West, the New Testament – and the Bible generally – was perceived as the living text of a worshipping community and had to be read as such, for Scripture gave meaning and purpose to the community's present. This patristic reception of the biblical text, however, led to different interpretations of the same biblical texts, and these differences were rooted in ideological-theological presuppositions, as well as historical and cultural contexts. For an Orthodox scholar, this raises two questions for self-reflection: A) What role should the rich patristic tradition play in defining the work and identity of modern Orthodox biblical scholars? B) In the context of today's theological and cultural challenges, how might we engage in fruitful encounters between modern exegetical methods and patristic tradition? This merging of the horizon of the patristic past with that of a contemporary biblical scholar, who is expected to deal with what are sometimes different issues and who is equipped with modern exegetical lenses and tools, seems not only possible but also a sign of the Spirit's presence, which runs through the body of the Church, sustaining it and leading to its growth and maturity. (4) The fundamental, sanctifying, and life-giving role of the Holy Spirit, as well as the link between Spirit, Church, and Liturgy, is prominently expressed in liturgical texts and especially in the Eucharistic prayer of anaphora. It was due to ecumenical encounters and discussions – much like those we

Reflection from the Orthodox Perspective

451

have been experiencing in this conference – that a liturgical renewal inspired by the liturgical traditions of the East took place in the Roman-Catholic Church and that the Eucharistic prayer was discovered and was re-integrated into the Roman Liturgy. Despite the ambiguity regarding the place and shape of the epiclesis, this reform, from my perspective as a contemporary Orthodox biblical scholar and member of a worshipping community, makes the open liturgical questions in my own tradition acute and leads to a self-critical pondering of whether and how the liturgical tradition of the East could be enriched and profit from the experience and innovative courage of the West. According to a Byzantine liturgical hymn for the day of Pentecost, one of the gifts on that day was that the Holy Spirit “called all human beings into unity”, transforming the cultural and linguistic diversity of humanity from a sign a difference and separation to a means of unity. This unity and peace is perceived as one of the first gifts in the new reality of the Church. I think that this feeling of unity through diversity is one of the most important fruits that this meeting in the name of the Holy Spirit has brought about.

A Reflection on the Conference from a Catholic Perspective Armand Puig i Tàrrech After the Conference on the Holy Spirit held in Belgrade in August 2013, with participants coming from different Christian confessions, I think it is quite encouraging to realize that there is a common bedrock upon which the discussions were built – namely, the central role played by the Spirit in Christian theologies and in the exegetical approaches they employ. The conviction that the Spirit is at work in the Church is seen as a main pillar of the Christian faith. A Church with no Spirit would be a reality of dry bones rather than living flesh. The Spirit is placed in the heart of the Church, so a Church with heart is a Church with Spirit. From the other side, it is instructive to see how the historical-critical methodology, used as a heuristic tool and not as an apologetic weapon in whatever direction, may be a confident basis for exchanging different views and opinions. Nowadays, Christian exegesis cannot be imagined without the use of a method that combines both historical and philological questions. The conference allowed the participants to understand the role played by dogmatics, but Church dogmatics were not used as a means to avoid an honest and clarfiying analysis of the problems raised by the various issues discussed. It is quite common for everyone to take a position that fits with his or her own previous interests. Sensitivities can be so different, but when an effort is made not to fall into the trap of a defensive posture with respect to one’s proposals, then a rich and fruitful discussion begins to become possible. I will underline three points, without attempting to summarize any result. (1) First of all, I think that a Catholic theologian may feel rather comfortable with the papers on Acts, John, and Paul delivered at this Conference. The debate on the nature of the Holy Spirit is very much alive, above all because of the fragmentation of “spiritualities” that dominates our times. Today, there are no fierce theological dicusssions on pneumatology: theologians share, generally speaking, the articles of the Creed, the statements made in the Confession of Faith. There is a kind of split, however, related to the way Christian believers experience the presence of the Spirit in them. From one

454

Armand Puig i Tàrrech

side, the Spirit is experienced like a divine force, a sort of energy, which raises up people who have sunk into distress and sadness. From the other side, the Spirit is seen as a more personal-ontological reality that instructs and leads those who need Someone who is sent by the Father through the Son, to become a master of love who gives the full meaning to Jesus’s words. So, Church and Spirit are two intrinsically connected realities. New Testament exegesis deals with texts that try to convey divine realities in a human language that is inspired, a language sustained and filled with the Holy Spirit. The NT authors are aware that they must speak on realities that transcend them. The Spirit cannot be encapsulated, but the smallest example of Christian language, as it is presented in the New Testament, is meant to be meaningful for many ages, and this is the work of the Spirit, which opens the texts to new interpretations in a symphony with no end. Thus, the three most prominent NT pneumatologies (Acts, John, Paul) must be taken into account, in order to reckon with a complete image of the Holy Spirit. An approach to the New Testament has to combine an assessement of the differences with analysis of the commonalities. (2) Secondly, discussions in the field of patristics have proven to be extremely interesting. A discussion about the Holy Spirit is to be placed within the history of dogma. From a Catholic point of view, theological reflection on the Trinity comes immediately to the role of the Spirit in the relationship existing between Father and Son. The “Filioque” controversy has generated tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism for years. However, the current research seems to overcome centuries of struggle and misunderstandings. More specifically, a great Western theologian like Tertullian and plenty of conspicuous Eastern authors (church fathers and modern theologians) propose an interpretive perspective that keeps the Father as “source and origin” of the Holy Spirit, whereas the Son is considered as the one who sends the Spirit. This approach, firmly rooted in Johannine, Pauline, and Lukan texts, would allow the following formula: “Spiritus a Patre per Filium”, which is the correct reading of the “Filioque” (which may be found in the Latin Creed: “qui [the Spirit] ex Patre Filioque procedit”). So, the “Filioque” is not a stumbling block any more, since its place in a theology of the Trinity is relative. It should not become a central point. The major challenge is to develop an understanding of the Trinity that integrates all the New Testament texts. From the other side, Western authors should have more weight in Orthodoxy, and the great Eastern church fathers should be more present in Western theological discussion. In this sense, a good sign is the recuperation of Irenaeus – an Easterner transferred to the West – which has fostered a return to the ancient categories of immanent and economic Trinity. Augustine’s Trinitarian doctrine, however, should be more studied in the East, besides the teachings of Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Maximus the Confessor.

Reflection from a Catholic Perspective

455

(3) Thirdly, the contributions on liturgy brought some interesting hints and ideas to our subject. Particularly, I would like to underline the study of the double epiclesis in Canon II of the Roman liturgical rite, inspired by that of Hippolytus – probably the Canon that is most used now in Catholic Eucharists. In any case, this interesting anomaly finds in Egypt a parallel that is well worth noting. It seems that the double epiclesis already existed in Egypt in the fourth century C.E. So, it is necessary not only to stress the liturgical singularities but also to know where they came from and the reasons that may explain those rather strange devices. In sum, the Conference as such was the best example of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the Christian Churches. The fine hospitality coming from the Serbian Orthodox Church was one particularly wonderful expression of this divine presence.

Appendix

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography Oksana Gubareva The Holy Scriptures employ two images to speak about the appearance of the Holy Spirit: a dove and fire. However, when discussing images of the Holy Spirit, we should not confine ourselves only to the images of His appearance. The story about the Holy Spirit is not complete without studying the actions, gifts, and fruits of the Holy Spirit. Also, the Holy Spirit is revealed in icons not only through the specific images that represent the Spirit. The system of painting icons itself – especially the coloring, rhythmic structure, and technical methods – plays a very important role in portraying the Spirit. Since crucial theological conceptions can sometimes be expressed through the means of painting, this article will also give some attention to this aspect of iconographical depictions of the Holy Spirit.

1. The Holy Spirit as Dove The first Christian icons were found in catacombs. Most early monuments of Christian art have survived only from the western part of the Roman Empire. Until the epoch of iconoclasm (726–843), however, there was no cultural differentiation between the western and eastern parts of the Roman Empire. Therefore, any talk about eastern Christian art should start by considering the ancient cathedrals of Rome and Ravenna. The first appearance of the Holy Spirit happened at the moment of the Baptism of the Lord (Luke 3:22). So, I will begin with the image of a dove. (Fig. 1) In earliest Christian times, the Holy Spirit was depicted in the form of a dove only in scenes of Christ’s Baptism. However, after the legalization of Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries, we can see a much wider understanding of this image. This development is connected with the opportunity for open confession of the faith and, of course, with the activities of the Second Ecumenical Council. At the Second Ecumenical Council, the Holy Spirit was clearly defined as the third, equipollent Divine Person of the Trinity. The image of the dove started to be widespread in the art of that period and became an integral part of iconography, not just depictions of Christ’s Baptism.

460

Oksana Gubareva

For example, in mosaics of the Triumphal Arch in Santa-Maria Maggiore, we can see this image of the Holy Spirit in the iconography of the Annunciation. It is realistically represented as a large bird descending on the head of the Mother of God. (Fig. 2) In the same period, the iconography of the Etimasia – the throne of the Last Judgment – was formed. On a fourth-century relief from Constantinople, we can see the figure of a dove (badly damaged) descending to the throne. The fact that the dove just “descends to” but does not sit on the throne, as it does in later representations of the Etimasia, suggests the descent of the Spirit at the time of the liturgical act of the consecration of the Holy Sacrament and thus the symbolic unity of the throne of the Last Judgment and the liturgical altar. Representation of the Holy Spirit in the iconography of the Etimasia has not become obligatory. But in many monuments of different centuries, we can see a dove symbolizing that at the time of Last Judgment, the Lord will not sit on the throne alone. The symbolic representation of the Holy Spirit in the image of a dove was also introduced into the liturgical life of the Church; the Eucharistic dove appeared as one style of tabernacle. The Eucharistic dove is a metal pendant with a closable inlet in which the Holy Sacrament is placed. The dove was hung up on chains in the church as if flying above the altar and obviously represented the descent of the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit descended symbolically in the image of the dove and was actually present in the Holy Sacrament kept inside the tabernacle. The earliest indisputable mention of the Eucharistic dove is in the apocryphal Life of Saint Basil the Great written in the seventh century. It says, “When he had divided the bread into three parts … He put the third part into a golden dove which he had hung up.”1 In Eastern tradition in medieval times, tabernacles began to be made differently, but in Western tradition, tabernacles in the form of doves were common liturgical objects for a very long time.2 Since approximately the seventeenth century, during the epoch of active cultural communication between Russia and the West, sculptural representations of doves as symbols of the Holy Spirit appeared again in Russian churches – a dove is fixed in the zenith of the central dome, blessing the whole temple. The iconography joining the three persons of the Holy Trinity appeared first in Byzantium, Serbia, and Bulgaria, and since the fourteenth century, in Russia. In icons of this type, two persons are represented as human beings, while the Holy Spirit is depicted as a dove. 1

