The Spirit and Creation in Paul (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen Zum Neuen Testament 2.Reihe) 9783161498176, 9783161515941, 3161498178

Citation preview

Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament · 2. Reihe Herausgeber / Editor Jörg Frey (München) Mitherausgeber / Associate Editors Friedrich Avemarie (Marburg) Judith Gundry-Volf (New Haven, CT) Hans-Josef Klauck (Chicago, IL)

251

John W. Yates

The Spirit and Creation in Paul

Mohr Siebeck

John W. Yates, born 1974; 2007 PhD; currently he is an Anglican clergyman serving on the staff of Church of the Good Samaritan, Paoli, Pennsylvania.

e-ISBN PDF 978-3-16-151594-1 ISBN 978-3-16-149817-6 ISSN 0340-9570 (Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, 2. Reihe) The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliographie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. © 2008 by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. 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 Laupp & Göbel in Nehren on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Nädele in Nehren. Printed in Germany.

Acknowledgements The present volume represents a minor revision of my doctoral thesis, accepted by the University of Cambridge in 2007. I wish to thank Prof. Jörg Frey for including this monograph in the WUNT II series. Special thanks are due to Dr. Henning Ziebritzki, Tanja Mix and the entire editorial team at Mohr Siebeck for their conscientious work in seeing this project through to publication. During the course of my doctoral research I had the privilege of working under the supervision of two superb scholars. Professor Markus Bockmuehl proved a model of scholarly integrity, combining rigorous supervision with warm hospitality. Dr. James Carleton Paget graciously took over supervision of this research during my final year in Cambridge. His humour, candour and insight paved the way to final submission. I am grateful to the former Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity, Graham Stanton, for the invitation to present some of this material at the Senior New Testament Seminar in the Faculty of Divinity, Cambridge. The collegial atmosphere and critical engagement there were a vital encouragement. Over the course of three years of research I also benefited greatly from the help of many friends. To list them all would be embarrassing for the author and overwhelming for the reader. Those who have interacted with portions of my work, providing thoughtful feedback and insight, must be singled out for special thanks. These include: Charles Anderson, Wayne Coppins, Rodrigo F. de Sosa, Simon Gathercole, Jonathan Moo, Ashley Null, James Palmer, Kavin Rowe, Michael Ward, Todd Wilson and Stephen Witmer. Most of the research for this book was undertaken at Tyndale House Library, Cambridge. The accumulated resources of Tyndale House, both physical and human, are extraordinary, and I am grateful to the staff and my fellow readers with whom I was privileged to share several years. I am also particularly grateful to Clare College, Cambridge, where I had the privilege of serving for three years as the Decani Scholar, assisting in the worshipping life of the community alongside the Dean, the Rev’d Roger Greeves.

VI

Acknowledgements

My studies at Cambridge would not have been possible without the generous financial support of Trinity School for Ministry, The Falls Church, Clare College, the funds of the Faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, the Doughty Family, Joe and Pam Ponzi, and John and Susan Yates. The work of preparing this book for publication would not have been possible without the generous support of Simon and Lucy Barnes, Andy and Catherine Crouch, Rich and Lucia Englander, Chuck and Mary Ernst, David and Nancy Filkin, Andy and Leah Krider, and Peter and Erin Lima, who, in the months since leaving Cambridge have made it possible for me to spend a quarter of my time in ongoing research and writing. Members of the Church of the Good Samaritan have been wonderfully supportive of this wayward member of the clergy who hides away to read and write on a regular basis. Without the vision of the Rev’d Greg Brewer my attempt to lead a double life as a pastor and scholar would have remained an aspiration. I am extremely grateful to all those who have been willing to invest in this venture. Final thanks are reserved for my wife and children. Sylvia, Isabel and Jack have filled these years with laughter and the refreshing (though often sleepless) reality of life with toddlers. Alysia, you have been unstinting in your support and fierce in your determination to see this project through to a successful conclusion. Thank you. John W. Yates III August 2008

Table of Contents Acknowledgements ...................................................................................... V Table of Contents .......................................................................................VII Abbreviations.............................................................................................. XI

Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................ 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Method of investigation ......................................................................... 2 Experience and expectations in Pauline pneumatology........................... 3 The ‘development’ of Pauline pneumatology......................................... 4 The origins of modern discussion........................................................... 6 Dunn and Fee on Romans 8 ................................................................... 9 1.5.1 Fee on the life-giving spirit ........................................................ 10 1.5.2 Dunn on the life-giving spirit ..................................................... 11 1.5.3 Critique of Dunn and Fee ........................................................... 13 1.6 Governing questions of this study ........................................................ 17

Part I: The Jewish Background Chapter 2. The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature ...................... 24 2.1 Hebrew Scripture................................................................................. 24 2.1.1 The ‘breath of life’ tradition: vocabulary and appropriation........ 25 2.1.2 The creative spirit: a divergent tradition?.................................... 28 2.1.3 Spirit and new creation in Ezekiel 36–37.................................... 31 2.1.4 Summary ................................................................................... 34 2.2 The LXX ............................................................................................. 35 2.2.1 The ‘breath of life’ tradition: vocabulary, use and development.. 35 2.2.2 Spirit of the new creation in Ezekiel........................................... 38 2.2.3 Summary ................................................................................... 41 2.3 The Dead Sea Scrolls........................................................................... 42 2.3.1 Spirit and creation...................................................................... 42 2.3.2 Renewal and resurrection: the influence of Ezekiel 37................ 43 2.3.3 Summary ................................................................................... 45 2.4 Other Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period.......................... 46 2.4.1 Wisdom of Solomon .................................................................. 46

VIII

Table of Contents

2.4.2 2 Maccabees .............................................................................. 48 2.4.3 Philo .......................................................................................... 49 2.4.4 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum .................................................. 51 2.4.5 Joseph and Aseneth.................................................................... 53 2.4.6 Texts of debated origin............................................................... 54 2.4.7 Summary ................................................................................... 56 2.5 Targums and Rabbis ............................................................................ 56 2.5.1 The Targums.............................................................................. 57 2.5.2 Rabbinic Literature .................................................................... 59 2.6 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 61

Chapter 3. The Spirit and Creation in the Hodayot ............................... 64 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7

Introduction ......................................................................................... 64 Preliminary issues................................................................................ 65 New covenant, new creation?............................................................... 67 The spirit and life in 1QH xvi .............................................................. 72 Spirits of creation and new creation ..................................................... 76 Conclusion .......................................................................................... 82 Turning to Paul.................................................................................... 83

Part II: The Pauline Letters Chapter 4. The Spirit of New Creation in 1 Corinthians 15 .................. 88 4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................... 88 4.2 From death to life: 1 Corinthians 15:35–49 .......................................... 89 4.3 Paul’s new creation narrative in 15:42–49............................................ 93 4.3.1 Resurrection and new creation in 15:42–44a .............................. 94 4.3.2 1 Corinthians 15:45 and Genesis 2:7b&c.................................... 95 4.3.3 1 Corinthians 15:47 and Genesis 2.7a......................................... 98 4.4 Christ and the spirit in 1 Corinthians 15:45 .......................................... 99 4.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 105

Chapter 5. The Life-Giving Spirit of 2 Corinthians 3–5 ...................... 106 5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................... 106 5.2 2 Corinthians 3:3–6 ........................................................................... 107 5.3 The spiritual logic of new creation..................................................... 114 Excursus: The spirit and new creation in Galatians 5–6 ................... 120 5.4 Re-reading 2 Corinthians 3–5 ............................................................ 122 5.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 124

Table of Contents

IX

Chapter 6. Death and Life in Romans 5–8 ............................................ 125 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5

Introduction ....................................................................................... 125 The relationship between Romans 7 and 8 ......................................... 127 The argument of Romans 5–8 ............................................................ 129 Romans 8:1–2 and ‘the law of the Spirit of life’................................. 135 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 142

Chapter 7. The Life-Giving Spirit in Romans 8 .................................... 143 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5

Introduction ....................................................................................... 143 Ezekiel in Romans 8 .......................................................................... 143 The spirit who raises the dead ............................................................ 147 The spirit and new creation of the cosmos.......................................... 151 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 155

Chapter 8. Spirit-Given Life: Present and Future .............................. 157 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Introduction ....................................................................................... 157 Future spirit-given life ....................................................................... 158 Present spirit-given life...................................................................... 159 The nature and quality of present life................................................. 163 8.4.1 What does life have to do with righteousness?.......................... 165 Excursus: The spirit, life and righteousness in Galatians 5–6 ............ 170 8.5 Conclusion ........................................................................................ 172

Chapter 9. Conclusion ............................................................................ 174 9.1 Overview........................................................................................... 174 9.2 Implications....................................................................................... 176 9.3 The life-giving spirit and divine identity ............................................ 177 Bibliography of Works Cited..................................................................... 181 Index of Ancient Sources .......................................................................... 199 Index of Modern Authors .......................................................................... 212 Index of Subjects and Key Terms .............................................................. 216

Abbreviations Whenever possible abbreviations follow The SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendricksen, 1999) and Internationales Abkürzungsverzeichnis für Theologie und Grenzgebiete (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992, 2nd ed.). Other abbreviations are as follows (for full information see bibliography): BDF BECNT BaJS CEJL CTSRR DJD DSSSE EJL GAP HALOT HdO HM ISFCJ JSJS LDSS LHBOTS PBM PSVT SDSSRL SiBL TDNT TDOT TEG TGST TLOT

Blass, DeBrunner and Funk, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Biblical and Judaic Studies Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature College Theological Society Resources in Religion Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition (Martínez and Tigchelaar) Early Judaism and its Literature (SBL) Guides to Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Vols. 1–5) Handbuch der Orientalistik (Handbook of Oriental Studies) Heythrop Monographs International Studies in Formative Christianity and Judaism Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism The Literature of the Dead Sea Scrolls Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Paternoster Biblical Monographs Pseudepigrapha Veteris Testamenti Graeca Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature Studies in Biblical Literature (Peter Lang) Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Vols. 1–10) Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament (Vols. 1–14) Traditio Exegetica Graeca Tesi Gregoriana Serie Teologia Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament (Vols. 1–3)

Chapter 1

Introduction ‘[I]n the New Testament the Spirit is the breath of new life – the bringer of eternal life. Nothing could be more important than this new life. It is not, however, so distinctive of the Spirit in particular as might be expected, and it is doubtful whether one should regard it as a particularly significant function of the Spirit as such.’ 1

In his introductory text, The Holy Spirit, C.F.D. Moule articulates a widespread understanding of the New Testament description of the spirit as ‘life-giving’.2 While Moule states in no uncertain terms the importance of the life that the spirit brings, he does not believe this description tells us much about the spirit who brings that life.3 The goal of this thesis is to test Moule’s conclusion in the context of the study of Paul’s epistles, asking if perhaps Paul’s description of the spirit as ‘life-giving’ not only affirms the importance of the life the spirit brings but also tells us something about how Paul understood the spirit. I will examine this possibility through an investigation into the likely sources of Paul’s thought and through close study of the texts in which this description is found. The spirit is connected to life or the giving of life in a number of passages within the Pauline corpus: Romans 7:6; 8:2, 5, 6, 10, 11, 13; 1 Cor. 15:45; 2 Cor. 3:3, 6; Gal. 5:25 and 6:8.4 Three texts in particular will serve as the exegetical foundation of this study. In Romans 8, 1 Corinthi1

Moule (1978:27). Outside the Pauline corpus the spirit is associated with the giving of life in John 6:63; 1 Peter 3:18; 4:6; and Rev. 11:11. The spirit also has a significant role in the birth narratives of Luke and Matthew (Mt. 1:18, 20; Lk. 1:35), which appear to reflect the lifegiving power of the spirit. Limitations of time and space prevent me from examining these non-Pauline passages in any detail during the course of this study. For a brief study that examines related themes in John and reaches similar conclusions see Thompson (2004). 3 Throughout this thesis I have elected to spell ‘spirit’ with a lower-case ‘s’ regardless of the type of spirit (divine, human, angelic) being discussed. Although my preference would be to refer to the divine spirit with a capital ‘S’, in keeping with Christian tradition, there are too many instances, particularly within the Jewish literature, where a distracting and debateable judgment would be necessary. Where others refer to the spirit with a capital ‘S’ I maintain their usage; this includes textual translations. 4 Note also Titus 3:5–7 in which renewal by the spirit leads to eternal life. 2

2

Chapter 1: Introduction

ans 15 and 2 Corinthians 3 Paul describes the spirit as life itself or as the giver of life.5 There are two main reasons for focusing on these passages. First, these are texts in which the clearest connection is made between the spirit and the giving of life. Secondly, these are texts that address issues that are central to Paul’s portrayal of ‘the gospel’. They speak of the nature of new life ‘in Christ’ (Rom. 8), the centrality of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15) and the uniqueness of Paul’s ministry (2 Cor. 3). As I will argue, in each of these passages the collocation of ‘spirit’ and ‘life’ language is not incidental, but central to the argument. As such it is reasonable to ask what this juxtaposition means, where the idea comes from, and whether or not it tells us anything about Paul’s view of the spirit. Part of the purpose of this thesis is simply an attempt to shift discussion from a focus on the life that the spirit gives to a focus on the spirit who gives life. While much of the present discussion related to this topic is concerned with the nature and quality of life in the spirit, I am more concerned to ask whether or not this description tells us anything about how Paul understood the spirit himself.6

1.1 Method of investigation As an investigation into the likely background to Paul’s thought accompanied by close study of Pauline texts, this work combines a limited historyof-traditions analysis with historical-critical exegesis. The only explicit citation of a scriptural text made by Paul in the immediate context of describing the spirit as ‘life-giving’ is to Genesis 2:7. This occurs in 1 Corinthians 15:45. The examination of possible backgrounds to Paul’s language will therefore focus on the use of this text and the development of traditions that depend on it in Jewish literature up to the end of the Second Temple period. Occasionally, reference will be made to later works in order to demonstrate the application or development of an earlier concept. I have chosen to leave non-Jewish sources to one side. This is primarily due to the observation, to be defended in some detail in the course of this 5

Whether or not the spirit is in fact mentioned in 1 Cor. 15:45 is the subject of debate and will be addressed in Chapter Four. Although Galatians 5–6 refer to the life-giving work of the spirit I do not treat them in an independent chapter. I have elected to discuss these texts in two excursuses in Chapters Five and Eight. 6 In keeping with well-established Christian tradition I prefer the masculine pronoun when referring to the spirit; this is simply the best of available options. Avoidance of personal pronouns makes for awkward repetition of ‘spirit’. Use of the feminine pronoun, though sometimes justified by the feminine  is problematic and ignores the neuter μ and the masculine spiritus. Finally, the use of ‘it’ unnecessarily de-personalizes the spirit without adequately conferring hoped-for gender-neutrality.