Acta Sanctorum (Antwerp., 1698), Jun. T. 2. Col. 943. Православная энциклопедия под редакцией Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Кирилла. Электронная версия (Orthodox Encyclopedia, ed. Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia; electronic version), accessed September 5, 2015, . 2

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

461

In ancient icons, God the Father is depicted in accordance with the description of the “Ancient of days” (Dan 7:9, 13, 14), the appearance in which He manifested himself to the Prophet Daniel in his vision. Jesus Christ is depicted as an adolescent to confirm that He is the Son. The Holy Spirit is depicted in the image of His appearance as a dove. The persons of the Holy Trinity in a type of early iconography called “Fatherhood” are located inside each other, from the Father to the Holy Spirit. In this ancient icon of the fourteenth century, we can see that the image of the Son is depicted with marked symmetry to the image of the Father. (Fig. 3) Even the pleats of the sleeves are identical. The figure of the Father has a gold nimbus with a cross similar to the one that the Son has and bears the same inscription. The Dove is depicted flying out of the blue depths of the vault of heaven. The obscure middle part of the circle suggests something mysterious and unknown. The Son holds this circle as if protecting it with his hands. It is a peculiar interpretation of Trinitarian doctrine. The persons of the Holy Trinity according to Orthodox theology point to One Another: “The Son is the image of the Father, and the image of the Son is the Spirit” (John of Damascus).3 Only the third hypostasis of the Holy Trinity is not represented as another human person. We know the Father through the Son, who appeared to the world in human flesh, but the Holy Spirit is a concealed Person hidden in the image of His appearance. So, here it is impossible to name the image of dove as an image of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit per se, although He is depicted as a Person of the Holy Trinity. As a variant of this type of iconography, we can consider the icon “Crucified in the Father’s Bosom”, known in Western countries since the twelfth century and in the Orthodox East since the seventeenth century (with some changes). Later, the iconographic type “New Testament Trinity” or “Holy Trinity on the Throne” was formed according similar concepts but with some differences. (Fig. 4) God the Father is depicted here as God of Sabaoth. The Holy Spirit is depicted between the Father and Son, as if sitting together on the throne. The dove is also surrounded either with a circle or with an octogrammic nimbus. Usually, He has his own distinctive nimbus, different from those on the heads of God the Father and God the Son. It seems that in icons of the “Holy Trinity on the Throne”, we can perceive the wish of faithful people to see their God, to discover the secret of the Holy Trinity. Here the dove can be interpreted as an image of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. Many theologians argue that this iconography violates canonical principles of icon painting and the full equality of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The monk and icon painter Gregory Krug discusses this specific theme in his book Thoughts about the

3

John of Damascus, Точное изложение православной веры. Творения (Elementary Introduction to Dogmas: Writings) (St. Petersburg, 1913), 1:184 (PG 94:856B).

462

Oksana Gubareva

Icon.4 Such icons were condemned by the Church councils. In spite of the ban, representations of the “New Testament Trinity” became widespread in the Church and were introduced into later iconography of the Last Judgment and into allegorical iconographic depictions like the “Rest of God on the Seventh Day”, “Symbol of Faith”, and “Coronation of the Virgin” throughout the Orthodox world. Let us return to the iconography of the “Baptism” or “Epiphany”. Already in early catacomb representations, the image of the Holy Spirit was interpreted symbolically. In the catacombs of Marceline and Peter, belonging to the first part of the fourth century, we can see the naked figure of Christ, as an adolescent, and a huge dove pouring water out of his beak onto Christ. (Fig. 5) We can see the same image in mosaics of the Arian Baptistery in Ravenna, belonging to the beginning of the sixth century. The image of a dove pouring water can be considered a visualization of Old Testament prophecies: “I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring.” (Isa 44:3)5; “I have poured out my spirit upon the house of Israel, saith the Lord God.” (Ezek 39:29); “And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications.” (Zech 12:10). This use of imagery inspired by the Old Testament seems to be connected with the interpretation of the words from the Gospel: “for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness” (Matt 3:15). The use of imagery suggestive of Old Testament prophecies helps explain how Christ’s baptism “fulfills all righteousness” and thus why Christ needed to be baptized at all. The famous Russian philosophers V. N. Lossky and L. A. Uspensky claim in their book The Meaning of Icons: “The icon of the Baptism is one of those which have the greatest number of analogies with Old Testament prefigurations.”6 They also offer the following observations: The holy Fathers of the Church explain the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the Lord’s Baptism by analogy with the Flood: just as then the world was purified of its iniquities by the waters of the Flood and the dove brought an olive branch into Noah’s Ark, announcing the end of the Flood and peace returned upon earth, so too now the Holy Spirit comes down in the form of a dove to announce the remission of sins and God’s mercy to the world.7

This explains why in some “Epiphany” icons, we can see a dove with a branch in his beak. The representation of a hand with an outstretched finger, from which the dove is coming, can evidently be interpreted as the blessing of the right hand 4

G. KRUG, Мысли об иконе (Thoughts about the Icon) (Paris, 1978), 32–43. All quotations of Scripture are from the KJV unless otherwise noted. 6 V. LOSSKY and L. OUSPENSKY, The Meaning of Icons (trans. G. Palmer and E. Kadloubovsky; rev. ed.; Crestwood, 1982), 165. 7 LOSSKY and OUSPENSKY, Meaning of Icons, 164 (n. 6). 5

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

463

of God the Father. (Fig. 6) However, the representation of the hand can have an additional interpretation. In the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Spirit is called several times the “finger of God”. In Exodus 8:19, it is said that Moses worked miracles by the “finger of God”. The stone tablets of the testament were written by “the finger of God” (Exod 31:18 and Deut 9:10); a psalm says that the heavens were created by the fingers of God (Ps 8:4). In St. Luke’s Gospel, we also find the words of Christ: “But if I with the finger of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.” (Luke 11:20) Almost the same phrase can be found in St. Matthew’s gospel, but instead of the word “finger”, Matthew says, “Spirit” (Matt 12:28).8 According to the interpretation of Blessed Theophylact of Bulgaria, the evangelist calls the Spirit “finger” for you to understand that “just as a finger is of one being with the whole body, so also is the Holy Spirit consubstantial with Father and Son”.9 Thus, we can suppose that a hand with an outstretched finger or fingers in iconography of the Epiphany is an image of the consubstantiality of the Holy Spirit with God the Father and God the Son. The hand is an image of the unity and inseparability of divine actions, where the Father is the primary, ordering cause; the Son is the creative, almighty cause; and the Holy Spirit is the executive cause. So, we can see that already in one of the earliest icons, the artist tries to theologize, to show the Epiphany as visible evidence of the ontological unity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to show that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

2. The Holy Spirit as Flowing Water In other “Baptism” icons, we notice that the fingers of God’s hand are in an extravagant, oratorical gesture implying the process of speech. In such cases, the representation of the hand can be interpreted also as the voice of God that sounded at the moment of baptism. In the Russian tradition, which is not so closely connected with classical antiquity as the Byzantine tradition and hence unaware of the rhetorical symbolism, representation of the hand transformed step-by-step into representation of God the Father himself. God the Father appears in iconography of the Epiphany in the sixteenth century. Some icons show how the Holy Spirit is emanating directly from the mouth of God the Father to Jesus Christ. Thereby, the author allegorically suggests the story from the Bible about the creation of Adam when God breathed Spirit into

8 J. MAKSIMOV, Учение о Святом Духе в ранней Церкви (I–III вв.) (The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit in the Ancient Church [I–III Cent.]) (Moscow, 2007). 9 Theopylact of Bulgaria, Enarrat. Lucae, PG 123:862A–B.

464

Oksana Gubareva

Adam. Probably, the icon painter wanted to show Jesus Christ as the New Adam. The ancient image of the Holy Spirit pouring water, which we could see in the earliest icons, transformed in later iconography either into flows of water pouring directly from the sky or into flows of light with a dove appearing inside the flow, often in a disc symbolizing heavenly glory. In developed iconography of the Epiphany, the image of the dove becomes very small, barely visible, joined with the flow of water or ray of light in which it is depicted. (Fig. 7) This was not meant to diminish the image of the Holy Spirit but rather to enrich its interpretation. Both water and light are images from the Gospels, and they metaphorically symbolize gifts of the Holy Spirit. Let us first consider the image of water. In St. John’s Gospel, a gift of the Holy Spirit is compared with living water “springing up into everlasting life” (John 4:14). Speaking with a Samaritan at the well, Jesus calls all “thirsty people” to himself as to a new true spring: Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water … Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. (John 4:10, 13–14)

The association of “water” with the gift of the Spirit can also be seen in the words of Jesus spoken in Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles: In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (John 7:37–38)

The teaching about the gifts of the Holy Spirit is described most completely by Paul (1 Cor 12–14). Orthodox theology does not make any definite distinction between gifts of the Holy Spirit and God’s grace. According to Orthodox doctrine, God’s grace means all the wealth of the Divine nature transmitted to people through the Holy Spirit. The wish to receive divine grace is compared in the Gospel with thirst, with the human being’s need for water. Figurative representation of God’s grace as a gift of the Holy Spirit in the image of flowing water is widely reflected in Orthodox iconography. First of all, we can see the image of water as streaming grace in those icons where the image of the Holy Spirit itself is present: in the icons of the Baptism and the Annunciation. In icons of the Baptism, the image of water running from the sky appears rather often, and the Jordan River with its high banks resembles a filled well. The figure of Jesus Christ is depicted either in the water or at this metaphorical well. Thus, Jesus Christ with all His essence happens to be joined with grace streaming from heaven. Paul says that the Spirit emanates to faithful

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

465

people through Christ (Tit 3:5–7). In the “Baptism” icon, we can see that grace has emanated to the world. But until the appointed time, Jesus Christ remained the only owner of it. God opens the door for the sanctifying activity of the Holy Spirit only after His passion, resurrection, and ascension. John says: “for the Holy Spirit was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified” (John 7:39).10 The whole world is to be filled with God’s grace only on the day of Pentecost.11 Water as the metaphorical image of divine Grace appears even in those icons where the subject does not imply its presence. In some Greek and Russian icons of the Annunciation, we can see a river not mentioned in the Gospels. One example is an Annunciation icon from Sinai belonged to the twelfth century. (Fig. 8) The painter depicts the river full of different creatures to show that its water is alive. A similar representation of a river with geese swimming in it and drinking water from a fountain can be seen in one of the Russian Annunciation icons of the sixteenth century. Fountains are also depicted in “Nativity of the Virgin Mary” and “Nativity of John the Baptist” icons. In Russian icon painting, there is a very interesting icon of the Mother of God with the image of water pouring out of her belly as a symbol of the fullness of grace. It is called the Svensko-Pecherskaya icon of the Mother of God and dated to the thirteenth century. (Fig. 9) The blue clothes of Christ and the Mother of God in this icon are deliberately joined, with their pleats resembling the flow of water. This metaphorical image is clear for the Russian people, because in the Russian language pleats of clothes can “flow”, “pour”, and “stream down”, just as water can.