1.2 Experience and expectations in Pauline pneumatology

3

thesis, that when Paul speaks of the life-giving work of the spirit he does so in conversation with specifically Jewish texts and traditions. Similar traditions are found outside the Jewish world; indeed the idea that life is found in the breath is nearly ubiquitous in the ancient world. For our purposes, however, because of the specific rootedness of Paul’s thought in the language, imagery and traditions of his Jewish background, we refrain from more than passing reference to non-Jewish traditions.7

1.2 Experience and expectations in Pauline pneumatology Within the specific field of Pauline pneumatology it is necessary to defend the rather basic idea that the concepts and expectations of the era prior to the Christian experience of the indwelling of the spirit are relevant to our study. Since the publication of Hermann Gunkel’s, Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, in 1888,8 emphasis has been placed on the importance of personal and community experience for the development of the conception of the spirit within early Christian communities. In some quarters, however, this emphasis has been taken to an extreme, as evidenced by Gunkel himself when he says, ‘the theology of the great apostle is the expression of his experience, not of his reading. The Old Testament might suggest to him the one or other idea, but it is not the basis for his teaching’.9 F.W. Horn, among others, has argued against this basic assumption of Gunkel’s work.10 A major thesis of his book, Das Angeld des Geistes, is that there are identifiable backgrounds to Pauline thinking about the spirit, discernible in early Christian formulations imbedded within the Pauline letters, in Acts and in the Jewish literature. In his effort to correct Gunkel’s extreme position, however, Horn moves nearly to the opposite pole, arguing that early Christian pneumatology is primarily the result of

7 See Martin (2006) for a comparison of Paul’s pneumatological language with ancient medical texts. This study is illuminating, but does not, in my mind, ultimately further our understanding of Paul. 8 The full title is Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der populären Anschauung der apostolischen Zeit und der Lehre des Apostels Paulus. The book underwent two subsequent editions, the last of which was published in 1909. An English translation was made available in 1979 under the title, The Influence of the Holy Spirit (Philadelphia: Fortress Press), and it is to this translation that reference will be made. 9 Gunkel (1979:100). 10 Gunkel himself anticipates some of Horn’s later criticism in his introduction to the re-publication (2 nd edition) of his book in 1899. There Gunkel notes his neglect of nonscriptural Jewish works, and remarks that he no longer believes Paul’s speculation about the spirit arises solely from his experience of the spirit (1979:4, 8).

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

theoretical conclusions about the spirit based on early interpretation of texts, and not based on experience.11 The basic understanding of the present work can be located somewhere between Gunkel and Horn. In Part II it will be argued that Paul’s understanding of the spirit was heavily influenced by his belief that with the indwelling of the spirit the promises of Ezekiel 36–37 have been fulfilled. This coincides with Horn’s general conviction that specific expectations regarding an eschatological outpouring of the spirit shaped early Christian understandings of the spirit. At the same time, and in keeping with Gunkel’s conviction, it is abundantly clear from the existential nature of the descriptions of the spirit’s work that personal experience played a part as well. There was a textual and theological background voicing the Jewish anticipation of an eschatological indwelling of the spirit to which Paul and others turned in order to explain the indwelling of the spirit they had received; this background, in turn, shaped how they received and experienced the spirit.

1.3 The ‘development’ of Pauline pneumatology It is also important at the outset of a project such as this to address the question of the possible development of Paul’s thinking about the spirit, and to attempt to justify a pan-Pauline exploration of this particular theme. Horn’s work represents the most important recent effort to demonstrate and account for development in Paul’s thinking about the spirit. He sees Paul’s thought developing in three distinct stages.12 These are: 1) early proclamation, seen in the teaching of 1 Thessalonians; 2) teaching that results from a dispute with pneumatic enthusiasm, seen in 1 Corinthians; and 3) teaching that results from disputes with Jewish-Christian nomism, seen in 2 Corinthians, Galatians and Philippians. Romans, according to Horn, represents the most complete expression of Paul’s pneumatology, incorporating Paul’s early thought on the spirit with reflections based on aspects of both later disputes. According to Horn, in 1 Thessalonians Paul associates the spirit with the empowering of God for mission, ethics and prophecy.13 Already, Horn notes, Paul viewed the spirit as an eschatological gift, a permanent indwelling (4:8), and not merely an occasional source of empowering. 11

Horn (1992:13–24). The three stages are described in detail in Horn (1992:119–383). They appear in a condensed version in Horn (1992b:271ff.). For useful overviews see Turner (1996:104ff.) and Rabens (1999). 13 Horn (1992b:272), cf. Horn (1992:119–133). 12

1.3 The ‘development’ of Pauline pneumatology

5

Paul’s view of the spirit here is essentially functional, ‘as the power of proclamation and sanctification’.14 In his engagement with ‘pneumatic enthusiasm’, which followed the first letter to the Thessalonians, Paul encountered a material conception of the spirit, as a sacramentally endowed, divine substance that effected salvation. In some quarters this understanding of the spirit ultimately led to a denial of the need for future resurrection (1 Cor. 15). According to Horn, Paul absorbed the material conception of the spirit, but reaffirmed the need for resurrection, protecting against the ‘pneumatic enthusiasm’ of the Corinthians through this eschatological reservation. At the same time, Paul associated the spirit with Christ for the first time (1 Cor. 15:45), drawing a direct correlation between Christian experience of the spirit and the lordship of Christ over the Christian. In his later dispute with Jewish-Christian nomism Paul developed the contrasts that mark his mature pneumatology, namely the contrasts between the spirit and the law, the flesh and the letter. In this series of contrasts the spirit replaces the law as the effective power of the Christian life. Here Paul develops and emphasises the distinction between the historical ages set apart by the sending of the spirit. In spite of the brilliance with which Horn marshals evidence and constructs a theory, problems abound. At a methodological level these include: 1) his total dependence on a chronology that believes 1 Thessalonians to be ‘removed in time from the later Pauline letters’,15 and assigns Galatians a late date; 2) a heavy dependence on his ability to identify accurately ‘pre-Pauline’ formulas within Acts and the Pauline corpus; 3) his minimizing of the importance of experience in theological reflection;16 and 4) his overall preference for explaining the new expression of ideas as signs of development over against the possibility of contextual application and refinement. More extensive analysis and critique of Horn’s portrayal of Pauline development are available elsewhere.17 For the purposes of the present investigation it will be enough to emphasise a single point.18 Horn’s developmental hypothesis rests on the assumption that the spirit/letter contrast in 2 Corinthians 3 marks a new stage in Paul’s thinking brought about by a dispute with Jewish/Christian nomism. This contrast is then developed in Galatians and thoroughly applied in Romans. If we allow Horn’s late date for Galatians then one can argue that 2 Cor. 3:3–6 reveals 14

Horn (1992b:272). Horn (1992b:271). 16 See Philip (2005:20) for criticism related to this point. 17 See the discussions in Turner (1996:104–109), Wedderburn (2004) and Rabens (1999). 18 What follows relates closely to Turner’s observation (1996:108–09). 15

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

at least a new expression of Paul’s thought. But this is by no means necessarily a new thought. The supposed newness of the thought comes into doubt when one recognizes that Paul appears to root the contrast of 2 Cor. 3 in a specific reading of Ezekiel 36–37. These prophetic oracles have already, as Horn himself argues, informed Paul’s early pneumatology in 1 Thessalonians 4:8.19 Paul’s use of Ezekiel in 2 Cor. 3, therefore, probably shows, as Turner has argued, that ‘the Spirit/Law antithesis spelt out in 2 Corinthians 3 does not mark a radical new stage or phase in his pneumatology; it merely contextualizes the antithesis inherent in Ezekiel 36:26, 27’.20 In the course of this investigation I will argue that Ezekiel 36–37, and the broader tradition in which these oracles can be located, have influenced Paul’s understanding and portrayal of the spirit in 1 Thessalonians 4, 2 Corinthians 3 and Romans 8. The repeated presence of the language of these oracles in multiple letters appears to indicate a strand of continuity in Pauline pneumatological reflection. This raises serious questions about Horn’s thesis. While the epistolary nature of Paul’s writing necessitated varying contextual application of his thought, perhaps requiring a change or inspiring a development, Paul is remarkably consistent in associating the language of ‘life-giving’ with the spirit. Although development is possible, even likely, within Paul’s thinking about the spirit, it will not be a focus of this study. Instead, this study will focus on the consistent use of a certain description, seeking to understand its contextual application in order to ascertain whether or not a fundamental understanding of the work and identity of the spirit undergirds Paul’s expression.

1.4 The origins of modern discussion The emphasis of the present work is reminiscent of a conversation that preoccupied German scholars in the 1870s and 1880s. It was then that Pfleiderer, Wendt, Weiss, Gloël and Gunkel (among others), debated the uniqueness of Paul’s understanding of the spirit.21 Gunkel’s work on the spirit has proved the most enduring of those produced in this period. In it Gunkel argues that the uniqueness of the Pauline conception of the spirit lay in the fact that while the early Christian community viewed the spirit as ‘the supernatural power of God which works miracles in and through

19

See Horn (1992:123ff.). Turner (1996:109). 21 See Pfleiderer (1877), Wendt (1878), Weiss (1879), Gloël (1888) and Gunkel (1888). 20

1.4 The origins of modern discussion

7

the person’,22 Paul ascribed the whole of the Christian life to the supernatural power of the spirit. Gunkel thus concludes that for Paul, insofar as the Christian life is dependent on the spirit, ‘Christian existence is something totally new, something absolutely inexplicable in terms of the world at hand . . . In midst of the old world the Christian is newly created by God’.23 It is in this sense, according to Gunkel, that ‘the entire life of the Christian is an activity of the μ’.24 Gunkel argues that it is this all-encompassing understanding of the spirit’s work that made Pauline pneumatology unique. Arguing against Wendt and Gloël he asserts that no clear trace of this idea could be found in the Old Testament or Judaism.25 Nor, he argues, could the idea be reliably traced to the early Christian community prior to Paul. In proposing this, Gunkel was building on the earlier work of Pfleiderer, who had claimed, ‘[t]he most general effect of the μ appears to be  . As the attribute of living essentially belongs to it, so its effect is essentially    , in the most comprehensive absolute sense of the word’.26 Emil Sokolowski’s 1903 monograph, Die Begriffe Geist und Leben bei Paulus, is the only extended scholarly work known to me that deals directly with Paul’s description of the spirit as life-giving.27 Building on the work of this earlier generation of scholars, Sokolowski’s contribution is not insignificant. He establishes, over against Gunkel and Pfleiderer, Paul’s indebtedness to conceptions of the spirit’s work in the Old Testament and in Judaism.28 He also explores ways in which Paul may have been indebted to Hellenistic thought, focusing on the expectation of immediate life after death and the nature of the relationship between present and future life.29 This is a wide-ranging work that includes both close exegetical readings of the relevant texts and conceptual analysis. It is, however, largely a derivative work that draws on the discussion of an earlier generation while failing to direct future discussion. The presupposition underlying much of the discussion from Pfleiderer to Sokolowski was a belief in the central importance of the description of the spirit as ‘life-giving’. It was essentially taken for granted that this description provides a view into the inner workings of Paul’s thinking about 22

Gunkel (1979:35). Gunkel (1979:95). 24 Gunkel (1979:95). 25 Gunkel (1979:97ff.). 26 Pfleiderer (1877:204). 27 Pfister (1963) treats the subject at length, but in a broader fashion than Sokolowski. Preisker (1933) includes Paul in a wide-ranging survey, but does not focus on his thought. 28 Sokolowski (1903:197–205). 29 Sokolowski (1903:216–222). 23

8

Chapter 1: Introduction

the spirit, and hence his thinking about the identity of the spirit. Moule’s statement, with which we began this chapter, makes it clear that this is no longer the case. Gunkel’s subsidiary argument, however, that the whole life of the Christian is the work of the spirit, still remains dominant within the field. In contemporary scholarship it is commonplace to believe that the association of the spirit with life signifies that all of the Christian life is the work of the spirit, both present and future. This does not mean, however, that contemporary scholars adopt Gunkel’s understanding of a complete ontological transformation effected by the spirit.30 It simply means that the spirit is viewed as empowering, guiding and directing the whole of the Christian life, and not merely as a source of miraculous intervention. One of the difficulties presented by the nature of the present study is the sheer range of scholarly material touching on this topic. Standing in the midst of three important Pauline passages, this description of the spirit receives at least nominal attention in every commentary or article written on these texts. At the same time, however, this description is rarely given the focused attention of independent study in which the various related texts are addressed together.31 Most scholarly work that touches on this depiction of the spirit is limited to reflection on single texts, making it difficult to extrapolate from a scholar’s specific exegesis in order to arrive at his or her perspective on the general association of the spirit with life. This creates an odd situation: there is a great deal of discussion by scholars of the spirit’s association with the giving of life, without there being a clearly defined scholarly discussion. At the same time, to further complicate matters, the language used by various scholars to describe the life-giving work of the spirit is itself vague and often confusing. Joseph Fitzmyer, in his commentary on Romans, gives expression to a commonly held understanding of the idea that the spirit gives life, one that serves as an example of the often indeterminate language used by scholars. He says, ‘If Christ Jesus has brought about the possibility of a new life for human beings, to be lived in him and for God, it is more precisely “Christ’s Spirit” that is the dynamic and vital principle of that life. For Paul the Spirit is an energizer, by whose “power” Christians are enabled to live in joy, peace, and hope’.32 Fitzmyer goes on to describe the spirit succinctly as ‘the dynamic “principle” of the new life’.33 He further believes that the spirit is involved in raising the dead to new life, thus bringing to completion his life-giving work, and making clear that all of the present 30

See Meyer (1979:9). In recent years Gaffin (1998) is the exception. 32 Fitzmyer (1993:125). 33 Fitzmyer (1993:482). 31

1.5 Dunn and Fee on Romans 8

9

and future life of the Christian is spirit derived.34 Unfortunately, Fitzmyer’s repeated use of the term ‘principle’ to describe the spirit in this life-giving role is rather broad. ‘Principle’ can signify 1) origin or source, 2) norm or law, or 3) element or component.35 Use of the terms ‘power’ and ‘energizer’ to describe the life-giving work of the spirit appear to narrow Fitzmyer’s possible meaning. In the end, however, this is a vague description that makes it difficult to know if the spirit is to be understood as power, norm, person, constitutive element, or even substance. Fitzmyer is not alone in providing an imprecise description of what Paul means when he claims that the spirit gives life. Other scholars refer to the presence of the spirit as ‘power’,36 the ‘principle’ of new life,37 or even as the ‘possibility’ of new life.38 The need for this study is two-fold. First, no book-length treatment of the subject has been produced in over 100 years. Secondly, although concentrated attention on the subject is lacking, a great deal of general attention has been paid to this description of the spirit without the least glimmer of an emerging scholarly consensus. In an effort to make the current discussion(s) accessible, and locate the present study more precisely within its scholarly context, the remainder of this chapter will focus on the work of two scholars who have contributed more than any others to the topic at hand: James Dunn and Gordon Fee.