3. The Holy Spirit as Light and Fire Another image representing grace from the Holy Spirit is light. The theme of light is of extreme importance in icons. Icons are pierced with light. Special techniques with the use of different optical effects make icon painting luminiferous. Icons not only show gifts of the Holy Spirit; icons are also presenters of gifts. St. Clement of Alexandria says the following about the connec-

10

Saint Basil the Great, О Святом Духе (On the Holy Spirit) (vol. 1 of Творения [Writings]; Moscow, 1846), 3:189–293L (PG 32:157A–B). 11 О. GUBAREVA, О целостном подходе к исследованию иконописи (на примере икон “Рождество Христово”, “Крещение”, “Сошествие во ад”) (The Integral Approach to the Research of Icon Painting [The Icons ”The Nativity of Christ”, ”The Epiphany”, ”The Descent into Hell” as Examples]) (Вестник Русской христианской гуманитарной академии XI [The Herald of the Russian Humanitarian Academy 11]; St. Petersburg, 2010), 161–169.

466

Oksana Gubareva

tion between light and the nature of grace: “Divine Grace is a light of a special kind; it has scarcely penetrated into the soul when it has lightened it all.”12 And holiness obtained by a just person with the help of grace “is reflected on his face like a radiance”.13 Grace has an effect on a human being like light in darkness (John 1:4–5). This light is “true”; it “gives light to every person coming into the world” (John 1:9 NKJV). The Holy Spirit is present everywhere and always accompanied Jesus Christ in His life on the Earth. That is why in icons we can always see light. It is in the golden backgrounds of icon and in patches of light on faces and clothes of people, on hills, trees, and buildings. The technique of icon painting is a painting with light because images are drawn with white color on the first dark layer and not vice-versa as is done in European painting. In many icons connected with Epiphany, divine grace is depicted as a ray above Christ. It emphasizes the unity of the Trinity and the fact that the Holy Spirit always accompanied Jesus Christ. We see such a ray in icons of the “Annunciation”, “The Nativity of Christ”, and “Epiphany”. In icons of “Epiphany”, a ray of light can be joined with a flow of water. Light also often symbolizes the divine power of Christ. Christ told the apostles that the Holy Spirit is a giver of power: “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Spirit is come upon you.” (Acts 1:8) The nature of divine power was specified in the writings of Pseudo-Dionysius,14 and in the fourteenth century, it became a subject of debates between St. Gregory Palamas and Barlaam. In Orthodox theology, this power is also called “energy”, “divine glory”, “rays of God”, and “uncreated light”, and such terminology serves to differentiate between God’s actions and the essence of God. The power shown by Christ glorified made the apostles fall down on the ground. (Fig. 10) Divine light is depicted in “Transfiguration” icons as an emanation from the divine nature. In Greek icons, rays of divine light surrounded Jesus Christ, apparently representing divine power. Rays of light exert direct influence on people – both alive and dead. Usually, in Russian icons, glory comes evenly and harmoniously into the world. The doctrine of Gregory Palamas about the light of Mount Tabor finds its bright embodiment also in other iconographic representations. For example, in a Byzantine icon of the fourteenth century, “Resurrection of Lazarus”, from the Russian Museum, the icon painter depicted a ray of light that hit a hesitating Jew directly on his forehead. It seems also interesting to note that there is no patch of light on the clothes of Christ, but at the same time, using a special technique, the painter makes the figure of Christ luminiferous. Jesus Christ is the source of 12

Strom. 7.7. Strom. 6.12. 14 Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, Corpus Dionysiacum II: Coel., PG 3:119–369; Div. nom. 2.4–5, 7, 11. 13

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

467

light in this icon. And with his luminiferous power, He raises Lazarus from his grave. The theme of light as an action of the Holy Spirit is so widespread in icon painting that it is impossible to cover it completely within the framework of this essay. So, let us proceed to the next image of the Holy Spirit’s appearance. It is fire. How closely the image of fire is connected to the image of light, we can see in the example of an “Annunciation” icon from Novgorod where flames are streaming to the Mother of God from an open heaven. (Fig. 11) In the Greek tablet-icon “Baptism” from Sergievo-Posadsky Museum, a descending ray of light around the image of a dove turns into the sun. It is a clear image of the unity of God’s power, which emanates in the form of rays, and the unknowable essence of God, represented as a fiery entity and metaphorically depicted as a sun disc with a dove. The Holy Spirit is also represented in the form of fire in the Old Testament. The Holy Spirit acts as fire when God appears in the burning bush before the Prophet Moses. (Fig. 12) The fire that does not burn or harm righteous people appears in the miracle of the youths in Babylon. These Old Testament images as images of the Holy Spirit’s action anticipate His fiery appearance on the day of Pentecost. This connection to Old Testament events was especially emphasized in early Christian art. The author of mosaics of the sixth century from San Vitale basilica in Ravenna depicts Moses speaking with God inside flames resembling separate tongues of fire, such as those that appeared on Pentecost. The subject “Three Youths in the Fiery Furnace” becomes widespread in catacomb churches from the third century. (Fig. 13) Probably, it was used there with an allegorical meaning. The poetic prayers of Azaria and the song of the three youths were used in liturgical texts. Since the first centuries of Christianity, they were included in the great doxology and cited in the prayer of the gifts in the Jerusalem liturgy of St. James,15 and they were included in the text of the Easter service as well.16 The fire that had burnt the executioner but had not touched the youths symbolizes the action of the Holy Spirit in the Christian Sacraments.

4. The Holy Spirit at Pentecost The well-known iconography of Pentecost, where we can see the Apostles sitting on a bench in the shape of a horseshoe and the figure of the Cosmos at the bottom, had developed no earlier than the fourteenth century, after Pala15 Patrologia Orientalis: Texts in Arabic, Ethiopic, Georgian, Greek, Latin and Syriac II – La liturgie de Saint Jacques (ed. B. Dom and C. Mercier; vol. 26; 1950), 126. 16 Православная энциклопедия (Orthodox Encyclopedia) (n. 2), accessed Sept. 5, 2015, .

468

Oksana Gubareva

mas’s councils. It seems that in early Christian churches, there were no icons of Pentecost. Direct representation of the Holy Spirit’s descent on the apostles in the form of flames appeared in Christian art only in the fifth-sixth centuries. At first, images of Pentecost were similar to the images of Ascension and were sometimes even united, because these feasts were celebrated on the same day. (Fig. 14) In the earliest surviving icon of Pentecost – a miniature of the sixth century from the Gospel of Rabula – we can still see the iconographical scheme of Ascension: tongues of fire and the image of a dove depicted at the place of the ascending Christ. (Fig. 15) In the art of the fifth-sixth centuries, the image of the “Descent of the Holy Spirit” was joined not only with the “Ascension”. In Baptistery mosaics in Ravenna, for example, we can see its joining with “Baptism”.17 (Fig. 16) The Holy Spirit descends on Christ and then from Him to apostles standing around Him in the vault of the dome. In the Orthodox Baptistery, thrones are located below the apostles. These thrones are symbolic Episcopal cathedrae receiving the Holy Spirit through the apostles. In the Arian baptistery, we can see a throne located between apostles. On the throne, there is a royal, purple pillow with a Cross on it. It is a symbolic representation of Christ and near Him are the apostles Peter and Paul. Such iconography, in which apostles stand on both sides of Christ, first Peter with the keys and Paul with scrolls, existed already. It was called “Transmission of the Law” (Traditio Legis). Another kind of icon, called the “Sending of the Apostles for Preaching”, has a similar structure. The author of mosaics combines different iconographic images into one composition to show that the apostles have received the divine fullness of Church doctrine from Christ and now they receive priesthood as a gift at Pentecost. We can see that in the first stage of iconographical development, the descent of the Holy Spirit on the apostles was depicted in art via the image of Christ when the artist is portraying evangelical narratives. In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit always acts as the Spirit of Christ. Indeed, the Holy Spirit could be said to be “connected with Christ by nature” (St. Basil the Great), and similar statements were often made.18 In the iconography telling about the earthly life of Christ, we can find representations of the Holy Spirit everywhere: in the image of the dove, light, or water. But on Pentecost, the Holy Spirit appears like a person of the Holy Trinity, independent of the Son and in accordance with his being a distinctive hypostasis, although he was

17 For more information, see M. DAVIDOVA, Сошествие Святого Духа на апостолов (The Icon “The Descent of the Holy Spirit on the Apostles”) (St. Petersburg, 2013). 18 Saint Basil the Great, On the Holy Spirit, PG 32:152B (n. 10).

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

469

sent to the world in the name of the Son (cf. John 14:26; 15:26).19 In Pentecost iconography, it was important to show that the personal coming of the Holy Spirit does not have a subordinate character or any dependence on the mission of Christ. Pentecost is not the “continuation” of the incarnation; it is its effect.20 Expiated and purified with Christ’s blood, human beings themselves have become able to perceive the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit descends into the world to fill it with his presence and to liquidate the consequence of the Fall, the division of the world. The Holy Spirit was called upon to unify the world in the Church, in Christ’s mystical body, and to create a sphere of existence that resembles the life of the Trinity. Human beings preserve their unique personalities and remain distinctive hypostases, and yet they are integrated into the Church, which is one in essence.21 Unlike earlier images, in mosaics of Hosios Loukas Cathedral (eleventh century) in Phocis (Greece), the image of the Holy Spirit’s descent is interpreted in a new way. (Fig. 17) Along the perimeter of the altar dome, we can see the apostles sitting on twelve thrones around the Etimasia (prepared throne). Jesus told the apostles, “That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” (Luke 22:30) Having received the gifts of the Holy Spirit, the apostles have received peculiar spiritual power – the power of priesthood – with which the apostles should enlighten people. Here, in pendentives, we can see representatives of different nations perceiving the mercy of the Holy Spirit from the apostles. Below, we can see a majestic figure of the Mother of God sitting on a throne that resembles the Etimasia (prepared throne). Similarly to “Ascension” icons, in icons of Pentecost, the Mother of God is depicted among the apostles. In this church, She is depicted separately. But Her image is compositionally connected with the image of Pentecost – as if She is being blessed by it. The Blessed Virgin has received all the fullness of mercy, all gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is an inscription in Greek near Her: “Holiness becometh thine house, o Lord, forever.” (Ps 93:5) This phrase from a psalm is used as a prokeimenon during the rite of church consecration. So, the Mother of God represents in Her Person the unity of the Church come into being on Pentecost. Theological thought continued developing, and by the twelfth century, a new iconography had asserted itself. The Holy Spirit's economy is manifested in it most fully. Such ancient icons remain in St. Catherine’s Monastery on 19 V. LOSSKY, Очерк мистического богословия Восточной Церкви. Догматическое богословие (Essay on the Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church: Dogmatic Theology) (Moscow, 1991), 254. 20 LOSSKY, Очерк мистического богословия (Essay on the Mystical Theology), 236 (n. 19). 21 LOSSKY and OUSPENSKY, Meaning of Icons, 207–208 (n. 6).

470

Oksana Gubareva

Sinai and in some monuments of applied art. On these icons, we can see the apostles sitting above a dark space. This darkness symbolizes the world, which they are to enlighten. The twelve apostles, presented along a single arched line, represent perfectly both the unity of the Church body and the multiplicity of its members. The figures of the apostles are quiet and rhythmical, but each one has his own expression. In some icons, especially Russian ones, the clothes of the apostles are expressly variegated, and altogether they resemble a flower wreath. Flames above the apostles usually form something like a cupola so that the whole depiction resembles a church. V. N. Lossky and L. A. Ouspensky note: “Although the Acts of the Apostles (Acts, ii, 1– 13) say that the descent of the Holy Spirit was accompanied by a sound and by general perturbation, the icon shows us the reverse – an harmonious order and strict composition.”22 Iconographic representations depart from the Gospel text to show the most important thing, the fruit of the Holy Spirit: the birth of the earthly Church, a “divine-human organism being headed by God Jesus Christ Himself and inspired by the Holy Spirit” (St. Clement of Alexandria).23 In icons there is always a vacant space between the apostles. This is a place for the head of the Church – Jesus Christ. The dynamics of the composition guide the viewer upward, as the apostles turn to his heavenly throne, from where flames descend on their heads. In some depictions, for example in Serbian paintings of the fourteenth century from Peć eparchy, we can see a cross at this place. Almost immediately, the dark in the semi-circle under the apostles is substituted by figures of the nations. Especially interesting is the fact that this image of nations is represented in the paintings of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Peć. (Fig. 18) Here we can see that in the free space of the arch there are personages in many-colored clothes. These nations surround a twostoried tower. The image of the tower can be connected with a metaphorical image of the Church: in early Christian allegories, the Church was associated with the lighthouse, a symbol of hope, which was usually depicted as a tower (for example, in graffiti on the tombstone of Phirmiy Victor in Rome, third century24). This tower also recalls the Tower of Babel. The service of the Pentecost feast contrasts the confusion of languages and the ensuing chaos at the Tower of Babel with their unity on the day of the Holy Spirit’s descent. By the fourteenth century, the development of Pentecost iconography was complete. Instead of the nations, the symbolic figure of Cosmos in royal garments with twelve scrolls started to be depicted in icons. (Fig. 19) Such ico22

LOSSKY and OUSPENSKY, Meaning of Icons, 207 (n. 6). Clement of Alexandria, Увещание к язычникам XI, CXII (The Admonition to Pagans, 11.112) (St. Petersburg, 2006), 134 (PG 8:229B). 24 M. DAVIDOVA, Сошествие Святого Духа (“The Descent of the Holy Spirit”), 36 (n. 17). 23

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

471

nography, which expressed most perfectly the ecclesiastic meaning of the feast, became the most widespread, and in Russian tradition, the only one. In the seventeenth century, under the influence of Western tradition, the image of the Mother of God appears in Pentecost icons. She is depicted in the middle, standing on an eminence. In some icons, she is depicted as the first to receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and the apostles receive them through her. At that time, the theological language of icon paining started to deteriorate, allowing a place for Western-European allegorism. From the point of view of strict theology, such icons are not correct because they represent the Mother of God as a mediator in distributing gifts of the Holy Spirit. But from the point of view of artists with new ways of thinking, it is an allegory of the Church. The Mother of God is an image of the Church, with the fullness of mercy, where every person can receive the holy sacraments.

5. Conclusion I would like to conclude my essay with a rare example of a metaphorical image of the Holy Spirit’s presence – wind. The Hebrew word “ruaḥ” has three main meanings: “breath, wind, Spirit”.25 In the New Testament, there are two different ways the Holy Spirit is transferred to the Church: one happened when Christ appeared before the apostles and breathed on them on the evening of his resurrection (John 20:19–23); the other was the personal descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1–5), accompanied also with a noise comparable to wind, as it is described in Acts (Acts 2:2).26 In two surviving icons of the Zvenigorod Deesis row, presumably created by Andrei Rublev, the icon painter succeeded in depicting a light whiff of air, as if it is coming from the central image of Christ. We can feel it in the slightly opened clothes on the chests of the Archangel and the Apostle Paul. The icon of the Apostle Paul has remained in better condition, and we notice how this movement of the clothes is stressed by white color. (Fig. 20) We can feel the presence of the Holy Spirit reproduced by the iconographer with painting techniques, rather than with an image.

25 J. MAKSIMOV, Откровение о Духе Святом в Ветхозаветных книгах (The Revelation about the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament), accessed Sept. 5, 2015, . 26 LOSSKY and OUSPENSKY, Meaning of Icons, 193, 199 (n. 6).

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

473

Fig. 1: Epiphany. Miniature of Gospel. 12th century. Byzantium. Panteleimonas Monastery, Athos. Greece.

474

Oksana Gubareva

Fig. 2: A nnunciation of Mother of God. 5th century. Basilica of Saint Mary Major Rome, Italy. Mosaic in the triumphal arch. Photography Pavel Otdelnov.

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

475

Fig. 3: Fatherhood. End of 16th century. Novgorod. © The State Tretyakov Gallery Moscow, Russia.

476

Oksana Gubareva

Fig. 4: T he Holy Trinity. Ca. 1000 AD. Vatopedion Monastery at Agion Oros (Mount Athos), Greece.

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

477

Fig. 5: Epiphany. Mosaic of Arian Baptistry. End of the 5th / beginning of the 6th century. Byzantium. Ravenna, Italy.

478

Oksana Gubareva

Fig.  6: Epiphany. 11th century. Katholikon of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas in Fokida, Greece.

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

479

Fig.  7: Epiphany. 16th century. Russian icon. © Rybinsk State History and Architecture art museum, Russia.

480

Oksana Gubareva

Fig. 8: Annunciation of Mother of God. Late 12th century. Byzantium. Monastery of St. Catherine Sinai, Egypt.

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

481

Fig. 9: Mother of God Pecherskaya. 13th century. Russian icon. © The State Tretyakov Gallery Moscow, Russia.

482

Oksana Gubareva

Fig. 10. Transfiguration of Christ. 12th century. Byzantium. Monastery of St. Catherine Sinai, Egypt.

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

483

Fig. 11: Annunciation of the Mother of God with Theodor Tiron. 14th century. Novgorod. Russian icon. © Novgorod State United Museum, Russia.

484

Oksana Gubareva

Fig. 12: T he story of Moses. Middle of 6th century. Byzantium. Mosaic from the presbyterion in San Vitale Ravenna, Italy.

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

485

Fig. 13: Three Adolescents in Fire Furnace. 3rd century. Wall painting from the Priscilla Catacomb, Rome, Italy.

486

Oksana Gubareva

Fig. 14: Ascension of Christ. Rabula Codex. 586 AD. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. cod. Plut.I, 56. fol. 13.

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

487

Fig. 15:  Pentecost. Rabula Codex. 586 AD. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. cod. Plut.I, 56. fol. 14.

488

Oksana Gubareva

Fig. 16: Epiphany. End of 5th century. Byzantium. Mosaic of the Baptistry of Neon (Orthodox Baptistry). Ravenna, Italy.

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

489

Fig. 17: Pentecost. Mosaic of the Katholikon of the Monastery of Hosios Loukas. 11th century. Byzantium. Fokida, Greece.

490

Oksana Gubareva

Fig. 18:  Pentecost. 14th century. Fresco of the Church of the Holy Apostles in Peć.

The Holy Spirit in Orthodox Iconography

491

Fig. 19: Pentecost. End of 15th century. Side of the icon-tile. © Novgorod State United Museum, Russia.

492

Oksana Gubareva

Fig. 20:  Andrei Rublev. Apostle Paul. Beginning of 15th century. © The State Tretyakov Gallery Moscow, Russia.

List of Contributors Bishop Irinej Bulović of Novi Sad and Bachka Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Belgrade, Serbia c/o Vladan Tatalović Demetrios Bathrellos Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, Cambridge, UK [email protected] Katharina Bracht Theologische Fakultät, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany [email protected] Harald Buchinger Fakultät für Katholische Theologie, Universität Regensburg, Germany [email protected] Andreas Dettwiler University of Geneva, Switzerland [email protected] Predrag Dragutinović Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Belgrade, Serbia [email protected] John Fotopoulos Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, IN, USA [email protected]

494

List of Contributors

Oksana Gubareva St. Petersburg Union of Artists, Section of critics and art history, Saint Petersburg, Russia [email protected] Carl R. Holladay Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA [email protected] Christos Karakolis Faculty of Theology, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece / Faculty of Theology – Unit for Reformed Theology, Potschefostroom Campus, North-West University, South Africa [email protected] Taras Khomych Liverpool Hope University, UK / Ukrainian Catholic University [email protected] Rodoljub S. Kubat Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Belgrade, Serbia [email protected] Joel Marcus Duke Divinity School, Durham, NC, USA [email protected] Daniel Marguerat University of Lausanne, Switzerland [email protected] Tobias Nicklas Fakultät für Katholische Theologie, Universität Regensburg, Germany / University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa [email protected]

List of Contributors

495

Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr Theologische Fakultät, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany [email protected] Armand Puig i Tàrrech Theological Faculty, Church University Sant Pacià, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain [email protected] Volker Rabens Theologische Fakultät, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany / Faculty of Theology at North-West University, South Africa [email protected] Vladan Tatalović Faculty of Orthodox Theology, University of Belgrade, Serbia [email protected] Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni Faculty of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece [email protected] Manuel Vogel Theologische Fakultät, Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Germany [email protected] James Buchanan Wallace Christian Brothers University, Memphis, TN, USA [email protected] Nicholas Thomas Wright St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews, Scotland, UK [email protected]

Participants of the Symposium 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

Dr. Valery Alikin Dr. Charalampos Atmatzidis Dr. Demetrios Bathrellos Prof. Dr. György Benyik Prof. Dr. Katharina Bracht Prof. Dr. Harald Buchinger Prof. Dr. Irinej Bulović Prof. Dr. Andreas Dettwiler Prof. Dr. Ivan Želev Dimitrov Dr. Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev Dr. Predrag Dragutinović Prof. Dr. John Fotopoulos Dr. Nicolay Generalov Dr. Ratomir Grozdanoski Prof. Dr. Oksana Gubareva Prof. Dr. Carl A. Holladay Dr. Endre Horvath Prof. Dr. Christos Karakolis MTh. Zdravko Jovanović Dr. Rastko Jović Dr. Taras Khomych Prof. Dr. Hans Klein Dr. Rodoljub Kubat Prof. Dr. Ulrich Luz Dr. Ksenija Magda Prof. Dr. Joel Marcus Prof. Dr. Petr Mareček Prof. Dr. Daniel Marguerat

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53.