1.5 Dunn and Fee on Romans 8 Both Fee and Dunn have given considerable space to describing the lifegiving work of the spirit, although neither has treated it as an independent object of inquiry at any length.39 Hence, an attempt to describe their understandings of this work of the spirit requires a broad analysis of a number of writings. This approach is saved from possible confusion by the fact that both authors have written extensively on Romans 8, a passage that stands apart from other relevant passages in the Pauline letters as the most significant and complex on this topic. Their writings on this chapter 34

Fitzmyer (1993:491). These are the first three major definitions listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. 36 Moo (1996:492). 37 Bertone (2005:18). 38 Meyer (1979:7) and Byrne (1981:570). 39 See, in particular, the relevant sections of Fee (1994), cf. Fee (1994b), (1997) and (1987:775–795). For Dunn see, principally, (1998:260–265), cf. Dunn (1973b), (1988:413–464), (1989), (1996) and (1996a). Further works will be noted below as relevant. 35

10

Chapter 1: Introduction

open a window onto their view of the life-giving work of the spirit as described by Paul elsewhere. In what follows we will examine and assess the conclusions reached by Dunn and Fee regarding the meaning and significance of Paul’s association of the language of life with the spirit in Romans 8, drawing on other material when relevant. 1.5.1 Fee on the life-giving spirit Gordon Fee has said of Rom. 8:2 that, ‘the phrase “the Spirit of life” . . . is perhaps the single most significant designation of the Spirit in the Pauline corpus’.40 He goes on to explain his basic understanding of what this means when he says that ‘Paul intends “the Spirit of life” to refer to the life that believers now live as the direct result of the Spirit’s indwelling’.41 When Fee describes the life-giving work of the spirit he points to two distinct but inseparable roles. First, he believes that as the life-giving presence of God, the spirit empowers Christians for a life of righteousness here and now. In this sense it is right to say that the life given by the spirit is fully realized in the present life of the Christian. The Christian lives under the rule and power of the spirit, and is freed from the tyranny of sin and death. While this life may include struggle it is not a struggle between flesh and spirit, but the natural result of an eschatological tension: the Christian lives the eschatological life of the spirit in a body broken down by sin and destined for physical death. Controversially, for Fee this is a life lived in stark contrast to that portrayed in Romans 7, which describes life apart from Christ while Romans 8 describes life in Christ. According to Fee, the second role of the spirit contained within this ‘life-giving’ description is that the spirit acts as the guarantee of future resurrection in Christ.42 Fee says of v.11: ‘With this sentence Paul arrives at the point of the paragraph, that the presence of the indwelling Spirit guarantees our future resurrection, wherein the mortal body is “given life”’.43 Fee goes on to explain that ‘the role of the Spirit in all of this is not that of agency, but as the surety for our future resurrection’.44 Fee concludes, ‘This is the second way he is the “Spirit of life,” not only as the one by whom we walk “in newness of life”, but also as the one who as the source of present life thus guarantees the giving of life to the “dead body”’.45 40

Fee (1994:525). Fee (1994:526). 42 This conclusion is based on Fee’s preference for a textual variant in v.11. This will be addressed in Chapter Eight. 43 Fee (1994:552), emphasis added. 44 Fee (1994:552). 45 Fee (1994:552–53). 41

1.5 Dunn and Fee on Romans 8

11

In the first sense, according to Fee, the spirit actually gives ‘life’, in that he acts as the instrument of God’s power in bringing about righteousness and fullness of life in the Christian. In the second the spirit is the guarantee of life to come, the assurance that the Christian will rise from the dead. In this role the spirit is not the agent of resurrection, but the grounds for it, the divine presence that ensures future resurrection by the Father. This is essentially a passive role, and Fee is very careful never to attribute the act of resurrection to the power of the spirit, but rather to God the Father. This emphasis on Trinitarian distinction plays an important part in Fee’s understanding of the life-giving work of the spirit. Although a future component is clearly a part of the spirit’s work insofar as the spirit guarantees future resurrection, for Fee the effective work of the spirit is wholly realized. We see this in the concluding lines to Fee’s article on the spirit’s role in Paul’s conversion. He says, Paul’s concern lies with the freshness of the experienced reality of the Spirit. His language leads him to urge believers to experience again what they experienced at their conversion: the gift of the Spirit . . . All of this, I argue, is best understood as stemming from Paul’s own vital experience of the Spirit as the life-giving Spirit of the living God at his conversion.46

Fee’s portrayal of the spirit’s life-giving work has two components: the giving of life and the guaranteeing of future life. These are both part of the spirit’s unified, fully realized, life-giving work. 1.5.2 Dunn on the life-giving spirit In Fee’s analysis the life-giving work of the spirit is best described as having two present components. In contrast, according to Dunn the lifegiving work of the spirit is best described as taking place in two stages: the first in this present life, and the second at the future resurrection. In the present the spirit enables those who are in Christ to fulfil Torah (Rom. 8:1–4), while in the future the spirit will raise the dead to new life (Rom. 8:9–11). Like Fee, Dunn believes that Rom. 8:2 refers to the present life of the Christian. However, whereas Fee speaks generally of the spirit empowering for a life of righteousness, Dunn has a more specific understanding of what this means. Dunn believes that the subject of v.2 is the Torah, and because he sees 8:1–4 as the climax of Paul’s defence of the law in chapter 7 he views the phrase, ‘Spirit of life’, as a commentary on the new relationship that the spirit creates between those in Christ and Torah.47 Accordingly, Dunn argues that the phrase, ‘law of the Spirit’, in 8:2 is ‘one 46 47

Fee (1997:182). Dunn (1996:72).

12

Chapter 1: Introduction

of the ways in which Paul refers to what we might call the positive side of the divided law’.48 For Dunn, the present giving of life is bound up in the fulfilment of Torah. Because of this relationship the spirit does not of himself bring about life in the Christian, but, using the Torah, the spirit enables the Christian to embrace the lifestyle God always intended for his covenant people. This approach to the text is rooted in Dunn’s understanding of the lifegiving power of Torah, described in Lev. 18:5, which he sees not as the power to give life, but to direct a way of life. Dunn says, ‘God gave Israel his ordinances as a means of living . . . the thought is neither of first attaining life by obedience, nor of a life first attained after death (eternal life), but of a covenant status first given by God and of life therein lived out or preserved or maintained by doing the law’.49 Because Dunn regards 8:1–4 as a continuing defence of Torah he views the spirit in these verses as working through Torah to give life. The life described here is life in the sense of ‘appropriate living’, the life promised by Torah observance. In 8:2 the spirit simply joins with Torah to empower right living. Dunn’s understanding of the life-giving work of the spirit is not, however, limited to the spirit’s role in empowering Torah fulfilment. According to Dunn, in Rom. 8:9–11 the spirit assumes a rather different role from that of vv.1–4. Here the spirit actually creates new life by raising the dead from the grave. In contrast to Fee, Dunn unequivocally states that Paul ‘has no qualms in attributing the future resurrection of the body to the Spirit’,50 explaining that, ‘Paul thought of the Spirit more as the means of salvation than as the reason for it’.51 Resurrection is thereby the full and final life-giving work of the spirit, and thus the second stage in Dunn’s two-fold understanding. According to this reading, the spirit’s work remains incomplete until the resurrection because, ‘the life-giving power of the Spirit will not extend finally to the body until the resurrection of the body’.52 The implications of this reading are, Dunn says, not only that the spirit is the agent of bodily resurrection, but that there is ‘continuity between the present indwelling Spirit and the future resurrection’.53 48

Dunn (1996:73). Dunn (1998:152), italics added. While Dunn recognizes that in later Jewish writings the idea of sharing in the life of the world to come gains prominence, he asserts the fundamental understanding of Lev. 18:5 ‘as speaking of a way of life, and not of a life yet to be achieved or attained, is retained’ (1998:153). 50 Dunn (1998:262), cf. Dunn (1988:433), (1982:16) and (1989:144). Note Dunn’s earlier stance in which he appears to attribute Christ’s resurrection to the spirit as well (1972:11). 51 Dunn (1998:262, fn.149). 52 Dunn (1988:432). 53 Dunn (1988:432). 49

1.5 Dunn and Fee on Romans 8

13

According to Dunn, Christians will experience resurrection as a continuation and completion of the life-giving ministry of the spirit in the present. Dunn understands the life-giving work of the spirit as taking place in two stages. In the first stage, experienced in this life, the spirit gives life by enabling a covenant lifestyle through a transformed relationship to Torah. In the second stage, experienced only in the future, the spirit will act to bring life out of death through the resurrection of bodies. Dunn describes the two stages together, saying, ‘The renewed spiritual life of the Christian is the immediate effect of the life-giving Spirit, now also the indwelling Spirit. Thus has begun a process which will reach its end in the resurrection of the body, the climactic saving act of the life-giving Spirit (8.11)’.54 1.5.3 Critique of Dunn and Fee Dunn and Fee share a two-fold understanding of the life-giving work of the spirit. For Fee there are two components: the spirit empowers for present life and guarantees future resurrection. Both components are fully realized in the present. For Dunn there are two sequential stages: the spirit enables fulfilment of Torah in the present and will raise the dead in the future. These contrasting assessments, rooted in exegesis of Romans 8, are fleshed out in greater detail in their work on other related passages. Their different perspectives raise a number of important issues for discussion of the nature of the spirit’s life-giving work. These can be seen if we consider some of the strengths and weaknesses of their two approaches. One of the surprising weaknesses shared by Dunn and Fee is a relative lack of attention to possible backgrounds to Paul’s portrayal of the spirit as ‘life-giving’. Both reveal a debt to Gunkel in their assumption that Paul’s understanding of the work of the spirit is largely due to personal experience and hence not primarily rooted in the development of historically traceable concepts.55 Dunn and Fee each make brief comments on the Jewish context of Paul’s portrayal of the spirit as ‘life-giving’, demonstrating some regard for the possible importance of an identifiable background. Fee simplistically states that, ‘Yahweh, by his very name, is forever known in Israel as “the living God” . . . therefore, because he is the Spirit of God, the Spirit is also the Spirit of life’.56 For a work devoted to Paul’s understanding of the spirit this is a surprisingly weak explanation of the likely background to ‘the single most significant designation of the

54

Dunn (1998:423–424). Fee (1994:915), Dunn (1998:426–429), cf. Dunn (1975:1–7). 56 Fee (1994:525, cf. p.858). 55

14

Chapter 1: Introduction

Spirit in the Pauline corpus’.57 In similar fashion, Dunn points to the widespread idea that the spirit is God’s agent in giving life, and, while pointing to the need for more emphasis on this strand of thought, does not provide it himself.58 Both authors recognize the presence of scriptural allusions (specifically to Gen. 1:2; 2:7; and Ezekiel 36–37, among others), but a focused investigation into possible backgrounds is left untouched. Dunn’s and Fee’s silence on possible backgrounds to Paul’s depiction of the spirit as ‘life-giving’ is echoed in the wider literature on the subject.59 While many scholars note the presence of Genesis 1–2 and Ezekiel 36–37 in the background to this portrayal of the spirit, few attempt to work out the possible significance of these allusions.60 With the exception of Sokolowski, whose work pre-dated the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and a section on the religionsgeschichtliche background to 1 Cor. 15:45 by Gerhard Sellin, in-depth discussion of backgrounds remains a need.61 An examination of possible backgrounds will form the focus of Part I of this study. Having noted this common neglect of the possible significance of background literature, we turn now to a brief but more focused critique of Dunn and Fee, beginning with Dunn. In his description of the spirit’s life-giving work Dunn makes a strong distinction between present and future activity. In the present, ‘life’ appears to mean Torah fulfilment in the sense of appropriate living or lifestyle. In the future, ‘life’ signifies bodily resurrection and new creation. Dunn uses the same term, ‘life’, to describe both the present and future work of the spirit, although he effectively describes two different things. The distinctness of these two works calls the continuity he claims for them into question. Dunn says, ‘the life-giving power of the Spirit is active on the same continuum of human bodiliness . . . the resurrection can be regarded as in a real sense the climax of the bodily outworking of the Spirit’s life in the here and now’.62 Affirmations of continuity notwithstanding, the logic of Dunn’s thought militates against this claim for continuity. This becomes clear in Dunn’s rather awkward description of the “I” who experiences resurrection:

57

Fee (1994:525). Dunn (1998:429). 59 Turner (1996:101–135) is an exception, carefully maintaining the balance between background and experience in his assessment of Pauline thinking about the spirit. 60 See, inter alia, Campbell (2005:59), Schreiner (1998:400, 408), Byrne (1996:240), Stuhlmacher (1994:118–22), Ziesler (1989:202) and Furnish (1984:185, 201). 61 See Sokolowski (1903) and Sellin (1986:79–90); see also the brief examinations of Müller (1980:132–134a), Pfister (1963:29–31) and Bläser (1959). 62 Dunn (1988:445). 58

1.5 Dunn and Fee on Romans 8

15

For though believers belong to the two ages of Adam and Christ at one and the same time, it is their belongingness to Christ which is the more decisive . . . the “I” in bondage is not so depressing as the “I” released by Christ is reassuring. The power of sin is more than matched by the power of the Spirit. The “I” in bondage to sin ends in death; the “I” liberated by the Spirit lives on.63

Although there is certainly a dualistic thread within Pauline thought it seems rather strange to speak of the resurrection of a divided “I” in which only part of the person is raised! Dunn’s logic is connected to his understanding of the relationship between Romans 7 and 8. In contrast to Fee he believes that the first-person speaker of 7:14–25 speaks out of the same, present life-experience as Paul in chapter 8. Accordingly Dunn asserts of Rom. 8:1ff., that ‘the believer has not been taken out of the body or been wholly removed from the flesh. As body and as flesh believers still belong to this age, and as such are still under their rule . . . The Spirit of life has opened believers to a decisively new dimension or age, but the tie to the old age is not yet completely broken’.64 Hence, Dunn speaks of the ‘frustration and existential agonizing of the believer thus divided between his or her own double identity’, the ‘individual caught between the ages’, ‘the frustration of the present’, and ‘continuing captivity to the law of sin’.65 While the essentials of Dunn’s two-stage understanding seem consistent with Paul’s portrayal in Rom. 8, his claim of continuity between the two stages is called into question by the very different definitions he gives to ‘life’ in the present and in the future. This may, in fact, be an accurate reflection of Paul’s own use of the term ‘life’. Paul may very well mean two (or more) quite different things when he speaks of ‘life’ in the present and in the future. It is also possible, however, that for Paul the giving of life is a more unified and coherent activity than that described by Dunn. The question one must ask of the text is whether or not there is a unity to Paul’s description of the life-giving work of the spirit, and if one is therefore right to speak of continuity between the present and future work of the spirit. These are questions to which we will return in our later chapters on Romans 8. What I will argue is that there is an underlying logic to Paul’s portrayal of the spirit’s life-giving work in Romans 8, one that does not contradict Dunn’s basic two-stage understanding, but challenges his characterisation of the two stages as distinct and independent acts of the spirit. Dunn is surely correct when he affirms that the spirit gives life through future, bodily resurrection, and that the resurrection is the climactic act of