Alexandra Mashtakova Dr. Maksimilijan Matijaž Prof. Dr. Vasile Mihoc Prof. Dr. David Moessner Prof. Dr. Ivaylo Naydenov Prof. Dr. Tobias Nicklas Prof. Dr. Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr MTh. Aleksandar Ninković Dr. Porfirije Perić Dr. Cosmin Pricop Dr. Ondrej Prostrednik Prof. Dr. Armand Puig i Tàrrech Dr. Jovan Purić Dr. Volker Rabens MTh. Dragan Radić Dr. Sviatoslav Rogalsky Dr. Nino Sakvarelidze MTh. Ana Savković Dr. Gottfried Schimanowski Dr. Viktor Shlenkin Dr. Vladan Tatalović Prof. Dr. Stelian Tofana Dr. Ekaterini G. Tsalampouni Prof. Dr. Manuel Vogel Prof. Dr. James Buchanan Wallace

Index of Scripture Abbreviations follow The SBL Handbook of Style. For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies. Edited by P. H. Alexander, J. F. Kutsko, J. D. Ernest, S. DeckerLucke, D. L. Petersen (Peabody, 1999).

1. Old Testament Genesis 2:7 2:11 5:4 6:3 8:8–12 14:14 16:18 41:38

136, 345, 348 193 193 204 91 193 193 333

Exodus 4:22 8:15 8:19 19:16–19 31:3 31:18 33–34 40:34–38

78 378 463 91 204 463 209 21, 74

Numeri 11:25–26 27:18

204 204, 298

Deuteronomy 34:9

329

Judges 6:34 14:6

204 204

1 Kings 8 22:22

21 324

Nehemiah 9:20

298, 328

Job 33:4 34:14–15

294 295

Psalms 8:4 51:13 93:5 131:18 139:7–10 143:10 146:4

463 304 469 330 301 292, 328 295

Isaiah 4:4 11:2 11:6–8 14:12 26:19 29:18 32:15 35:5 35:6 40

384 115, 329 384 387 374 374 204 374 374 1

500 40:3 42 42:1–4 42:1 42:5 44:3 53:7–8 55:10–11 61:1–2 61:1 63:10–11 Ezekiel 11:5 36:26–27 36:29–36 39:29 40–48 43:2 43:4–5 48:35

Index of Scripture 1 379 13, 378 115 293, 301 462 126 402 114, 128, 374, 392 115, 227, 374 304

298 298 331 115, 462 83 74 21, 74 83

Daniel 4:9 5:14 7:9 7:13 7:14

204 204 461 461 461

Hosea 4:12 5:4

324 324

Joel 2:28–29 3:1–5

204 116, 332, 339, 382

3:1–3

384

Micha 3:8

204, 292

Zechariah 7:12 12:1 12:10

298 294 332, 462

Haggai 2:5

305

Malachi 3 3:10

76 331f.

Sirach 24

75, 83

Tobit 8:1–3

380

Wisdom of Solomon 1:7 300, 307 5:3 296 5:23 302 7:7 299 9:16–18 297 9:17 300, 302f., 306f. 11:19–20 302 12:1 307 12:7 294 15:11 293 16:13–14 294, 296

2. New Testament Matthew 1:18 1:20 3:11 3:15 3:17 4:1

13 13 384 462 248, 368 386

10:20 11:2–6 11:5 11:6 11:9 12:18–21 12:22–30

236f., 239 374 374 375 372 13, 379 13

501

Index of Scripture 12:24 12:28 12:29 12:31–32 12:32 21:11 21:23 28:19

377 366, 377f., 382, 463 386 391 389 373 371 14

Mark 1:1 1:3 1:8 1:10–11 1:10 1:11 1:12–13 1:12 1:13 1:16–20 1:21–28 1:23–27 2:19–20 2:20 3:13 3:14–15 3:22 3:27 3:28 4:3–8 4:11 4:14–20 4:26–29 4:35–41 5:24–30 6:1–13 6:5 6:12–13 6:35–44 6:37 6:41 6:45–52 7:24–30 8:1–9 8:4 8:6 8:34–38 9:2–8 10:22

368 2 13, 384 367, 385 197, 395 386 395 379, 387, 395 383f., 388 369 370, 395 369 400 397 398 398f. 370, 372, 377 386 389 401 399 401 402 400 397 402 367, 399 399 399 399 399 400 397 399 399 399 399 368 399

11:15–19 11:27–33 11:28 11:30 11:33 13:11 13:13 13:31 13:32 14:3–9 14:7 14:28 14:38 14:50–52 14:66–72 15:39 16:7 16:8

370 370, 372 371 371 372 395, 402 397 402 402 397 397 399 395 397 397 400 396, 399 399

Luke 1:15 1:17 1:35 1:47 1:80 2:2 2:27 3:16 3:21 3:22 4:1 4:2 4:14 4:16–18 4:18–19 4:18 7:18–19 7:22 7:23 7:26 7:35 8:55 10:15 10:17–20 10:18–19 10:18 10:21 11:15–20 11:15–17

102 92, 102 13, 90, 98f., 102, 114 92 92 90 102 11, 102, 112, 384 103 90, 102, 368, 459 10, 90, 102f., 386 380, 386 10, 99 374 114, 392 97, 103, 128, 392 96 374 375 372 100 92 94 387 384, 388 13, 367, 387 97 98 117

502 11:15 11:20 11:21–22 12:10 12:12 13:32 20:2 22:30 22:44 23:43 23:46 24:36–49 24:39 24:45–49 24:49 John 1:4–5 1:14 1:32–33 3:3–13 3:3–8 3:5–6 3:8 3:34 4:14 4:23–24 4:23 6:63 7:37–39 7:37–38 7:38–39 7:39 10:30 11:33 11:50 12:20–23 12:23–24 12:27–28 12:31 13–17 13–14 13:31–14:31 13:31–38 13:31 13:34–35 14–16

Index of Scripture 377 366, 377f., 382 386 389, 391 94 376, 390 371 469 94 92 92 146 93 11 104, 113, 339

466 17 137, 166f. 15 169 137, 166 424 137f., 166f. 464 15, 166, 168 16, 137, 151 15f., 137, 151, 166, 169 82, 139, 167, 422 167, 464 139, 166, 169 15, 137, 139, 167, 465 241 137, 150 163 84 84 83 164 154 155f., 464 155, 168 171 402 141, 145, 164 15, 149

14:15 14:15–26 14:15–17 14:16–17 14:17 14:18–24 14:18–20 14:18–19 14:20 14:21–22 14:22 14:23 14:25–26 14:26 14:27 14:28 14:30 15–16 15:1–17 15:18–16:4 15:26–27 15:26

16:4b–33 16:7–11 16:7 16:11 16:12–15 16:12 16:13–15 16:13 16:15 16:33 18:14 19:30 19:34 20:1–2 20:11–29 20:11–18 20:11 20:16 20:19–23 20:19 20:21–23 20:22

84, 157 171 84 139, 157–160, 339 140, 151 158f. 158 137 84 138 160 159 139, 160 151, 156, 160f., 170, 236–238, 245, 469 160 137, 155, 157 164 155, 164 155, 164, 168 155, 161 140 24, 156, 161, 224f., 229, 236–238, 245, 248f., 306 155, 163 140, 152, 156, 161 167, 236, 306, 339 164 164–166 245 140, 156 165 248 138 163 137, 150, 166f. 167, 169 142 141, 143 141, 143 249 142 129–147, 149, 168, 339, 471 137 81 137, 139, 141, 167, 225, 246

Index of Scripture 20:23 20:24–29

139, 166 141, 143

Acts 1:2 1:4 1:5 1:6–11 1:8 1:14 2:1–13 2:1–5 2:2 2:3 2:4 2:17–36 2:16–18 2:33 2:38 2:42–47 5:1–11 5:16 5:31 6:3 6:10 7:51 7:59 8 8:1b–4 8:5–8 8:12–13 8:14–17 8:26–40 8:39 10:1–48 10:38 10:45 10:46 11:15–17 13:52 15:22 16:6 16:7 19:1–7 19:2–6 20:22 20:23 20:28 21:11

98 104 11, 105, 112 11 10, 94, 105, 166, 466 105 115 471 90, 303, 471 91 10, 106, 147 339 10 11, 104, 114 98, 119, 122f., 125 120 121 97 104 97, 100, 102 95f., 100 99 92 117 124 123f. 123 122, 125 126 93, 96, 126 117 103, 128, 376, 391 98 98, 116, 119 117 97, 106 94f. 95, 103 93 122, 125 111 98f. 95 95, 106 95, 105f.