63

Dunn (1988:435). Dunn (1988:431), emphasis added. 65 Dunn (1988:434–435). 64

16

Chapter 1: Introduction

the life-giving work of the spirit.66 It is precisely on this point that Fee differs with Dunn. As we have seen, Fee consistently argues that the spirit is not the agent of resurrection. The strength of this conviction is based on his cogently argued, yet idiosyncratic reading of Rom. 8:11, that the Father raises the dead because of the indwelling spirit rather than through him. Consistent application of this reading throughout Rom. 8 contributes to Fee’s view that the spirit’s life-giving role is something confined to the present experience of Christian life. Here, as elsewhere for Paul, ‘the Spirit was both certain evidence that the future had dawned, and the absolute guarantee of its final consummation’.67 The spirit connects the Christian to the hope of resurrection, but does not give life at the resurrection of the dead. Fee’s insistence on a firm distinction between the work of the spirit and that of the Father is odd in a passage in which Christ, spirit and God are so easily interchanged. With the overlap of divine actors it seems unnecessary to draw such a clear line between divine actions.68 Fee’s emphasis on the spirit-fullness of present life points to fundamental areas of disagreement with Dunn, namely their understanding of the relationship between Romans 7 and 8, and their very different assessments of the nature of the Christian life. Fee views the flesh/spirit contrast as a battle between two epochs or ruling authorities, a battle decisively won in Christ’s resurrection and the sending of the spirit. Given this reading, Fee says that for the Christian the flesh/spirit conflict is in the past tense.69 However, although he sees life in the spirit as fully realized in the present Fee does not believe that those who are ‘in Christ’ fully experience resurrected life in the present. Fee believes in an eschatological resurrection at which point they will live in a totally new way. This, however, is not life in or by the spirit. It is clear that Fee recognizes the giving of life to be a fundamental aspect of the spirit’s identity. He says, ‘Whatever else may be said of the Spirit, primary to Paul’s understanding is that he is the Spirit who brings life and who is the source of the life that one consequently leads’.70 If this description is correct and spirit-life is fully realized in the present, what then is the spirit’s life-giving role at and after the resurrection of the dead? If the spirit has no life-giving role in the future then how may one speak of 66

This will be defended in detail in Chapter Eight. Fee (1994:806). 68 Another scholar who shares Fee’s emphasis on the present aspect of the spirit’s life-giving work is Brendan Byrne. Byrne, however, reaches quite different conclusions about the exact nature of that work. His analysis will receive attention in Chapter Eight. 69 Not surprisingly, this leads Fee to a rather timid account of the present struggle of the Christian life. In particular, see his comments on Rom. 8:13 (1994:559, esp. fn. 254). This is the chief criticism of Dunn (1996a:151) and Head (1997:64–65). 70 Fee (1994:526). 67

1.6 Governing questions of this study

17

the fundamental character of the spirit as ‘life-giving’? Either the life given must not yet be complete, or the giving of life must not be fundamental to the spirit. If Fee is right, that the spirit gives fullness of life now, then the spirit has no future role in giving life. It is all or nothing here and now.71 Whereas for Fee bondage to sin ends and fullness of life begins with the indwelling of the life-giving spirit, for Dunn these things occur only with resurrection from the dead by the agency of the life-giving spirit. Dunn’s portrayal is at best described as ‘inaugurated eschatology’, with emphasis on the future act of the spirit making new life in the resurrection. For Fee the life of the spirit is entirely realized in the present. It would not be a complete caricature to say that for Fee life begins at conversion whereas for Dunn life begins at the resurrection.

1.6 Governing questions of this study The discussion above raises a number of questions related to Paul’s portrayal of the life-giving work of the spirit. These questions fall quite naturally under the umbrella of two basic questions: 1) Is there an identifiable background to Paul’s description of the life giving work of the spirit? 2) What does Paul mean when he describes the spirit as life-giving? Is this a present work, a future work, or both? The first question ultimately deals with the nature and identity of the lifegiving spirit himself. The second has to do with the nature and quality of spirit-given life. As demonstrated by the quick overview of Dunn and Fee, New Testament scholarship has on the whole been far more interested in the latter question, emphasising the ‘life’ given by the spirit, without seeking to understand the spirit as life-giver. It is the conviction of this study, however, that an adequate response to the second question is best given after a thorough examination of the first. To understand the life which is given one must understand the spirit who gives it. Our investigation will proceed in two stages. The principal aim of Part I will be to assess the likely background to Paul’s description of the spirit 71 It would seem, given the logic of Fee’s emphasis on the spirit as God’s personal presence, that the presence of Father and Son in the new creation may signal a return of the spirit to the Father and Son such that spirit-possession remains a reality of only preresurrection existence. This, however, is to extrapolate, and Fee never hints at such a conclusion.

18

Chapter 1: Introduction

as ‘life-giving’. Having done so we will turn our attention to the key Pauline texts in Part II. Here we will look closely at 1 Corinthians 15 and 2 Corinthians 3, concluding with an extended discussion of Romans 8. In doing so we will assess the extent to which Paul draws on those texts examined in Part I for his own portrayal of the spirit, and ask if this consistent way in which he describes the spirit reflects a specific understanding of how the spirit is at work. Finally, drawing on the conclusions reached in both the Pauline material and the Jewish background material, we will ask if our understanding of the nature of the life-giving work of the spirit enables us to characterise more accurately the spirit-given life of the Christian. In doing this we will ultimately return to Dunn’s and Fee’s different approaches to understanding this most elusive work of the spirit.

Part I

The Jewish Background In his book, The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology, Robert Menzies argues that Paul is the first Christian writer to attribute a ‘soteriological’ function to the spirit.1 This, Menzies claims, places him outside the mainstream of both Judaism and pre-Pauline Christianity. Menzies seeks to prove his thesis in two ways. First, he attempts to show that early Christian traditions, utilised by Paul in his letters, do not on their own attribute a soteriological function to the spirit. Secondly, he attempts to show that only select Jewish sources reveal an interest in the soteriological function of the divine spirit. Menzies examines Rom. 1:3–4; 1 Cor. 6:9–11; 15:44–50 and Gal. 5:19– 24 in some detail. His argument is shaped primarily as a response to J.S. Vos, who, in his Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Paulinischen Pneumatologie, argues that Paul shared a belief in the soteriological activity of the spirit with other early Christians and Judaism in general. Vos asserts that Paul’s use of traditional material in his letters incorporated baptismal traditions of the early church that connected the spirit with salvation. While much of Menzies’s criticism of Vos on this point is justifiable, it is not necessary to go into the details of this area of their debate, much of which is a quibbling over the original setting for, and supposed redaction of, pre-Pauline formulas.2 There is more scope, however, for discussing their different readings of the Jewish sources. Vos finds a soteriological strand in the portrayal of the spirit in numerous 1 Menzies defines this as a view of ‘reception of the Spirit as necessary for one to enter into and remain within the community of salvation: the source of cleansing, righteousness, intimate fellowship with and knowledge of God, and ultimately, eternal life through the resurrection’ (1991:18). The problem of terminology is not insignificant. As Avemarie (1996:1) and Gathercole (2002:22) have both pointed out, to speak of Jewish ‘soteriology’ is to import a Christian theological term into a Jewish discussion. This can be justified if the term is well defined and consistently applied. In the case of the present discussion the term ‘soteriological’ appears as a somewhat artificial category when applied to Jewish texts, one that unnecessarily narrows the course of investigation. Part of the goal of the present study is to re-frame the discussion so as to show the appropriateness of speaking in more general terms of the ‘renewal of creation’ rather than Menzies’s narrowly defined ‘soteriology’. 2 See Vos (1973:26–33) and Menzies (1991:296–300).

20

Part I: The Jewish Background

Jewish texts,3 while Menzies challenges Vos’s interpretation of these texts, allowing for a soteriological role for the spirit only in 1QH and the Wisdom of Solomon.4 In his analysis of 1 Cor. 2:6–16, Menzies argues that only Wisdom 9:9–18 could have provided, and in fact did provide, Paul with ‘the conceptual framework for his distinctive pneumatology’.5 Menzies extends this argument by specifying that Paul is dependent on Wisdom rather than on other Jewish texts for his understanding of the spirit’s role in the resurrection of the dead.6 This, he argues, is because 1) neither Paul nor the author of Wisdom associate resurrection/immortality with the divine breath received at creation or with breath given after death (Ezekiel 37; 2 Baruch 23:5), but with the gift of the spirit received during this natural life; and 2) because Paul employs the terminology of Wisdom in a number of places, particularly in 1 Cor. 2.7 There are problems with each of these arguments. First, although he rightly observes the similar descriptions in Wisdom and in Paul of spirit-reception during this life, Menzies overestimates the importance of the timing of spirit-reception in the other texts. There is no reason, per se, to argue that Paul cannot be influenced by Ezekiel 37, simply because the spirit given in this passage is given after death. Secondly, Menzies brushes aside the awkward fact that the book of Wisdom, while clearly discussing immortality, never explicitly speaks of bodily resurrection.8 This would seem to be far more significant a problem than that of the timing of spirit-reception in other texts. In concluding his discussion of the portrayal of the spirit in ‘intertestamental’ Judaism, Menzies summarizes his findings by stating: The literature of intertestamental Judaism consistently identifies experience of the Spirit with prophetic inspiration . . . the literature shows a general reluctance to associate the Spirit with miraculous deeds. The man or woman endowed with the Spirit may perform miracles, but these works of wonder are usually not attributed to the Spirit . . . Thus I conclude that the Jews of the pre-Christian era generally regarded the gift of the Spirit as a donum superadditum granted to various individuals so that they might fulfill a divinely appointed task. The gift of the Spirit was not viewed as a soteriological necessity: one need not possess the gift in order to live in right relationship to God and attain eternal

3

Ezekiel 36:26ff; Ps. 51:13; Isa 44:3; 1QH; 1QS ii–iv; Wisdom; Philo, to a certain extent; and Joseph and Aseneth. See Vos (1973:34–73) for a thorough discussion. 4 Menzies (1991:300–302). 5 Menzies (1991:303). 6 Menzies (1991:311–13). 7 Though parallels are widely supported in the scholarly literature, Paul’s supposed dependence on Wisdom can be overstated. See Fee’s brief but insightful critique (1994:912–13). 8 However, see Wright (2003:162–175) for a recent defence of the presence of resurrection belief in Wisdom.

Part I: The Jewish Background

21

life through the resurrection. Indeed, the gift of the Spirit was generally not associated with resurrection of the dead. 9

We must concede that the dominant strand of thinking about the spirit in the Second Temple period was indeed as the ‘Spirit of prophecy’, and that there was substantially less interest in associating the spirit with works of power, or specifically ‘salvation’. However, as Turner says, ‘that is not to say such an interest was entirely absent’.10 He shows that Menzies somewhat disingenuously sets aside 2 Baruch and 4 Ezra from the discussion, selectively uses later Rabbinic material and minimalises the importance of the LXX and Targums in his assessment of Jewish material.11 A more fundamental problem with Menzies’s analysis, however, is his use of the category ‘soteriological’ to describe the work of the spirit. This has the effect of artificially limiting the number of relevant Jewish texts available for discussion, evident in Menzies’s designation of only two texts (the Hodayot and Wisdom of Solomon) as containing soteriological depictions of the spirit. The description of the work of the spirit in these and other texts may arguably be called ‘soteriological’, but this is to anachronistically apply a Christian term to Jewish texts, contributing to a failure to understand those texts in their original contexts. As I will argue in the following chapters, those original contexts point to the possibility that what Menzies and others characterise as ‘soteriological pneumatology’ may perhaps be better understood as creation pneumatology. Menzies downplays and, in some situations, ignores a fluid yet identifiable tradition within the literature of the Second Temple and early Rabbinic periods that connects the spirit to the work of creation and a longed-for renewal of creation. This is particularly evident in his analysis of the Hodayot and the Wisdom of Solomon, texts he labels as containing ‘soteriological’ depictions of the spirit that are better understood within the context of developing traditions linking the spirit to the work of creation. Although there are several problems with Menzies’s conclusions regarding the uniqueness of Pauline pneumatology, his failure to set it more broadly within a Jewish understanding of the spirit is the most significant. This is owing partly to his biased reading of the sources and partly to the inappropriate designation of ‘soteriological’ descriptions of the spirit. The purpose of Chapter Two will be to attempt to provide a counterbalance to Menzies and an alternative for describing the activity of the spirit in Jewish literature, that is, as the spirit of creation. As such this chapter will only provide a partial reading of the background literature, focusing on certain aspects of the developing understanding of the spirit within Juda9

Menzies (1991:112). See Cho (2006) for a recent defence of this assessment. Turner (2000:105). 11 See the whole of chapter 4 in Turner (2000). 10

22

Part I: The Jewish Background

ism. This investigation begins with Genesis 2:7, where the divinely given ‘breath of life’ animates the first human being. As we will see, this verse serves as the source from which emanate most of the traditions linking the spirit to creation.12 In the context of Pauline studies the tradition linking the spirit to creation warrants thorough investigation due to the fact that Paul appears consciously to shape his presentation of the spirit in 1 Corinthians 15 in the light of Gen. 2:7. In section one of Chapter Two we will examine the appropriation of the language and imagery of Gen. 2:7 within the Hebrew Scriptures. This will include a limited study of important terms and a brief, but wide-ranging, look at the various texts that appear to echo or explicitly refer to Gen. 2:7. In section two we will examine the translation and interpretation of this and related texts in the LXX. In section three we examine the appropriation and application of this tradition within the Dead Sea Scrolls. Section four then focuses on the interpretation of this text and its co-texts more widely within the literature of the Second Temple period. Finally, in section five, we will investigate the interpretation of these texts and the development of the tradition in the Targums and Rabbis. The organization of ancient texts into categories both useful and accurately identifiable is problematic. One may choose to organize according to time, language, genre or geography, but immediately one is faced with such methodological pitfalls as the identification of a text’s original language, the problem of ill-defined boundaries between genres, and the nearimpossibility of accurately dating texts or determining provenance. The pattern of investigation outlined above follows a roughly chronological pattern of development.13 This seems the least problematic approach when one is interested in the historical development of a tradition. Within this chronological approach texts are grouped according to generally accepted 12 Identifying Genesis 2:7 as the starting point is somewhat artificial as this verse reflects beliefs and traditions present much more broadly within the Ancient Near East. However, for the sake of this study, which is specifically concerned with the origin and development of this tradition among the Jewish people, it seems appropriate to speak of this verse as the ‘origin’. Within the Hebrew Scriptures an argument could be made that Gen. 1:2 plays an equally important role in the broad development of this tradition. It does not, however, appear to have had the same influence as Gen. 2:7 and so will not be giv en the same priority treatment. 13 The adverb ‘roughly’ should be emphasised. I place the start of the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek in the 3 rd century BCE, continuing until the 1 st century CE (see Fernández Marcos [2000:35–51]). Most of the texts discovered at Qumran can be confidently dated between the latter half of the 2 nd century BCE and the middle of the 1 st century CE, although they may reflect much older texts and traditions. The beginning of the Targum tradition likely dates to the last centuries before the Common Era. Dating these traditions, however, is extremely difficult; as such the Targums are treated with caution and discussed with the Rabbinic literature (see Chilton [1995]).

Part I: The Jewish Background

23

categories. For example, although many texts of the LXX may be later than some of the Dead Sea Scrolls they are addressed in their respective categories for ease of reference. Although there is potential fruit to be harvested from a careful analysis of the geographic distribution of the traditions under examination this has not been attempted owing to the difficulty of locating some of the texts involved and the space required to deal with these issues thoroughly. Having surveyed the tradition that links the spirit and creation within Jewish literature up to the beginning of the Rabbinic era, we will turn our attention to a close reading of the Qumran Hodayot in Chapter Three. This collection of hymns warrants careful consideration because it makes extensive use of the traditions emanating from Gen. 2:7. In this chapter we will demonstrate how traditions connecting the spirit to creation are developed and applied within a sectarian strand of Judaism flourishing not long before the time in which Paul wrote. These two chapters do not in any way seek to provide an overview of the Jewish understanding of the spirit, either as the spirit is described within the Hebrew Scriptures or more broadly within Judaism through the Second Temple period. Rather, we will focus solely on the fluid tradition that connects the spirit to creation. The discussion of these two chapters will point to the possibility that Paul’s so-called ‘soteriological pneumatology’ is perhaps better understood within a wider framework of creation pneumatology.14 In other words, a part of Paul’s fundamental thinking about the spirit takes place in terms of God’s activity in creation and the longed-for new creation, a way of thinking about the spirit that was already developing in a cross-section of Jewish literature.

14

I use the term ‘creation’ in this phrase in a broad sense to refer to the activity of God in creating humankind and the cosmos. What I do not mean is the idea of the permanent spiritual presence of God within the created realm (which is arguably a Jewish tradition but more often than not bears the marks of presumptive panentheism on the part of those who assert it). I am interested in the act of creating rather than the universal presence of the divine in created things.

Chapter 2

The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature 2.1 Hebrew Scripture1 In this brief survey of Hebrew Scripture I am not interested so much in the textual development of the Scriptures as in their final form. Thus, tradition-historical questions about the development of specific texts may be addressed but will not form the focus of enquiry. Similarly, many of the questions that drive discussion of inner-biblical exegesis will not directly apply.2 In this section I am more interested in the creation and varied repetition of a tradition that undergoes significant development in later translations of these texts and in subsequent Jewish works. To use the terms that Michael Fishbane has made popular, in this section we will focus on the relatively fixed biblical traditum, while in the later sections of this chapter we will examine the post-biblical traditio that develops it.3 The question of which texts to include and which to leave aside is difficult. For soon-to-be obvious reasons Genesis 2:7 serves as the key to whether or not a text is included in our discussion. We will include discussion of a text if it directly cites Gen. 2:7, makes use of the key vocabulary of Gen. 2:7, or uses the visual imagery of Gen. 2:7 in a passage that clearly refers to creation, either past or future. These methodological controls are purposefully loose, allowing a variety of texts to be included in the discussion.

1

In using this term I am referring to the Hebrew language version of what is commonly called the ‘Hebrew Bible’ or ‘Old Testament’. Both of these terms are potentially problematic, and I have preferred the phrase ‘Hebrew Scripture’ as a means of denoting what most Jews of the 1 st century CE (though not all) would have regarded as authoritative writings (following Kugel [1998:29–30]). The most reliable witness we have of this ‘text’, though it appears in final form many centuries later, is that of the Masoretes (MT). Unless otherwise noted, when citing a Hebrew text it is to the MT that I refer. 2 The standard work in the field is Fishbane (1985). See also the extensive bibliography and essays in Sæbø (1996). 3 See the introduction to Fishbane (1985), cf. Fishbane (1996).

2.1 Hebrew Scripture

25

2.1.1 The ‘breath of life’ tradition: vocabulary and appropriation. In the ancient world it was widely assumed that the vitality of all life on earth is dependent on an infusion of divine breath. This belief was present not only in the Ancient Near East, but also in certain strands of thought in the Greco-Roman world.4 In the biblical tradition this same belief is first expressed, canonically, in Genesis 2:7 where we are told that ‘the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (  ); and man became a living being ( ).’5 In these verses it is the divinely   given that brings life to the freshly constructed body of the first man. For the reader of the final-form of this text, the basic idea that human vitality is owing to the inbreathing of God appears for a second time in Gen. 6:3: ‘Then the Lord said, “My spirit () shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years’. As a result of human disobedience God promises that he will remove his spirit from all that possess it, limiting the lifespan of human beings, and emphasising the fact that God controls the duration of the presence of his life-giving breath. Use of the possessive in 6:3 affirms this divine control and underscores humankind’s dependent status.6 There is, however, a shift in vocabulary between Gen 2:7 and Gen. 6:3, from  7 to 8. This is important and points to what is regularly demonstrated elsewhere, that in the Hebrew text ‘breath’ and ‘spirit’ are interchangeable in this context.9 4 For a useful introductory discussion of Phoenician, Egyptian, Babylonian, Assyrian and Canaanite parallels see Imschoot (1935:492–496). See also the brief discussion and bibliography in Westermann (1984:206f.), in Fabry and Tengström, , in TDOT 13:367–371, and in Christoph (2005:95–96). For relevant Greek parallels see Aeschylus Persae 507; Polybius 31.10.4; cf. Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesiaca 1.9.6. 5 All English translation of the Bible comes from the RSV unless otherwise noted. 6 Cf. Num. 16:22; 27:16; Job 34:14–15; Is. 57:16. 7 See Lamberty-Zielinski,  , in TDOT 10:65–70; and HALOT 2:730. See also Mitchell (1961). 8 See Fabry and Tengström, , in TDOT 13:365–402; Albertz and Westermann, , in TLOT 3:1202–1220; and HALOT 3:1197–1201. 9 To speak of a ‘shift’ in vocabulary between Gen. 2:7 and Gen. 6:3 begs a number of questions regarding the tradition-history of Genesis, and the extent to which Gen. 6:3 actually ‘refers’ to Gen. 2:7, or perhaps, instead, reflects a broad tradition connecting the spirit/breath to life. I am not interested in joining the discussion about the various supposed sources or redactional stages of Genesis. Nor do I want to argue that every reference to the ‘breath of life’ is a conscious reference to Gen. 2:7. Rather, my interest is in showing the widespread presence of a ‘breath of life’ tradition within the Hebrew Scriptures, one that is often linked to a well-known account of the creation story most clearly captured in Gen. 2:7. Thus, Gen. 2:7 is the foundational text behind this tradition, one that may reflect a more broadly accepted oral tradition. While perhaps technically debatable there is conceptual justification for speaking of a ‘shift’ in vocabulary.

26

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

This loose synonymy is further evident in Gen. 6:17 and 7:15. These verses form part of the flood narrative in which God promises to destroy every creature possessing the ‘breath of life’ (6:17), and orders Noah to collect pairs of every creature possessing the ‘breath of life’ (7:15) in order to re-populate the earth after its destruction. In these verses the vivifying breath is described as the   in what appears to be a combination of the language of Gen. 2:7 (  ) and Gen. 6:3 (). In Gen. 7:22, as if to emphasise the synonymy between  and  the vivifying breath is described by the unusual phrase    . Based in part on the fact that the LXX of Gen. 7:22 does not contain a comparable compound, simply reading 

 , many scholars claim that  is a late gloss, reflecting the development of the language and harmonizing the text with 7:15.10 Claus Westermann argues that over time the term  undergoes a shift in meaning from a strictly ‘dynamic’ sense, in which ‘spirit’ is understood not as ‘a constant phenomenon but as a force expressed in respiration’, to a meaning which signifies the constancy of life as characterised by the presence of breath.11 According to Westermann it is partly the development of the use of the term  in prophetic texts that leads to the broadening of the meaning of the term to include a more constant sense of ‘life’. This is reflected in works of roughly the same period or later, such as Job, other wisdom texts and the ‘P’ source. Because of this belief about the broadening range of meaning for  Westermann believes the compounding of the two terms in Gen. 7:22 reflects a late addition of . Westermann’s thesis is challenged by the fact that this same word pair occurs in 2 Samuel 22:16 (cf. Ps. 18:16), which probably represents a preexilic text tradition. This makes it difficult to argue that the compound found in 7:22 could not have been early.12 Even if  has been interpolated in 7:22 it was retained in the final form of the text and viewed as completely sensible by Jews of a later period. For Jews of the Second Temple period these terms are found in fairly stable text traditions, and exist in a state of near synonymy, reflecting the well-known idea that life is in the breath that God bestows at creation.

10

See Westermann (1984:439). Genesis 6:17; 7:15 and 7:22 are the only occurrences of the phrase   in the MT. The two terms appear side-by-side in Job 7:7 but not in construct state. This verse appears simply to reaffirm that life is in the breath. 11 Westermann, , TLOT 3:1207–1209. Mitchell (1961) argues that  is a technical term signifying only the breath of God in humankind and not that which animates the rest of animal creation. Although Mitchell’s argument has its merits it remains a minority interpretation. 12 See Johnson (1949:31).

2.1 Hebrew Scripture

27

These interchangeable terms are also closely related to , the noun meaning ‘life’, ‘living person’ or ‘creature’.13 In Gen. 2:7, infusion with ‘breath of life’ brings Adam to life as a  . This noun is extremely common in the MT (occurring over 750 times), and can refer quite generally to the idea that life is in the breath. This is particularly evident in Job 12:10 and Is. 26:9 where is found parallel to . This potentially confusing overlapping of terms did not escape the attention of the Rabbis. In Gen. Rab. 14:10 on Gen. 2:7 we are told that ‘R. Samuel, the son-in-law of R. Hanina, the colleague of the Rabbis, said: Here the neshamah is identified with nefesh, whereas in another text the neshamah is equated with rua. How do we know that the statement of the one text is applicable to that of the other and vice versa? Because “life” is written in both texts, proving that they are analogous.’14 While is indeed related to  and to  it is not interchangeable with them to the same degree that they are with one another.15 All of them do, however, refer to essential properties of living beings and in so doing relate closely to one another, as the Rabbis observed. We see in the early chapters of Genesis repetition of the basic anthropological concept that life is found in the breath and that this ‘breath of life’ is a divine infusion. Within these texts there is fluid use of vocabulary and, at the same time, a rooting of the tradition in the creation account of Gen. 2. Both the fluid use of vocabulary and indebtedness to the creation account are in evidence as this tradition appears in other biblical texts. Further evidence of the synonymy between  and  , in contexts where the reference is to the ‘breath of life’, is found particularly in Job, where the two terms stand in parallel at 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; and 34:14 (cf. Is. 57:16). Clearly, the idea that human life is found in the infusion of divine breath is central to the anthropology of the author of Job. Elsewhere, the relationship between this tradition and the creation account of Gen. 2 is emphasised in Ecclesiastes 12:7; Is. 42:5 and Zech. 12:1.16 These texts each contain brief descriptions of creation that echo the description of human creation found in Gen. 2:7. Isaiah 42:5 reads, ‘Thus says God, the Lord, who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread forth the earth and what comes from it, who gives breath ( ) to the people upon it and spirit () to those who walk in it’. The brevity of this description of the creation, with its double-reference to the imparting of di13

See Westermann, , TLOT 2:743–759; and HALOT 2:711–713. The translation is Freedman’s. See also Gen. Rab. 32.11 on Gen. 7:22. 15 See Fabry and Tengström, , in TDOT 13:375. 16 The verbal shift from ‘blowing’ to ‘forming’ of the breath of life that takes place in Zech. 12:1 appears to reflect a collapsing of Gen. 2:7b and 2:7a in which the first man is ‘formed’ of the dust of the earth. 14

28

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

vine breath, reveals the importance of the ‘breath of life’ tradition for the author of this text.17 Taken together these various texts reveal three basic and essentially undisputed facts. First, Jewish anthropology links life to the breath/spirit given by God at creation. Secondly, the textual roots of this belief can be traced quite clearly to the description of human creation found in Gen. 2:7 and the application of this description in the early chapters of Genesis. Thirdly, the terms  and  are essentially interchangeable when the subject is the basis of human vitality or the idea that the breath of God vivifies humankind.18 There are many more texts indebted to this tradition. There is not, however, warrant for belabouring a fairly well established reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. 2.1.2 The creative spirit: a divergent tradition? Within the Hebrew Scriptures there is a handful of references to the divine spirit that describe the work of the spirit in creation or in the renewal of creation. It is unclear how these passages relate to Gen. 2:7, if at all, because they do not obviously refer to the spirit as the ‘breath of life’. In connecting the spirit to creation, however, they deserve further examination in order to see if there is any relevance to the tradition we are tracing. The majority of these texts can be found in Isaiah where special attention is given to the creative power of God.19 Isaiah 32:1–8 sets forth the promise of renewal under a righteous king. This is followed (vv.9–14) by a bleak picture of an alternative reality marked by mourning, a failing harvest, a depopulated city and spreading wilderness. This imminent desolation can only be overcome by the promised outpouring of the spirit. Verses 15–20 describe this outpouring by which the spirit will bring about new fruit in a barren land, trailing with it justice and righteousness: ‘. . . until the spirit is poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness becomes a fruitful field, and the fruitful field is deemed a forest. Then justice will dwell in the wilderness, and righteous17 In an interesting appearance of this tradition in 1 and 2 Kings the return of life to the dead is illustrated by the return of breath. In 1 Kings 17:17–24 we are told the story of Elijah raising the widow’s son. The imagery for death is that of the breath ( ) leaving the boy (v. 17), with the boy later being revived by Elijah through a return of his (v. 22). Perhaps more explicitly, the Shunammite’s son of 2 Kings 4:18–37 is described as sneezing seven times (v. 35), thus physically and symbolically demonstrating that life has returned in the breath. 18 See Fabry and Tengström, , in TDOT 13:377–78; cf. Albertz and Westermann, , in TLOT 12:1208; and Imschoot (1935:482ff.). 19 On the role of creation in Is. 40–55, see Stuhlmueller (1970) and Vermeylen (1987). For specific connections to the spirit in these passages see Ma (1999:96–101).