Romans 1:4 1:9 1:11–12 1:23 5:5 6 6:2–11 6:5 6:8 8:1–13 8:9–30 8:9–11 8:9 8:11 8:12–17 8:12–16 8:15–16 8:16 8:17 8:26–27 8:26 8:29 8:34 9:5 12:1–2 12:1 12:2 13:14 1 Corinthians 2:1–4 2:10–12 2:10 2:11 2:16 3:2 3:16 6:11 6:17 6:19–20 6:19 7:40 10:4 11:1 11:7 12

503

20 193 203 213 147, 176, 183, 205 78 212 179, 212 212 219 219 79 177f., 183, 186, 204, 206 177, 205, 214 203, 207f., 215 79 166, 193 193 220 153, 186 185, 205 210f., 215f. 153, 186 184 216 263 214f. 215

19 193 205, 225 186, 193, 204f. 216 180 178, 183, 196, 205f., 236 166, 180, 199, 205 193 79 178, 196, 206 186, 204, 225 183, 252 215 211, 213 246

504 12:3 12:4 12:6 12:8–9 12:11 12:13 14:19 15:12–58 15:35–54 15:44–45 15:44 15:49 16:22–23 2 Corinthians 1:21–22 3:6 3:13–4:18 3:18 4:4 4:6 4:10 4:14 4:16–5:5 4:17–18 5:5 5:17 5:21 13:13 Galatians 1:16 3:2–5 3:14 4:1–7 4:5–7 4:6–7 4:6

Index of Scripture 146, 186, 204, 227 204 182, 205 204 205 146, 166, 179f., 195– 200 168 219 194 220 214 184, 213, 215 436

176 205 219 21, 202f., 209–216, 218f. 184, 213 210, 213 213, 218 214 219 219 176f. 212, 246 190 14, 146, 185

4:19 5:14 5:17–18 5:22–23

19 19 176, 181 208 208 77 24, 194, 204, 236f., 239, 248 216 339 205 205

Ephesians 2:10 2:22

212 227

3:16–19 4:22–24 4:24

208 215 215

Philippians 1:19 2:1–2 2:5 2:9b–11 3:3 3:7–10 3:10

204 212 215 184 19, 204 19 215, 219

Colossians 1:13 1:15 1:28 3:3–4 3:4 3:9–11 3:10

77 210 212 215 219 215 211, 214

1 Thessalonians 1:6 4:1–12 4:7–8 4:8 5:19

215 27 176 196, 204, 206 146, 206

2 Timothy 1:14 3:14–17

26 27

Titus 3:5–7

465

Hebrew 7:25

153

1 John 2:1 4:1–6

15, 151, 153 127, 166

Revelation 22:20–21

436

Index of Modern Authors Aaron, D. H. 206 Adler, J. P. 42, 44 Aland, K. 119 Albert, M. 430 Albertz, R. 291f., 294, 296 Aletti, J.-N. 119 Alexander, P. 306 Alexeev, A. A. 4 Alexopoulos, T. 231 Altaner, B. 232 Anderson, A. 292 Andreades, G. S. 59 Arsenev, A. B. 47 Arx, U. von 65 Asting, R. 191 Atkinson, W. P. 187 Aune, D. E. 2, 154 Avemarie, F. 93, 111 Back, F. 214, 216 Backhaus, K. 111 Baer, H. von 113 Barclay, J. M. G. 187 Barker, M. 305 Barrett, C. K. 167 Barrier, J. W. 192 Barth, K. 165, 181 Barth, M. 196, 199 Bathrellos, D. 24, 162, 221, 228f., 232 Bauckham, R. 189 Baumgärtel, F. 290 Beck, H. G. 37 Becker, J. 152, 154, 164, 168 Becker, M. 15 Beeley, C. A. 23, 248–250 Behm, J. 151, 153 Bender, W. 243 Bennema, C. 15, 92, 137, 160–163, 342 Benson, A. 290

Berger, K. 196, 199 Bertrams, H. 205 Betori, G. 113 Beuken, W. A. M. 300 Beutler, J. 136–139 Bieder, W. 89, 301, 342 Bienert, W. A. 240 Bietenhard, H. 305 Bigović, R. 65 Black, D. A. 134 Blackwell, B. C. 188, 190–192, 209, 212f., 217, 219 Blanchet, M.-H. 222 Bobrinskoy, B. 223 Bock, L. 91 Bodine, W. 134 Böhnke, M. 231 Boeri, M. 194 Bogdanović, D. 39 Boismard, M.-E. 126 Boman, T. 292 Bonnah, G. K. A. 108 Bori, P. C. 407 Boring, M. E. 401 Bornkamm, G. 151, 170 Borrel, A. 373 Bovon, F. 87, 92, 101f., 113, 122, 369, 375, 389 Bowlby, J. 201 Boyarin, D. 178 Božović, B. 41, 65 Bracht, K. 23f., 241, 443 Brachtendorf, J. 236 Bradshaw, P. F. 266, 282, 427, 431 Breck, J. 311, 317, 319, 322, 325f., 336 Bréhier, É. 342 Bremer, T.47, 65f., 68 Bremmer, J. N. 430 Brent, A. 406, 413, 423, 425

506

Index of Modern Authors

Briggman, A. 22 Briggs, C. A. 290 Brock, P. 257 Brock, S. 257, 428–430 Brooke, G. J. 1 Brown, G. 134 Brown, R. 130, 138–140, 147 Brown, R. E. 131, 156, 159 Brown, T. G. 152f. Bruce, F. F. 87, 90, 113, Buchegger, J. 203, 215 Buchinger, H. 24, 253, 443 Budde, A. 261 Büchsel, F. 194, 196 Bulgakov, S. 173 Bulović, I. 6, 53, 57, 68 Bultmann, R. 130f., 137f., 140, 159 Burge, G. M. 151f. Burke, T. J. 6, 8, 22, 207 Burkitt, F. C. 437 Butler, T. 43 Butticaz, S. D. 91, 105 Byford, J. 65 Campbell, C. R. 188f. Caird, G. B.90, 204 Carnap, R. 308 Čarnić, E. 58, 60–62, 64 Cherniavsky, M. 222 Chevalier, M.-A. 113 Ćirković, S. 40 Connoly, R. H. 437 Cornils, A. 91, 93 Cranfield, C. E. B.216 Crenshaw, J. L. 101 Cross, A. R. 196f. Crossan, J. D. 396f. Cuming, G. J. 257–263, 265 Ćunković, S. 47 Ćurčić, N. 46 Čurić, R. 42 Dabić, S. 42 Damnjanović, D. 57 Dartel, G. van 65 Dautzenberg, G. 408 Davidova, M. 468, 470 Del Verme, M. 434

Denzinger, H. 232 Despotović, P. 42 Dettwiler, A. 16, 145, 150, 152–154, 156f., 159f., 163–166, 168, 339, 444, 446 Dewey, K. E. 397 DiBerardino, A. 430 Dietrich, W. 124 Dietzfelbinger, C.131, 146, 151f., 160, 167, 169 Dimitrov, I. Z. 4 Dockery, D. S. 203 Dölger, F. J. 242 Đorđević, V. 45 Dragutinović, P.16, 168 Draper, J. A. 434f., 438f. Drašković, Č. S. 40, 47, 59, Drecoll, V. H. 22, 247 Dronsch, C. 130 Drummond, J. 342 Dünzl, F.23, 242f., 249 Duĭchev, I. 37 Dunn; J. D. G. 4, 6, 19, 92, 102, 113, 124, 136, 145, 196f., 203, 207, 214–216, 366f., 369, 378, 380, 385, 387 Đurasinović, M. 39 Du Toit, A. B. 16, 135 Dvornik, F. 37 Ebner, M. 6 Eijk, T. H. C. van 438 Emery, G. 239 Engberg-Pedersen, T. 7, 18, 191f., 194, 196, 213 Engel, H. 287f., 295, 300, 303 Erickson, E. J. 47 Evdokimov, P. 33, 87 Fabry, H.-J. 8, Farelly, N. 131 Fatehi, M. 196, 198, 204 Fee, G. D. 18, 174f., 187, 205 Feine, P. 56 Felder, H. 57 Feldmeier, R. 8 Ferriera, J. 130 Fichtner, J. 302f. Finlan, S. 188, 219

Index of Modern Authors Fitzmyer, J. A. 87, 89f., 102–104, 107f., 113 Florovsky, G. 49, 51, 88 Flusser, D. 434, 437 Focant, C. 383 Foerster, W. 292, 307 Forschner, M. 195 Foster, P. 405 Fotopoulos, J. 20 Franck, E. 151 Frey, J. 6f., 15, 93, 95, 104, 108, 130, 140, 146, 158f., 169f., 204, 377 Gabriel, A. K. 207 Gamillscheg, M.-H. 232, 235 Gavrilović, N. 42, 49 Geerlings, W. 232, 235 Gemeinhardt, P. 23, 231–234, 239 Gemünden, P. von 415 George, A. 106, 113 Georgi, D. 288 Gerhards, A. 253, 255f., 260 Gerleman, G. 290 Gerolymatos, A. 47 Giesen, H. 113 Gievtits, A. 66 Gill, J. 222 Glibetić, N. 38 Gnilka, J. 383, 386 Görgemanns, H. 244f. Gorman, M. J. 188, 190, 213, 219 Gourgues, M. 117 Grayston, K. 151f. Green, J. B. 102f., 134f. Grill, R. C. 65 Grimm, C. L. W. 303 Grujić, R. M. 42f. Gubareva, O. 7, 444, 465 Gunkel, H. 10, 96,102–104, 106, 109, 192 Guretzki, D. 232 Guthrie, G. H. 133 Hadrovics, L. 44 Hafner, S. 39 Hahn, F. 15, 22, 421 Haldimann, K. 155, 161, 163f. Hall, R. C. 47 Hammerstaedt, J. 258f., 263 Hammerstein, N. 44

507

Harrington, W. 289 Hauger, M. 197 Haulotte, E. 121 Hauschild, W. D. 22, 247 Headlam, A. C. 57 Heath, J. M. F. 212 Hehn, J. 290 Henderson, S. 398f. Hengel, M. 325 Henning, M. 407 Henze, M. 2 Herzog, E.65 Hilberath, B. J. 207 Hill, E. 66 Hill, W. 204 Hoegen-Rohls, C. 15 Hofius, O. 15, 152, 197 Holladay, C. R. 9 Hollander, H. W. 309f., 313, 319, 326, 329–333 Horn, C. 195 Horn, F. W. 18, 187, 192, 196–198, 205f. Howard, J. M. 203 Hübner, H. 299, 302f. Hübner, R. M. 406, 410 Hull, J. H. E. 87, 102, 104, 113 Hur, J. 91, 96, 98, 103, 105–107, 113 Hurtado, L. W.305 Ilić, J. P. 40 Imschoot, P. van 290 Isaacs, M. E. 89, 92, 95, 100, 102–106, 342 Isacson, M. 411, 423 Janković, M. D. 65 Jasper, R. C. D. 257–263, 265 Jefford, C. N. 423, 438 Jelavich, C. 41 Jeremias, J. 402 Jervell, J. 87, 102, 104, 108, 310 Jørgensen, M. W. 133 Johnston, G. 151 Johnson, C. 428 Johnson, L. T. 93, 195 Johnson, M. E. 257, 266, 282, 427 Jonge, M. de 313, 319, 326, 329–332 Jovanović, M. 43, 48 Jovanović-Gorup, R. 46

508

Index of Modern Authors

Käsemann, E. 111, 124, 130 Kammler, H.-C. 15, 152, 161, 163f., 167 Kannengiesser, C. 247f. Kany, R. 232, 235f., 239 Karakolis, C. 4, 11, 443 Karpp, H. 244f. Kattan, A. E. 231 Kee, H. C. 309–315, 322 Keener, C. S. 194, 369 Keil, K. F. 49 Kelber, W. 401f. Kerner, M. 233f. Khomych, T. 25, 435, 438 Kim, J. H. 215 Kinzig, W. 257 Kirilović, D. 42 Kittel, G. 215f. Klauck, H.-J. 153, 195 Klausner, J. 57 Klein, H. 4, 102, 146, 421 Klijn, A. F. J. 254f., 430 Knežević, I. 65 Knibb, M. A.407 Kolbaba, T. M. 222 Kooten, G. H. van 214 Kozlov, M. 46 Kraft. E. 43 Kraus, H.-J. 304 Krause, J. E. 63 Kreuzer, J. 235 Krug, G. 462 Kubat, R. S. 8 Kugler, R. 309f. Kuhn, K. G. 433, 435 Kuss, O. 205 Labriolle, P. de 242 LaFollette, H. 201 Lamberty, H. 294 Lambrecht, J. 215 Lampe, G. W. H. 89, 102 Larkin, Jr., W. J. 103, 105, 108 Laurentin, A. 341 Le Donne, A. 121 Leisegang, H. 341f. Levison, J. R. 6–8, 10, 93, 188, 193, 196, 204, 328f., 331, 334f., 337, 342 Lewis, T. 317 Lindemann, A. 405, 412, 420, 422

Litwa, M. D. 18f., 192, 209–213, 216 Löhr, H. 409, 414 Lohmeyer, E. 396 Lohse, E. 116 Loisy, A. 111 Long, A. A. 195, 313f., 316, 320f., 346 Longenecker, B. W. 6, 196, 216 Longrigg, J. 198 Lossky, V. 462, 469–471 Lotz, J.-P. 413f. Louvaris, N. 60 Louw, J. P. 132 Luz, U. 1, 14, 140, 156 Lys, D. 290, 295 Macaskill, G. 188 Macomber, W. F. 257 Maier, H. O. 422 Mainvill, O. 102, 104, 108, 113, 115 Makojević, D. M.66 Maksimov, J. 463, 471 Malbon, E. S. 400 Maleparampil, J. 205 Marcus, J. 14, 309f., 323, 335, 395, 401 Marguerat, D. 11, 89, 91, 94, 104f., 113, 121 Marinković, R. 39 Marshall, I. H. 6, 103, 384, 388 Martín, J. P. 418 Martin, T. W. 18, 182, 197f. Martyn, J. L. 216 Matl, J. 38 May, H. G. 323–325 Mazza, E. 434 McGowan, A. 267 McKenna, J. 251, 427 Meeks, W. A. 1811 Meibauer, J. 133 Meier, H.-C. 196, 206 Meier, J. P. 365, 381, 395 Menzies, R. P. 91, 98, 103, 113 Meredith, A. 249 Merz, A. 369, 385 Messner, R. 251, 255, 257, 261, 263, 267, 427f., 431, 435 Metzner, R. 139 Meyer, N. A. 212f. Meyendorff, J. 66, 222 Michie, D. 398

Index of Modern Authors

509

Mikulincer, M. 201 Milavec, A. 437f. Mileusnić, S. 39 Mitchell, L. L. 268 Montague, G. 329–331, 333f. Morris, L. 91 Motyer, S. 22 Moule, C. F. D. 142, 144 Mowinckel, S. 151, 153f. Mpalano, D. S. 59 Mpoulovits, E. 64, 68 Müller, B. 151, 154 Mueller, J. G. 434 Muilenburg, J. 437 Munch, P. A. 311, 317, 326 Munier, C. 240, 408, 416, 421 Myers, S. E. 255, 428, 430–432, 440 Myllykoski, M. 416

Pavlovich, P. 47 Perits, P. 68 Pervo. R. I. 93, 99, 104 Peterson, E. 261 Peuch, E. 336 Philip, F. 342 Phillips, L. J. 133, 282 Philonenko, M. 323 Podskalsky, G. 37, 40 Pokorný, P. 10, 106 Popović, D. 41 Popovits, I. 66 Popruženko, M. G. 39 Porsch, F. 4, 129, 151, 163, 167 Porter, S. E. 134, 140, 196, 207 Prümm, K. 210 Puig I Tàrrech, A. 7, 12, 339, 381 Pulver, M. 341 Puzovič, V. 48, 58

Neill, S. 174 Neirynck, F.10 Nicklas, T. 25, 398, 407, 409, 412, 417f., 423 Niebuhr, K.-W. 8, 13, 19, 208, 312, 314, 333 Niederwimmer, K. 434, 436 Nikolov, S. 37 Norelli, E. 406f. Northwood, H. 107 Nussbaum, M. 195

Rabens, V. 6f., 9, 15, 18, 20f., 158, 187– 192, 195, 198f., 201, 204–206, 208f., 215f., 219f., 339, 406 Rad, G. von 305 Radić, E. E. von 44 Radojčić, N. 43 Radovanović, N. 66 Rahner, J. 155 Rakić, R. 50, 53 Raković, A. 39, 41, 44–46, 48 Rantosavlievits, A. 66 Rantovits, A. 66 Ratcliff, E. C. 257 Ratzinger, J./Benedikt XVI. 2 Reed, J. T. 143f. Reese, J. M. 288 Reinmuth, E. 311f., 318, 327, 333 Rhoads, D. M. 398 Richard, E. 117 Ricoeur, P. 133f. Rius-Camps, J. 406 Robbins, V. K. 397 Robinson, T. A. 418, 436 Rogich, F. D. M. 65f. Roloff, J. 91, 130f., 144 Rordorf, W. 223, Rosner, B. 311 Rouwhorst, G. 255, 428, 431 Ruegg, W. 39, 44,

Oberdorfer, B. 23, 231, 233f. Obolensky, D. 38 Obradović, D. 46 Okey, R. 44 Onuki, T. 140, 144, 161–164, 170 Orr, W. F. 196 Ostmeyer, K.-H. 436 Ouspensky, L. 462, 469–471 Painter, J. 140 Papastathès, C. K. 38 Pardee, N. 434 Parlić-Božović, J. 41 Paroschi, W. 125 Parsenios, G. L. 154 Pastorelli, D. 152f., 161, 163f. Paulsen, H. 408, 412, 420–422

510

Index of Modern Authors

Runia, D. T. 343, 345 Russel, B. 307f. Russel, N. 191 Ruvarac, D. 43, 45 Saake, H. 244f., 247f. Saarinen, R. 207 Salaville, S. 427 Salmeier, M. A. 97 Samardžić, R. 41 Sand, H. van de 434, 437 Sandmel, S. 343 Saucy, M. 217 Savvidis, K. 247 Schäfer, K. T. 56 Schäfer, P. 290, 292, 307, 330f. Schaffarik, P. J. 38 Schafroth, V. 22 Schelkle, K. H. 63 Schenck, K. 343 Schlögel, H. 409, 412 Schmauss, A. 39 Schmidt, W. H. 292, 296, 402 Schmitt, A. 287f., 297 Schnackenburg, R. 15, 131, 146, 151 Schnelle, U. 129, 131, 142, 195f. Schoedel, W. R. 411f., 414, 418–421, 424 Schreckeis, H. 41 Schroer, S. 287f. Schröter, J. 127 Schulz, H.-J. 263 Schulz-Flügel, E. 240 Schweitzer, A. 57, 189 Schweizer, E. 18, 128, 144, 159, 169, 205 Schwiebert, J. 434, 437 Schwienhorst-Schönberger, L. 294 Seal, W. O. 396f. Sedley, D. N. 195, 313f., 316, 320f., 346 Seewald, M. 231, 235, 241 Segal, A. F. 305 Sekki, A. 322, 324f., 336, 395 Seraphim, H.-C. 267 Ševčenko, I. 222 Shauf, S. 112, 125 Shaver, P. R. 201 Shelfer, L. 152f Shelton, J. B. 113 Shepherd, Jr., W. H. 99, 105, 107, 113, 118

Sieben, H.-J. 240, 243, 249 Siecienski, A. E. 23, 222, 231, 233, 235 Siedlecki, A. 49 Siemens, P. 49 Šijaković, B. 39, 41, 44–46, 48 Simon, R. 231, 239 Sinkewicz, R. E. 39, 41, 44 Slingerland, H. D. 310, 312, 338 Smith, D. E. 432 Smith, M. S. 305 Smyth, M. 266 Spieckermann, H. 8 Spinks, B. D. 251, 256 Stalder, K. 196 Stayridou, V. T. 59 Stecher, L. 201 Steenburg, D. 214 Stefanović, D. 54–57 Steichele, H. 105 Steinmetz, P. 301 Stenschke, C. W. 97 Stock, K. 399 Strecker, G. 196 Strüder, C. W. 412 Studer, B. 239 Stuhlmacher, P. 1 Stuiber, A. 232 Stylianopoulos, T. 87, 109 Svirčević, M. 41 Taft, R. F. 223, 228, 251, 253, 256f., 259– 261, 427, 440 Tappenden, F. S. 192 Tarski, A. 308 Tasić, M. S. 46 Tatalović, V. 6, 50, 53–55, 57–59, 62, 66 Taylor, C. 88 Telfer, W. 437 Tengström, S. 290f., 300 Tešić, V. 47 Thayer, J. H. 176, 185 Theissen, G. 369, 385 Theobald, M. 149f., 157, 160, 170 Theodorov, V. A. 46 Thiessen, W. 125 Thiselton, A. C. 5, 134 Thomas, J. C. 22 Thompson, M. B. 215 Thompson, M. M. 215

Index of Modern Authors Thyen, H. 136, 138f., 152, 154, 159 Tibbs, C. 204 Tieleman, T. 7 Tigchelaar, E. J. C. 2 Tilling, C. 201, 212 Timmers, F. 189 Tolbert, M. A. 397 Tracy, D. 132 Trebilco, P. R. 412 Trevett, C. 416, 419 Trilling, W. 411 Tsalampouni, E. 7 Tuckett, C. 141f., 146, Tugendhat, E. 212, Turner, M. B. 4f., 7, 15, 101f., 103, 113f., 131 Twelftree, G. 321 Vallance, J. T. 346 Velimirović, N. D. 65 Verbeke, G. 313, 321 Verger, J. 39 Vermes, G. 2 Veselinović, A. 40 Viviano, B. T. 305 Vletsis, A. 232 Vööbus, A. 435 Vogel, M. 7 Vokes, F. E. 434, 437 Volz, P. 290, 305, 311, 334 Vukičević, M. 41 Wallace, J. B. 9 Walter, M. 413 Walther, J. A. 196 Ware, J. 195 Ware, K. 174 Warnach, V. 205 Warrington, K. 6, 8, 22 Weaver, M. J. 341f., 362 Wedderburn, A. J. M. 195, 205 Weeden, T. J. 397–399 Wehr, L. 413, 422, 425