2.1 Hebrew Scripture

29

ness abide in the fruitful field’. The spirit’s coming ‘from on high’ () denotes that it originates in God’s heavenly dwelling and is probably the divine spirit itself, poured out to renew his people.20 The description of the outpouring in terms of a renewed creation provides a slight but tangible link to the life-giving work of the spirit at the original creation. Here, however, the divine spirit brings about the creation of new life by being ‘poured out’ and is not described as a vivifying breath.21 In Isaiah 34:16, in an oracle of judgment, it is the spirit who carries out what the Lord has commanded, filling the land of Edom with animals specially selected and provided, ‘For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them’.22 Connections to the story of creation are fleeting, though one may argue that populating the land with animals through the command of the Lord echoes the original creation. With similarities to chapter 32, the spirit is personal and active, affecting what the Lord has proclaimed. Wonsuk Ma goes so far as to describe the activity of the spirit here as ‘a work of re-creation’.23 In Isaiah 44:1–5 the imagery is similar to that of 32:1–8. Just as a dry and barren land is to receive an outpouring of water, so God’s people will receive an outpouring of the divine spirit, resulting in fruitfulness and faithfulness to God. Verses 2–3 say, ‘Thus says the Lord who made you ( ), who formed () you from the womb and will help you: Fear not, O Jacob my servant, Jeshurun whom I have chosen. For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my spirit upon your descendants, and my blessing on your offspring’. Here the imagery is once again that of creation, with the implication that the spirit of God (), poured out on his people, brings about what can only be described in terms of a renewal of creation.24 There is no trace of a ‘breath of life’

20 Isaiah 33:5; 57:15; Jer. 25:30; 1 Kings 8:30ff.; cf. 2 Chr. 6:21ff; cf. also Tg. Is. which explains that this is the divine spirit. 21 See Philip’s discussion of this passage (2005:51ff.). Relevant to our discussion is the fact that in the description of the conception of Christ by the holy spirit in Luke 1:35, there are echoes of Is. 32:15, drawing out what may be implicit in the text, that the spirit is the creative power of God (see Turner [2000:159]). 22 For a similar reading of the text see Oswalt (1986:618). The possible parallelism between ‘mouth’ and ‘spirit’ in the MT is diminished with the presence of an articular μ in the LXX (though missing in Sinaiticus) so that the spirit alone acts as the divine agent:         μ     . 23 Ma (1999:98). 24 That this promise is for more than simple fertility is seen in the diagnosis of the problem to which this is the promised solution. As Oswalt (1998:167) points out, the preceding section (Is. 43:22–28) reveals that it is Israel’s sinfulness that has led to her destruction. For the solution to rest solely in propagation of the Jewish people (ie. through physical fruitfulness) rather than in ethical renewal would thus seem ludicrous.

30

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

tradition here, although there is a clear connection between the spirit and renewal of creation.25 In Isaiah 48:16, reference to the spirit of the Lord is again made in a context where his redemptive power is demonstrated in the original work of creation. In this passage there is some ambiguity as to who is speaking. Verses 12–13 contain the words of God, calling attention to his creative work. Verses 14–15, contain the words of the prophet. In v.16, however, the speaker in the first three cola of the verse cannot be any other than God, while the final bi-colon clearly cannot be God. Various options have been proposed, of which the most likely are that this is the prophet himself speaking or that these are the words of a messianic figure.26 Space does not allow a thorough analysis; nonetheless we may observe the fact that this is the spirit of the Lord (),27 and that the wider context contains a reflection on the original creation and the promise of a new creation. Reference to the spirit of the Lord and creation may echo earlier passages in Isaiah, reminding the reader that the spirit is God’s creative agent who brings about the fulfillment of his promises. Two texts from the Psalms are appropriately addressed at this point. The first of these, Ps. 33:6, reads, ‘By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their hosts by the breath/spirit of his mouth’. The parallelism between word and spirit, alongside the obvious physical connection between breath and speech raises doubt as to whether anything more is meant by the term ‘spirit’ than merely as a synonymous parallel to the divine ‘word’. Although this verse is often cited as evidence of the creative agency of the spirit it must be treated with caution. Moreover, this verse raises an important question about all texts in which the spirit appears to act on behalf of God: is the spirit in these instances merely a means of denoting the powerful efficacy of God’s word or is there actually a development of tradition regarding the divine spirit? We will keep this question in mind as we continue to examine related texts. Psalm 104 is a hymn of praise to God the creator in which the divine ordering of the earth is described in detail. Verse 30 marks the end of the main body of the psalm, followed by vv.31–35, which provide a concluding response of praise. Verses 29–30 point to God’s control over life and death and exhibit hope in what appears to be his final eschatological re25 Cf. Is. 40:13 where the spirit of the Lord is present at creation, though the spirit’s role is unclear. 26 For the various options see Oswalt (1998:278). The Targum interprets the speaker as the prophet himself. See Beale (2005:10–11) for the view that this is a messianic figure speaking of the future new creation work to be carried out via the messiah and the spirit. 27 The phrase also occurs at Isaiah 30:28.

2.1 Hebrew Scripture

31

newal of creation. Some scholars see in vv.29–30 a commentary on the continuous, creative work of God in the cycle of death and life, and not a reference to eschatology.28 While God’s ongoing work in creation is clearly a theme of the psalm, focus solely on this aspect neglects the eschatological overtones present in both the language and placement of vv.29–30. As Alfons Deissler has said, the movement of the psalm as a whole is ‘toward the eschaton’ which is encapsulated in these verses.29 Echoing Gen. 2:7 and 6:3, v.29 describes God’s displeasure and the resulting death of humankind (perhaps implying all living creatures) when he will remove their spirit and return them to dust. At v.30 we then read, ‘When you send forth your Spirit (), they are created, and you renew the face of the ground’. Regardless of the temporal nuance of this verse one thing at least is clear: the spirit is an active participant in the (new) creative act and not merely an animating breath. This is underscored by the use of the verb , which is only ever used of divine activity, and in the shift from speaking about ‘their spirit’ in v.29 to ‘your Spirit’ in v.30. These various texts from Isaiah and the Psalms possess a common trait. They all (except Ps. 33) link the divine spirit to the work of renewing the creation. The Isaiah texts, in particular, connect the renewal of the created world directly to the moral renewal of Israel. In these texts the spirit is described in terms that echo the original creation, but which do not make specific use of the ‘breath of life’ tradition emanating from Gen. 2:7. It may be that these texts do not, then, have any direct relationship to Gen. 2:7 or the traditions that arise out of it. However, they may reveal a significant inner-biblical development regarding thinking about the divine spirit insofar as they connect the spirit to creation in such a way that appears to move away from the ‘breath of life’ tradition to a view of the divine spirit that is more active and often eschatological. 2.1.3 Spirit and new creation in Ezekiel 36–37. One text that may connect this apparently divergent tradition, justifying its inclusion, is the prophetic oracle of Ezekiel 37:1–14. Before paying close attention to this passage, however, a brief introduction to the spirit in Ezekiel is necessary. This is because Ezekiel has, with good reason, been described as ‘the prophet of the spirit’.30 With 52 appearances, the term  occurs more often in his prophecy than in any other.31 As Daniel Block notes in his study of ‘spirit’ in Ezekiel, it is particularly notable that while 28

See Miller (2000:94). Deissler (1981:33). 30 Block (1989:28). 31  is found 52 times in Ezekiel, 51 times in Isaiah, and 18 times in Jeremiah. 29

32

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

Ezekiel is stylistically and thematically dependent on both Leviticus and Jeremiah the spirit is never mentioned in Leviticus, and occurs far less regularly in Jeremiah’s prophecy. Block concludes that ‘with his emphasis on the spirit Ezekiel is obviously going his own way’.32 Within the book of Ezekiel the term  is used in a variety of ways, in keeping with its broad semantic range. One of the more interesting and unusual is the way in which  acts as a divine agent, appearing to pick up the prophet and move him to a number of different locations (3:12, 14, 24; 8:3; 11:1, 24 and 43:5). It would be natural to associate this activity with the common use of  to signify ‘wind’, assuming that a wind sent from God has been the source of Ezekiel’s movement. However, Block argues that this assumption does not pay enough attention to the subtleties of Ezekiel’s situation and the context of the passages in which this movement takes place, in particular the temple vision in chapters 8–11. Block argues that the spirit that picks up Ezekiel and moves him around is the spirit of Yahweh, and not simply a wind operating within the divine will.33 This interpretation is given support at 37:1 where it is specifically the spirit of Yahweh who brings Ezekiel out into the valley of dry bones. The prophetic oracle found in Ezekiel 37:1–14 has strong links to the creation account of Genesis 2. This is seen most clearly in the prominence of the ‘breath of life’ tradition. Ezekiel 37:9–10 reads, Then he said to me, “Prophesy to the breath, prophesy, son of man, and say to the breath, ‘Thus says the Lord God: Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live.’” So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived.

The verb,  (‘to blow’), is the same as that found in Gen. 2:7, where infusion with divine breath similarly brings life to a corporeal but not yet living man. Just prior to this scene in 37:9 we have a description of the dry bones being covered progressively by sinews, flesh and skin in 37:6, 8. This echoes what appears to be a common description of the formation of man at creation. The same description is found in Job 10:8–12 where, though the order in which the body is covered is reversed, the language and context are also those of Gen. 2:7.34 This two-fold description of physical re-formation, followed by infusion of spirit-of-life in Ezekiel 32

Block (1989:28). Block’s study is an excellent introduction to the spirit in Ezekiel, providing much of the material for this brief introduction. See also James Robson’s (2006) thorough treatment. 33 Block (1989:33–34). 34 See 1 Enoch 90:4–5 for a later and rather grisly reversal of this imagery, as birds of prey remove the flesh and sinews of their quarry. See also the disagreement between the schools of Hillel and Shammai in Gen. Rab. 14.5 (and Lev. Rab. 14.9) on the proper ordering of bones, sinews and flesh.

2.1 Hebrew Scripture

33

37:8–10, neatly matches the two-fold formation from dust and divine breath in Gen. 2:7. There are numerous additional links to the creation stories of Gen. 1–2 in the text surrounding this oracle. These begin in chapter 36 and provide an important context for understanding the nature of the promises described in chapter 37.35 In 36:26–27 the Lord promises to send his spirit to dwell within his people.36 This spirit will bring about moral renewal followed by national restoration. Immediately following this promise of a new spirit attention shifts from the nation to the land itself. The description of the newly fruitful land that follows is rife with the language of creation. At 36:34–35 the Lord promises through the prophet that the land will be cultivated, coming to resemble the Garden of Eden in its fruitfulness. The verb  (to till or cultivate), set alongside specific mention of the Garden of Eden ( ), echoes Gen. 2:15 which says, ‘The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden ( ), to till it () and keep it’. John Kutsko points out that the ‘ideological map’ of Eden in Gen. 2:10–14 places Eden at the headwaters of both the river Gihon (Jerusalem) and the rivers Tigris and Euphrates (Mesopotamia). He then draws our attention to the fact that these are the past and present residences of Ezekiel’s exilic audience.37 Earlier in chapter 36, in another scene describing the renewal of the land, there is an emendation in the Hebrew text at v.11 that reads, ‘they shall multiply and be fruitful’. This reveals the desire of at least one Jewish scribe to root the broader text in creation traditions such as Gen. 1:22, 28, etc.38 Kutsko summarizes the significance of the allusions to the Genesis creation narratives in Ezekiel 36 by saying, ‘Since mankind was formerly created and placed in Eden, Ezekiel employs language whose concepts and mythic location recollect this origin and reflect these traditions. This imagery, particularly as it is used in chap. 36, prepares the landscape, as it were, for the next scene’.39

35

There is some question as to the unity of chapter 36, due to the notable absence of 36:23b–38 in Papyrus 967. While Lust (1981) maintains that this reflects an original Hebrew Vorlage, and that the so-called additions to chapter 36 are not original, this theory remains a minority opinion. Siding with Kutsko (2000:125, fn.106) and Block (1998:338ff.), chapter 36 will be treated as a whole (see also Zimmerli [1983:245] and Greenberg [1997:738ff.] who points to an unpublished Masada Hebrew text containing remains of vv.24–34 identical to the MT). 36 See Robson’s (2006:241–249) extended discussion. 37 Kutsko (2000:130). 38 Kutsko (2000:130). That this is an emendation is clear from the Greek textual tradition (see Ziegler’s critical apparatus). 39 Kutsko (2000:132).

34

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

That scene can be understood as a re-presentation of the creation story of Gen. 1–2, echoing in particular the language of Gen. 2:7. As we have already noted, in 37:9 Ezekiel is instructed to prophesy to the spirit, exhorting the spirit to breathe into the dead bodies that they might live. That the spirit is summoned from the four winds (or four corners of the earth) could reflect a creation tradition that is also found in the Targums. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen. 2:7 refers to the four winds, and their presence at the creation of Adam. By mentioning the four winds, representing the four corners of the earth, the spirit involved in the vivification of these dead bodies is given a specifically cosmic scope, one that may additionally carry echoes of the creation account from Gen. 1 in which the spirit hovered over the world awaiting a role in creation.40 As Andrew Chester has said of this passage, ‘what is involved, on one level at least, is an allusion to the cosmic scope of the rua of Gen. 1.2 along with its creative force’.41 Siegfried Wagner similarly summarizes the role of the spirit here when he says, ‘rua funktioniert als Schöpfungsprinzip’.42 More attention will be given to the prophetic oracles of Ezekiel 36–37 when we discuss developments of the Gen. 2:7 tradition within the LXX. For the time being it is enough to observe that in Ezekiel 37:1–14 we have a mingling of the two themes which have up until now appeared to be distinct. These are the recurrent theme of the ‘breath of life’, emanating from Gen. 2:7, and the apparently related motif that the divine spirit will take part in some kind of renewal of creation, likened to the original creative act as described in Gen. 1–2. Finally, it is important to note that in spite of the fact that chapters 36–37 are presented as two distinct oracles, the overlapping themes and language encourage the reader to view them as a single, unified promise.43 2.1.4 Summary. In this section we have examined briefly the significant terms that relate to and are used in the tradition beginning with Gen. 2:7; we have given some evidence for the occurrence and importance of this tradition within the Hebrew Scriptures and we have examined what appears to be a related tradition linking the divine spirit to creation and the longed for renewal of

40

See Allen (1990:185). Chester (2001:50), italics original; cf. Robson (2006:269). 42 Wagner (1979:59). 43 Allen (1993:137ff.) argues that the redactor of Ezekiel rounded off the unit of vv.1– 13 in 37:14a in an effort to echo the promise of 36:27. He also notes the parallel echoing of 36:27b in 37:24b. According to this argument, even the earliest readers of Ezekiel’s prophecy viewed 36–37 as some kind of unitary promise. 41

2.2 The LXX

35

creation in Isaiah and Ps. 104. These two traditions appear to be woven together and further developed in Ezekiel 36–37. As we turn now to look at the ways in which these traditions appear and are developed within later Jewish literature we will see the understanding of the divine spirit continue to expand from an emphasis on the spirit as vitalizing principle to one which presents this spirit as in some way active in the creation of the earth and in the longed-for renewal of that creation.

2.2 The LXX In this section we turn to look at how the tradition examined in section 2.1 develops in the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.44 I will not argue for an overarching ‘interpretive character’ for the whole of the LXX.45 Rather, the hope is to show the development of a specific tradition as it appears in a variety of individual texts. This will be accomplished, as in the previous section, by briefly looking at the significant vocabulary involved, and then turning our attention to closer study of a handful of texts in which the ‘breath of life’ tradition makes an appearance. 2.2.1 The ‘breath of life’ tradition: vocabulary, use and development The interchangeable nature of the terms for ‘breath’ and ‘spirit’ in Hebrew is mirrored in the Greek versions of the Scriptures. This is seen in LXX Gen. 2:7 ( !"# $  %    

 ) and 6:3 ( & "  ' (% ) μ μ*+  μ, μ     -(.   " ), where the shift from  to  is paralleled by a shift from  to μ. The LXX texts of Gen. 6:17 and 7:15 follow the pattern of Gen. 6:3 by using the phrase μ  where   occurs. Generally in the LXX,  translates  and μ translates .46 While Gen. 6:17; 7:15 and 7:22 are the only occurrences of the pairing   in the MT, the matching phrase μ  is found additionally in the LXX at Ezekiel 1:20, 21; 10:17; and 37:5. These four

44 When using the term ‘LXX’, the intended referent is the initial Greek translation of the books of the Hebrew Scriptures. This is somewhat artificial, as these physical texts are no longer extant, but the specificity of this understanding helpfully narrows the field of reference. When citing a text, unless otherwise noted, I am referring to those of the Göttingen critical editions. 45 See the cautionary words of Wevers (1996). 46 See, however, 1 Kings 17:17 (3 Kgdms 17:17 in LXX) and Daniel 5:23 (Aramaic) where  / in the MT appears as μ in the LXX. In Daniel 10:17 the Old Greek has μ while Theodotion has  for  .

36

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

occurrences of the phrase in Ezekiel require special attention and will be addressed below. The exact phrase μ  is found elsewhere in this period in the book of Judith at 10:13.47 Here there is no reference to creation or to the divine origin of this spirit; the phrase simply refers to life itself, as evidenced by the rather paraphrastic translation of the RSV, I am on my way to the presence of Holofernes the commander of your army, to give him a true report; and I will show him a way by which he can go and capture all the hill country without losing one of his men, captured or slain (  /!  0 -/0   12 μ /3 μ ).

This short-hand use reveals just how well established the tradition had become. At Judith 16:14, in a hymn of praise to God, the spirit is linked to creation. This time, however, there is no clear trace of the ‘breath of life’ tradition found in 10:13. Rather, much like the texts from Isaiah and Ps. 104, discussed above, the spirit appears to have a role in creation more substantial than that of simply animating power. Here, in a setting where divine speech and the creative action of the spirit are mentioned in parallel, the activity of the spirit is described as follows: ‘thou didst speak, and they were made. Thou didst send forth thy Spirit, and it formed them’ (&   (#, -5  μ    6 /7μ#). The parallelism of this verse is reminiscent of that found in Ps. 33:6 (32:6 LXX),48 but there are several notable differences. In Ps. 33:6, in both the MT and the LXX, ‘word’ and ‘spirit’ share a verb (a passive in the Greek, and a niphal in the Hebrew). In Judith 16:14 the passive  (# in the first half of the line stands in contrast to the active 6 /7μ#, of which the spirit is the subject.49 Likewise, as the subject of the verb - 5, the spirit is somehow distinguished from divine speech. In this passage the spirit gains some distance from divine speech, at least when compared to the similar language of Ps. 33:6. There appear to be two distinct traditions linking the spirit to creation at work in the book of Judith. The first is the ‘breath of life’ tradition, which 47

Although no Hebrew text exists the Greek is probably based on a Hebrew or Aramaic original. Judith is a Jewish text, likely written in the 2 nd century BCE (see Moore [1985] and Otzen [2002] for useful introductions). It is addressed with the LXX for ease of reference and because it is the only other text before the 1 st century BCE to make use of the phrase μ . 48 Although they are similar there is no indication that the author of Judith intended to refer to Ps. 33 in any way. 49 The passive is found in the Old Latin, Ethiopic and in Codex Sinaiticus. The majority of extant texts, however, prefer the active. See the discussion in Moore (1985:250).

2.2 The LXX

37

has by this time passed into such common use that the phrase μ  can signify human life itself as a semi-technical designation. The second is more elusive and hard to pin-down. As such it can only be cautiously labeled a ‘tradition’ at this stage. This burgeoning tradition links the divine spirit to the activity of creation as a means by which God forms and shapes his world. It is impossible, within the text of Judith, to determine if there is any direct relationship between the two traditions. Two texts that bear some resemblance to the thought of Judith 16:14 are found in the Old Greek text of Job.50 We have already noted Job 33:4 as a text which contains our key terms in parallel.51 In the Hebrew of this verse, not only does the breath of the almighty give life (    ), the spirit of God is declared to have made the speaker (    ). In the Hebrew text it is difficult to tell whether or not this is merely an example of synonymous parallelism between ‘breath’ and ‘spirit’. In the Old Greek version of Job, however, the independent activity of the spirit in the creation of humankind seems not only to be emphasised but expanded. In this version Job 33:4 reads, μ (    , μ, 

/3  ,   8 //, , μ. The description of the spirit as ‘teacher’ is not found in Hebrew manuscripts. This latter phrase is a nearrepetition of, and probably a harmonization with, the Old Greek of Job 32:8,52 where the breath of God is also described as teacher or instructor (-1 μ   9  , 

/  7  8 // ). In both instances the articular participles of 33:4 and 32:8 emphasise the active identity of the divine spirit as teacher. Taken in conjunction with the widespread use of the ‘breath of life’ tradition in Job these references to the divine spirit as ‘teacher’ appear to be related to the spirit’s involvement at creation. More than this, the creative spirit appears to be actively involved in the present as an internal instructor. These observations in the LXX of Job and in Judith may echo what is perhaps a significant plus in the LXX at Genesis 1:2. In the MT the text refers to the  hovering over the waters at creation, while the LXX reads μ ( .53 What was conceivably understood merely as ‘wind’54 has 50 The Greek text of Job is notoriously difficult. The Old Greek is paraphrastic and markedly shorter than the Hebrew of the MT (which is generally assumed to reflect quite closely the Hebrew Vorlage of the LXX translation), while the later Greek text holds more closely to the Hebrew but is of a much later date. Rahlfs conveniently marks the additions of the later Greek manuscript tradition in his edition. For useful introductions see Fernández Marcos (1994) and Heater (1982). 51 As noted earlier, the idea of the ‘breath of life’ is a regular feature of Job. See Job 7:7; 12:10; 27:3; 32:8; 33:4; 34:14–15. 52 This translation technique is common in the Old Greek; see Heater (1982:100). 53 See also b. Hag. 15a and Gen. Rab. 2.4, where the spirit is described as the spirit of God.

38

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

become the divine spirit, and while no direct creative activity is specified, it is implied that the spirit was involved in the work to follow. Gen. 1:2 does not appear to stand at the beginning of a tradition linking the divine spirit with the act of creation in the same readily identifiable way as Gen. 2:7. Nevertheless, this simple yet significant modification in the LXX indicates that by the time of the translation of the Pentateuch into Greek a tradition of linking the divine spirit to the creation of the cosmos was wellenough established that the translator felt free to specify that the  of 1:2 was the divine spirit. 2.2.2 Spirit of the new creation in Ezekiel55 Earlier in the chapter it was noted that the phrase μ  occurs four times in LXX Ezekiel.56 The first three occurrences of the phrase are in the context of a description of the four living creatures (1:20, 21; 10:17), and the fourth in a different context at 37:5. The appearance of μ  in 37:5 is a plus in the LXX, and there is some question as to its meaning and significance. In order to understand how this phrase functions in 37:5 it is necessary to see how it is used in the somewhat enigmatic language of the visions of the four living creatures. In the early chapters of Ezekiel the four ‘living creatures’ are referred to seven times in the MT as  – 2x in 1:13; 2x in 1:15; 2x in 1:19; and 1x in 3:13. In each of these instances the LXX translates  with a form of 1 :. On three other occasions the ‘living creatures’ are referred to collectively as  – 1:22, 10:15 and 10:20. In each of these instances the LXX translation is also a form of 1 :. These are the only times specific reference is made to the ‘living creatures’ in Ezekiel. On three occasions the phrase   describes the ‘spirit’ residing ‘in’ the wheels whose movements reflect those of the living creatures (1:20, 21; 10:17). It is possible that  in this phrase functions as a collective noun, referring to the ‘living creatures’ as a group (in a way consistent with 1:22; 10:15 and 10:20), and that the  is a spirit which belongs to the living creatures. Most English Bibles (RSV, ASV, REB, NIV) translate the phrase in this way, speaking of ‘the spirit of the living 54 See T. Onq. Gen. 1:2 where additions to the text indicate that  was understood by some as simply ‘wind’. 55 There seems to be no consensus, and little speculation as to the date of LXX Ezekiel. As far as I can tell, Johan Lust, in his extensive work on LXX Ezekiel, does not attempt to date it. A possible date is implied by Seeligmann, who believes LXX Ezekiel to have influenced the translation technique of LXX Isaiah. The rough consensus is to date LXX Isaiah to the middle of the 2 nd century BCE. According to this logic LXX Ezekiel must be extant prior to 150 BCE (see Seeligmann [2004:222ff; 228]). 56 The phrase is also found in variants of 37:10, on which see below.

2.2 The LXX

39

creatures’. If this is a faithful understanding of the Hebrew then one would expect the LXX to read μ 0 ; in each of these three instances, in keeping with the other ten references to the living creatures. In each of these cases (1:20, 21; 10:17), however, the phrase is translated in the LXX as μ .57 Harold Hosch asserts that   in 1:20, 21 and 10:17 does not denote the spirit of the living creatures and that  does not function as a collective noun.58 Accordingly, the   is to be understood as a spirit that resides within the living creatures and the wheels, but is independent of both. Johan Lust, following the same logic as Hosch, prefers the translations ‘breath of life’ or ‘spirit of life’ to ‘the spirit of the living beings’, as does Block.59 Block calls attention to the use of the article with  in 1:12 and 20; noting that there is no clear antecedent, he raises the question: to which spirit is reference being made?60 He notes that in v.20 the articular noun is immediately followed by the phrase  , and argues that because of the article ‘one may only conclude that “the rw” that animates these “living creatures” is none other than the vitalizing principle of life that comes from God himself’.61 In 2:2 the spirit enters Ezekiel, stands him on his feet and speaks to him. This is more than a wind, and more than merely an animating principle. It appears to be the divine spirit himself, with the power to physically move the prophet and communicate the divine word. How then does this affect our reading of Ezekiel 37:5? In the MT, 37:5 reads:        . The LXX translates as follows: !? $ @μA μ . There are two likely reasons for inserting the phrase μ . First, the translator could have been consciously alluding to Gen. 2:7 traditions, making yet more obvious what is already clear, that this oracle contains a re-visioning of the creation account. Secondly, and not mutually exclusive to this first possibility, is 57 The Vulgate reads spiritus vitae, in accordance with the rendering of the LXX. It is, of course, possible that a different Hebrew Vorlage has been used but there is little evidence that would point to this. 58 Hosch (2002:104, 109). 59 Lust (1999:20), Block (1997:100, fn. 71); cf. Robson (2006:86ff.). Relevant to our discussion is the Merkabah vision, apparently based on Ezekiel 1, found in the Qumran text 4Q385 frag. 4. Line 8 is intriguing because the word  appears, although it is not found in Ezekiel 1. Dimant and Strugnell (1989:338) suggest that, although it is difficult to reconstitute what it may mean in this context, the term may correspond to the ‘spirit of life’ in Ezekiel 1:20–21. This would make sense if the reference is to the ‘breath of life’ in Gen. 2.7, and not ‘the spirit of the living creature’. The  reading makes sense in light of the LXX reading of   in 1:20–21 as μ . 60 In v.4  refers to ‘wind’ and does not function as an antecedent for vv.12 and 20. 61 Block (1989:36).

40

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

that this phrase reflects an attempt to connect back to 1:20, 21 and 10:17, likening the spirit that will give life to the dry bones to that shared by the four living creatures.62 One can argue for an intentional echo on the part of the translator only if μ  is an unexpected translation of  . While a genitive phrase replacing a noun and finite verb is certainly possible it is unusual. Furthermore, in vv.6 and 14 the same phrase,   , is translated as μ, μ  $ @μA,  B(, with the noun and verb appearing as noun and verb in a more formal representation of the Hebrew. One would expect these two phrases to share the same construction, but they do not.63 Finally, in v.10, which shows the fulfillment of the promise of v.5, μ  occurs in a number of variant texts, including at least one instance where it is preceded by the article, possibly an anaphoric use of the article, echoing the phrase in v.5.64 There is another interesting plus in the LXX of 37:6; here μ μ  is found as a translation of . The parallelism seems to confirm that the μ  of v.5 is much more than merely an animating principle. This parallelism also echoes the earlier parallelism of 36:26–27, where (in both the MT and LXX) the ‘new spirit’ promised in v.26 is parallel to ‘my spirit’ in v.27. The echo of this earlier promise in 37:5–6 may reflect a conscious effort to read the two oracles as a unity. That this is likely the case is emphasised by 37:14, which reads (in both the MT and LXX), ‘And I will put my Spirit within you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land; then you shall know that I, the Lord, have spoken, and I have done it, says the Lord’. This echo of the promises of 36:27–28 suggests that all of 37:1–14 has been an exposition of the promises of 36:26– 27ff.65 The spirit that will raise the dead (37:9) is the spirit of life (37:5), the divine spirit (37:6 and 36:27) who will bring about moral renewal and national restoration (36:26). This is the same divine spirit inhabiting the ‘living creatures’ (1:20, 21; 10:17). 62 Robson (2006:90) notes the similar portrayal of spirit in both passages. It has been argued that chapter 37 was translated by a different person than the translator of chapters 1–10. For an overview of multiple translator theories see McGregor (1985). Even if the translator is different he would likely have been aware of the other’s work on the early chapters of Ezekiel and capable of allusion. 63 There is of course the possibility that chapter 37 represents a translation of a different Hebrew Vorlage. This is a possibility, but nothing in the chapter points clearly to the presence of a different Vorlage. 64 The phrase μ  occurs generally in Alexandrian texts and in the Fathers: Ambrose; Augustine; and in the Liber De divinis scriptoris sive Speculum. It occurs with the article in the Arabic translation (classed as an Alexandrian text). See Ziegler (1952) for further details. 65 Block (1989:39); see also Allen (1990:187).

2.2 The LXX

41

As I suggested in the discussion of the Hebrew text of this passage, in Ezekiel 36–37 there appears to be a melding of the ‘breath of life’ tradition with a tradition that alludes to a more active role for the divine spirit in the work of creation and the longed-for renewal of creation. Ezekiel 36–37 develops this tradition in two significant ways. The first is the promise of a bodily resurrection of the dead by the indwelling spirit.66 The second is the explicit promise of moral and national renewal through this indwelling spirit. In Ezekiel 37:1–14 the spirit that will bring about new, resurrection life cannot be understood merely as the animating breath of Gen. 2:7; this spirit brings life not simply through inspiration, but through active recreation. The numerous parallels between Ezekiel 36–37 and Genesis 1–2, in conjunction with the conscious echoing of 36:26–27 in 37:1–14, suggest that the promises of moral renewal, national restoration and physical resurrection in Ezekiel 36–37 were read as components of a unified act of new creation brought about by the divine spirit.67 2.2.3 Summary In the LXX we found the same fluid use of ‘breath of life’ vocabulary as in the Hebrew Scriptures. By the time of translation into Greek, however, several developments seem to have taken place in the tradition, both seen in the apocryphal (or deutero-canonical) book of Judith. Here, at 10:13 the phrase μ  appears as a technical designation for ‘life’ itself, while at 16:14 the involvement of the divine spirit in the work of creation is explicitly described. In LXX Ezekiel we find continued use of the phrase μ  and a subtle, but not insignificant, reading of Ezekiel 36–37 that strengthens the narrative ties to creation traditions and emphasises the unity of the two oracles.