511

Weidemann, H.-U. 157, 159 Weinandy, T. G. 409 Wendland, H.-D. 205 Wenk, M. 109 Wenz, G. 22 West, M. L. 326 Westermann, C. 290–292, 294, 296, 305 Widdowson, H. G. 134 Wieneke, J. 288 Wilckens, U. 131, 139f., 146 Wilcox, M. 433 Willam, F. M. 57 Williams, G. 204 Willjung, H. 234, 236 Wilson, D. 43 Winkler, G. 261, 429 Winter, M. 153 Witetschek, S. 412 Wittgenstein, L. 308 Wolf, U. 212 Wolff, H. W. 291, 295, 298 Wolfson, H. A. 342 Wolter, M. 91, 103 Woods, N. 134 Wrede, W. 192 Wright, N. T. 6, 17, 21f., 174, 188, 213 Wucherpfennig, A. 113, 122 Ysebaert, J. 431 Yule, G. 134 Zamfir, K. 416 Zeller, D. 196 Zenger, E. 304 Zeremski, I. 51f. Zheltov, M. 252, 260, 263 Ziebritzki, H. 7, 244f. Zizioulas, J. D. 87f. 147 Zmijewski, J. 90f., 100, 107 Zumstein, J. 140f., 150, 155f., 158–160, 162, 171 Zwiep, A. W. 113, 119, 127

Index of Subjects Acts of Thomas 25, 252–256, 428–433 Anamnesis, anamnetic 161, 170f., 256, 258, 260, 263f., 267, 446, 450 Angels 323, 326, 330, 350, 383f., 390 – angelic being 322, 336 – angelic entity 335 Anthropology 9, 92, 150, 201f., 291, 293– 297, 314, 347f., 355, 357f., Apocalyptic 317, 326 – Jewish thinking of 316 – Jewish worldview of 338 Apostles 10, 33, 95, 10, 226f., 257, 467–471 Aramaic 433, 436, 440 Ascension of Isaiah 406–425 Athanasius 34, 235, 246–248 Augustine of Hippo 147, 231–250 Baptism 2, 102, 105, 112, 122–127, 166, 179, 195–200, 217, 428f., 439, 462, 464 – in Spirit 199 – Christ´s 459, 462 Basil of Caesarea 184, 249 Binitarian 409–415 Cappadocian Fathers 77, 173 Charism 300, 367, 391, 414, 416–419 Christology 27, 76, 166, 169, 212, 241, 415, 418, 425f. Christosis 219 Church 31f., 34, 108, 130f., 145f., 420, 449– 451, 453–455, 469, 470f., – Serbian Orthodox Church 37, 45, 50, 52, 58, 60, 62, 65, 67 Comforter (cf. Spirit, –Paraclete) Communion, Community 116f., 120f., 130, 139–142, 144f., 155, 158, 160–165, 187, 414, 417, 432, 434f. – rule of the 311, 322, 434

Council (cf. Synod) – Aachen (809 C.E.) 233, 236, 238 – Constantinople (381 C.E.) 233, 235 – Nicaea (325 C.E.) 235, 244, 246 – Toledo, Second (447 C.E.) 232 – Toledo, Third (589 C.E.) 232f. Cyril of Alexandria 190 Decretum Aquisgranense 234, 238f., 249f. Deification (cf. Theosis) Demon (cf. Satan) Divinization (cf. Theosis) Didache 252 Disciples 130, 136–138, 141, 143, 397–400 – Twelve 397f. Discourse analysis 131–135, 145 Dove 2, 198, 459–463 Dualism 164, 317 Easter (cf. also Resurrection) 158f., 171, 399, 467 Education (cf. Scholarship) Epiclesis 223, 228f., 251–268, 427– 433, 439f. Epiphany 368, 462f., 464 Eschatology 28, 33, 35, 79f., 84f., 116f., 166f., 219, 338f., 374, 378, 397, 435, 440 Ethics 207, 218f. Eucharist 32–34, 199, 427–429, 431– 433, 435, 439, 460 – liturgy 25, 434 – prayers 24, 434, 437f. Exegesis 50, 52, 54, 70 – historical criticism 52, 60, 69 – historical method 52, 56, 63

514

Index of Subjects

Exodus 74, 77–81, 85 Exorcism 366f., 375–378, 381, 390f., 393 Faculty, deliberating 320 Faculty, guilding 314f. Faculty for discerning 319 Faculty of moral reasoning 377 Faculty, rational 316 Farewell discourses 83, 137, 139f., 150–156, 160, 163 Filioque 23, 26, 33, 162, 222, 224–226, 231– 250 Gift (cf. Spirit) God 168, 171 – Lord 435, 437–440 – YHWH 73 Grace 416–419, 465f., 464 Gregory of Nazianzus 184, 235, 243, 248– 250 Healings (cf. also Exorcism) 366f. Hermeneutics 3, 26f., 49, 57, 133, 161 Hippolytus 241, 266, 455 Holiness 27, 80, 215, 330f., 370, 396 Hypostasis (cf. also Spirit) 33f., 205, 226f., 305f., 461, 468 Iconography 459–471 Ignatius of Antioch 405–426 – alleged opponents 407 – prescripts of letters 409–411 Initiation 196, 199, 217, 430, 432 Inspiration 1, 26, 359f., 362 Institutionalization 109 Irenaeus 190, 454 Isagogics 50f., 54, 60 Jesus 213, 372f. – authority of 371, 373 – divinity of 76 – earthly 171 – healing activity 374 – historical 56f. – humanity of 227 – ministry of 2, 4, 12 – presence of 400–401 – revealer 157, 161, 163, – sower 401–403

John – Gospel of 15, 130–147, 149–171 – Johannine pneumatology 15, 137, 140, 166–170 – Johannine school 154f. – Johannine soteriology 168f. John the Baptist 111f., 372, 384 Law 1, 19f., 78, 115, 117, 178, 216, 227, 339, 347 – of God 314, 319, 320, 325, 327– 329, 331, 333, 336–338 – Torah 312, 318, 327, 334 Life 166, 292f. Liturgy 25, 32, 146f., 223, 230, 251– 284, 433f., 451, 455 – of apostles Addai and Mari 257 – of Saint Basil 261 – of Saint John Chrysostom 260f. – of Saint Mark 258–260 Logos 149, 162, 170f., 179, 253, 257, 306, 354, 449 Lord (cf. God) Love 164, 171, 239 Luke-Acts 10–12, 87–109, 111–128, 146, 339, 368, 375f., 463 Marcion 244 Methodology (cf. also Exegesis) 239, 444 Messiah 10, 18, 33, 79, 102f., 115, 190, 217, 329–333, 339, 374f., 382, 385, 392, 432 Metaphors 90f., 101, 191, 198, 204f., 242f., 248, 290, 299, 464f., 467 Ministry (cf. Jesus) Moses 74, 78, 80, 209, 300, 344, 346– 348, 351f., 353, 359f., 463, 467 Narrative 16, 149, 218f., – character 12, 88f., 98f., 107 Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed 232f. Ontology 190f., 203 – Ontological change 217 Origin (principium) 238, 242, 248–250 Origen 235, 244–246, 248, 250 Paraclete (cf. Spirit)

Index of Subjects Participation 210, 218 Patripassianism 241 Pentecost 114–116, 118, 467–469 Person (cf. also Spirit, Trinity) 11f., 20f., 87f., 99, 107f., 203–209 Philo of Alexandria 9, 179f., 189, 306, 341– 363, 447 – anthropology 347, 357 – exegetical writings 343 Plutarch 316, 320 Pneuma (cf. Spirit) – human 92f. – substance 192, 202, 204, 206 Pneumatology (cf. also John) 32, 137, 145, 166–170 Pneumatomachi 246 Power 87–109, 155–166 – demonic 396 – divine 411 – impersonal 99 Prophecy 120, 127, 298, 358–363, 423, 438f. Repentance 320, 322 Resurrection (cf. also Easter) 11, 15, 27, 76, 79f., 115, 140, 143, 181, 220, 400 Sacraments 195–200 Sanctification 199, 203, 208 Satan 327, 368, 379, 384, 386–388, 390 – Archfiend 323 – Beliar 312, 317, 319, 328, 331, 333 – fall 387, 392 Semantics 132, 134 Serapion (cf. also Athanasius) 246–248 Shekinah 178, 331 Sin 121, 163, 166 Soul 295 – creation of human 353 – Soul´s soul 355, 358 Spirit 31, 90, 129–131, 137, 139, 142, 144f., 176–179, 290, 400, 405 – anthropological 198 – as conversion-initiation 196, 199, 217 – as essential deification 192, 219 – as God 183–186 – demonic 92, 325, 339, 396 – depressed 296 – dwelling in believers 178 – experience of 18, 20, 28

515

– evil 312, 314, 319, 321f., 324, 331, 333f., 338, 365–393 – gift 176f., 181 – Holy 32–34, 87, 136, 139f., 147, 151, 306, 365–393, 395 – human 312, 316, 325 – in action 181–183, 185 – in heart of believers 177, 183, 186 – in Philo of Alexandria 341–363 – of adoption 208 – of discipline 297 – of God, of the Lord 298, 300 – of truth 151, 168, 311, 318f., 322f., 325–327, 335, 338 – of wisdom 297 – Paraclete 34, 139, 149–166, 170f., 237, 250, 444, 446, 449 – reception of 186, 197 – sacramental transferal 197 – unclean spirits 395f. Stoicism 194, 200, 312, 315, 320, 338 Synod (cf. Council) Temple 17, 74, 83, 178, 330f., 335, 337 Temptation (cf. also Satan) 380, 382, 389f. Tertullian 235, 240–243, 246 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs 8, 309–340 Theophany 368, 383, 385, 388f. Theosis (cf. also Deification, Divinization) 81, 85, 187–220 Thomas Aquinas 239 Tradition 60f., 63 – Catholic 190 – Orthodox 31f., 57, 190 – Protestant 190 Translation 37, 49, 52, 69 – New Testament 49, 62 – Old Testament 50 Trinity 11, 32, 87, 170, 186f., 204, 217, 234, 239f., 245, 250, 454 – divine persons 459, 461 Twelve (cf. Disciples) Vice 315–317, 320f., 324f., 336, 338 Virtue 318, 320, 326, 328, 336, 338, 340

516

Index of Subjects

Vision 74–76, 78–80, 85, 328, 362, 367f., 383, 385, 387–389 Wind (cf. also Spirit) 89, 290–292 Wisdom 75, 100 – of Solomon 8, 287–308 Word 17, 119, 121, 170

– in the Gospel of John 81–85 Worship 166, 168, 175, 182f., 433 Zion (cf. also Temple) 22, 74f., 81, 83, 85 Zoroastrism 325