66 Whether or not Ezekiel 37 was originally understood to contain a promise of bodily resurrection is open to question. See Martin-Achard (1960:93–102) for the dominant view that this is a promise of restoration not resurrection. Even if the original meaning did not convey an expectation of bodily resurrection, this text, ‘goes beyond anything used hitherto within the Old Testament, both in the way it describes what will happen and also in the sheer extent of the description it gives. It appears in many ways to be innovatory within the Jewish and Old Testament tradition, and to be of fundamental importance’ (Chester [2001:48], italics original). As we will see below a number of subsequent Jewish interpreters of this text understood its innovative sense, believing it to contain a promise of spirit-activated, eschatological resurrection of the dead as the inauguration of a new creation. 67 Wright (2003:119) speaks of the promises in Ezekiel 37 as describing ‘an act of new creation’. See also Chester (2001) for a helpful analysis of Ezekiel 36–37.

42

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

2.3 The Dead Sea Scrolls In the next chapter we will turn our attention to a close reading of the Qumran Hodayot. In that context we will address some of the complex methodological problems confronted by those seeking to understand the type(s) of Judaism represented by the scrolls found in the caves near the settlement at Qumran. In this section we will simply look at a handful of texts (setting aside the Hodayot) as they appear to carry on and develop the traditions we have thus far identified. 2.3.1 Spirit and creation Two cave four fragments attest to the presence of the ‘breath of life’ tradition. These are 4Q504 frag. 8 recto, and 4Q422 i (frag. 1). Lines 4–7 of 4Q504 frag. 8 recto read, 4 […Adam,] our [fat]her, you fashioned in the image of [your] glory […] 5 [… the breath of life] 68 you [b]lew into his nostril, and intelligence and knowledge […] 6 [… in the gard]en of Eden, which you had planted. You made [him] govern […] 7 […] and so that he would walk in a glorious land …

This fragment telescopes Gen. 1:26 and 2:7b, bringing the two images of creation together and creating a striking parallelism, possibly indicating that the image of God’s glory was communicated through the giving of spirit/breath, and reflected in the intelligence and knowledge of the first man. This fragment will receive more attention in the following chapter. For now it is enough to say that, if this reading is correct we have here yet another significant development of the ‘breath of life’ tradition.69 Another text, 4Q422 i (frag. 1), is a fragment of a document that summarises Genesis and Exodus.70 This fragment contains references to Gen. 1–2 and makes specific reference to the ‘holy spirit’. In this reference the spirit plays a role in creation that appears to be more overtly important than that described in the creation stories found in Gen. 1–2. The word of God appears to be mentioned as well, functioning as the mediator of creation. The fragmentary nature of the document makes it impossible to form any clear understanding of its contents. Torleif Elgvin, however, notes the similar parallelism between ‘word’ and ‘spirit’ found in Ps. 33:6 and be-

68

Baillet reconstructs the phrase ‘breath of life’ (  ) based on Gen. 2:7 and not on another scroll fragment (see DJD VII, p.163). Given the context the addition is warranted. 69 This may have some connection to Job 33:4 and 32:8 in which the spirit is portrayed as divine instructor. 70 See Elgvin (1994).

2.3 The Dead Sea Scrolls

43

lieves the parallel here could reflect a link to the Memra-theology of the Targums.71 2.3.2 Renewal and resurrection: the influence of Ezekiel 37 Of special interest to our investigation is the way in which the oracles of Ezekiel 36–37 are understood and applied within the scrolls.72 4Q521 is a fragment of the so-called Messianic Apocalypse, which paints a picture of hope influenced by the hymn of praise in Ps. 146.73 In line 6 (frag. 2.ii) the spirit of the Lord is described as ‘hovering’ over the poor in order to renew them, ‘For the Lord will consider the pious, and call the righteous by name, and his spirit will hover upon the poor, and he will renew the faithful with his strength.’ This is the same verb () that occurs in the piel in Gen. 1:2 (almost certainly in the piel in 4Q521 as well). In the biblical corpus it is found only at Gen. 1:2 and Dt. 32.11. In 4Q521 it is specifically the Lord’s spirit () that hovers and renews, not an indistinct or unidentified spirit of strength. As we have already noted, this specification of the spirit as the divine spirit also occurs in the LXX. In line 12 of this same fragment we learn that in this future time the Lord will also raise the dead.74 Although there is no explicit connection to Ezekiel 37 in this text, it is extremely interesting because it links the spirit present at creation to the resurrection of the dead and the restoration of the poor and pious (lines 5, 6, 7, and 12).75 This focus on the poor and pious could easily be understood as a sectarian interpretation of the promise of national restoration found in Ezekiel 36:27–28 and 37:14. The possible connections are tantalizing but tenuous. The spirit is that of Gen. 1:2, not Gen. 2:7; and the spirit has no obvious role in the resurrection of the dead. Nevertheless, on a broader level we have here the combination of a promise of renewal by the agency of the divine spirit, alongside a promise of resurrection. This alone is noteworthy. The Qumran text known as Pseudo-Ezekiel (4Q385), contains a retelling of Ezekiel 37 bearing an eschatological promise of bodily resurrection for

71

Elgvin (1994:195). See also 4Q381 1.7, where the word alone is creative. On the role of Ezekiel in the scrolls see Brooke (1992), Wacholder (1992), Manning (2004:22–77) and García Martínez (2005). 73 See Philonenko (2003) and Collins (1995). 74 4Q521 frags. 7+5 ii.5 also mentions resurrection from the dead. On the general question of resurrection belief at Qumran see Puech (1993), cf. Wright (2003:181–189). 75 Collins (1995:118) links the spirit not to Gen. 1:2 but to Is. 61:1, because of the anointing to preach paralleled in line 1 of the fragment. Given the unusual verb associated with the spirit in line 6 it seems far more likely, however, that this is a reference to the spirit’s creative work rather than the spirit anointing a prophet. 72

44

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

the righteous.76 The author of this text has condensed the details of Ezekiel 37:1–14, deleting repetition and referring to the dry bones without introduction. The impression one gets from this treatment is that this is a ‘well-known text and a familiar exegetical tradition’.77 The author also makes several changes and additions, emphasising a certain reading of the text. One of these additions is the repeated formula,  , ‘and it was so’, in lines 6, 7 and 8 of fragment 2.78 When combined with the numerous other echoes of the creation accounts in Genesis, this formula, found in Genesis 1:7, 9, 11, 15, 24 and 30, appears to be a conscious link between the eschatological resurrection of the dead described in these fragments and the story of creation. In Pseudo-Ezekiel the insufflation of life-giving breath at the eschaton appeared to be understood as an act of new creation, echoing the original creation as described in Genesis 1. The 4QPseudo-Ezekiel fragments are linked to another set of fragments found in cave 4 through the appearance of similar vocabulary and a repeated theme. These are the 4Q Zadokite fragments on skin disease (4Q266/269/272), which come from a copy of the Damascus Document and appear to be a halakhah on Lev. 13:29–37.79 What makes these fragments distinct from Leviticus 13–15 is that they offer an etiological explanation for the disease and describe the manner in which the body is healed.80 The origin of the disease is somehow related to  (4Q266 frag. 6 i.6).81 Recovery from the disease is dependent upon the activity of  , which acts to return blood to the effected area through the artery ( – 4Q272 frag. 1 ii.182). One connection between the 4QPseudo-Ezekiel fragments and the Zadokite fragments on skin disease is the reference which both make to the /. In the Zadokite fragments this is the ‘artery’ that carries blood and appears to be filled with the spirit of life. In 4QPseudo-Ezekiel the  are described as coming upon the bones and joints, all of which are then covered with skin and given life by the breath that comes from the four winds and raises the bodies from the dead. It is quite possible that 76

Dimant and Strugnell (1988:56), cf. Wright (2003:188), Manning (2004:70) and García Martínez (2005:170–71). Wright (2003:188) argues that this is the earliest reference to a belief in bodily resurrection based in Ezekiel 37. 4Q391 frag. 56 (Pseudo-Ezekiel) may also refer to the resurrection in Ezek. 37 but the size of the fragment makes it impossible to tell. 77 Dimant (2001:33). 78 See Dimant (2001:23ff.) for notes on the reconstruction of this text. 79 Leviticus 13:33 is clearly cited in 4Q266 frag. 6 i.9. 80 Baumgarten (1990:162). 81 For speculation as to the identity of the spirit that causes the disease in the first place see Baumgarten (1990) and Sekki (1989:142). 82 Also in 4Q266 frag. 6 i.12 and 4Q272 frag. 1 i.7 partially reconstructed.

2.3 The Dead Sea Scrolls

45

 here should be translated ‘arteries’ in keeping with this parallel, rather than in the standard translation of ‘sinews’ given in most English versions of Ezekiel 37.83 The presence of a life-giving spirit in both texts is the second connection between the Zadokite fragments and Pseudo-Ezekiel. The specific phrase   occurs only in 4Q272 in the Qumran literature and, in this form, does not occur in the MT at all. The phrase  , however, does occur in Gen. 6:17; 7:15, 7:22, and in 4Q418 122.ii.11. Picking up on the tradition that originates in Gen. 2:7 this phrase refers to the breath of God that vivifies all of animal creation. The specific form the tradition takes in these fragments, however, reveals that the basic tradition of Gen. 2:7 has been developed in quite a sophisticated and specific way to account for physical well-being. In 4Q418 the phrase appears in yet another context in which separation or judgment is occurring. Here the ‘living spirit’ is associated with ‘eternal glory and everlasting peace’, and takes on a distinctly eschatological nuance. This ‘living spirit’ appears to be given to the righteous either as the means by which they are separated, or as a sign of their distinctiveness. 2.3.3 Summary A great deal more work remains to be done on the presence of spirit-creation traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of that work is attempted in the next chapter. At this stage it is enough to say that there appear to be at least a handful of texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls that depend on and develop those traditions linking the spirit to creation. Some, such as 4Q504, do so in obvious dependence on Gen. 2:7. Others, such as 4Q385, connect the spirit to the work of creation’s renewal in light of Ezekiel 37. 4Q521 appears to be influenced by a certain reading of Gen. 1:2, though this is combined with elements conceptually close to Ezekiel 37. The ‘breath of life’ language of Gen. 2, 6 and 7 is further developed in quite specific and distinct ways in 4Q272 and 4Q418. These texts reveal the ongoing and evolving understanding of this basic tradition. The overarching impression given by these texts is of a shift towards eschatological emphasis. The spirit is more prominently displayed in relation to future renewal than previous history.

83

Devorah Dimant (2001:25) chooses to translate  in 4Q385 as ‘arteries’, in keeping with the way in which the term is used in 4Q272, and because of what she views is the logic of the version of Ezekiel 37 presented in that text.

46

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

2.4 Other Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period Outside the Dead Sea Scrolls the general idea that life is located in the breath is found throughout the various genres of Jewish literature from the Second Temple period. In this section we will look briefly at a handful of different documents in an attempt to grasp some of the diversity of the ‘breath of life’ tradition, as well as some of the consistent ways in which it is developed. 2.4.1 Wisdom of Solomon84 Closely related to the phrase μ , is the phrase μ 7, which is found in Wisdom of Solomon 15:11. This phrase falls within a passage that discusses the ignorance of the one who fails to recognise his maker: [H]is life is of less worth than clay, because he failed to know the one who formed him and inspired him with an active soul and breathed into him a living spirit ( C7#      μ 0D EF     μ!  μ 7). 85

Given the context and the interchangeability of  and μ, the echo of Gen. 2:7 is obvious in the dual mention of the ‘living spirit’ and the ‘active soul’, and in the presence of the verb μ!.86 This reference demonstrates both the widespread use of the tradition and the flexible use of terminology when making use of the tradition.87 Wisdom of Solomon is of special relevance to the present investigation for reasons beyond the simple presence of the ‘breath of life’ tradition. First, as noted in the introduction to Part I, Robert Menzies claims that Wisdom is likely the specific source of Paul’s so-called ‘soteriological pneumatology’.88 Secondly, many scholars believe that Paul had specific knowledge of Wisdom, that he interacted with it and was possibly influ84 Wisdom was almost certainly written in Greek. Although assumed by most scholars to be a text of Jewish origin (see Horbury [1995] and Winston [1979]), Davila (2005:219ff.) has recently brought this view into question by raising the possibility of a 1 st century Christian origin. For present purposes, however, it is safe to hold loosely to Jewish origin between the 2 nd century BCE and the 1 st century CE. 85 See also LXX Prov. 24:12 which includes a reference to God, not found in the MT, as '   . 86 Cf. Winston (1979:287). 87 There appears to be no substantive reason why the author of Wisdom would have used terms not explicitly found in Gen. 2:7, apart from a general flexibility with the language of this tradition. 88 On the specific question of the relation between ‘spirit’ and ‘salvation’ in wisdom literature more generally, see Bennema (2002), who interacts critically with Menzies.

2.4 Other Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

47

enced by it.89 There is not space here to engage in a full-scale treatment of the portrayal of the spirit in Wisdom. We must, however, give brief attention to Menzies’ claims and attempt to set them in a broader assessment of the importance of creation traditions in the Wisdom of Solomon. Menzies’ argument rests in part on the belief that Wisdom 9:9–18, and/or the traditions found there, had a direct influence on Paul’s portrayal of the work of the spirit in 1 Corinthians 2:6–16 and Galatians 4:4–6.90 Wisdom 9:17–18 reads: Whoever came to know your purposes, unless you had given him wisdom and sent your holy spirit from heaven on high? Thus it was that those on earth were set on the right path, and mortals were taught what pleases you; thus were they kept safe by wisdom. (REB)

Menzies argues that the sending of the spirit and wisdom in Wis. 9:17 represents a special, soteriological gifting of the spirit, a portrayal of the spirit that is almost unique within the Judaism of the time.91 There are two problems with Menzies’ reading. The first is his assumption that the parallelism between spirit and wisdom is complementary and not synonymous. His is a fair reading, but by no means necessary given the interchangeability between spirit and wisdom, particularly in 7:22–8:1, where the two appear to be essentially one and the same thing. The second, and chief, problem with Menzies’ reading of this particular passage in Wisdom is the way in which he separates soteriology from protology, or the theology of creation.92 Menzies argues that in Wisdom there are two distinct sendings of the spirit. The first is at creation, represented by the appearance of the ‘breath of life’ tradition in 15:11. The second is a special gifting of the spirit for salvation, as we have seen in 9:17–18. This reading may be correct, but it is only part of a much larger understanding of the spirit and of wisdom that is revealed within Wisdom, but seen in essence in 9:1–18. The prayer of 9:1–18 begins with the role of wisdom at the creation of the cosmos (v.2), emphasises wisdom’s creative partnership at creation and in God’s ongoing governance of the cosmos (v.9), and returns to the role of wisdom in renewing God’s people (v.17). As Michael Kolarcik has said, ‘by relating wisdom’s saving activity to her presence at creation, the author of Wisdom focuses the lens of creation theology to view the salva-

89

Pauline dependence on Wisdom is generally seen most clearly in the connections between Rom. 1 and Wis. 13–14. See Watson (2004:404–411) and Dunn (1988:72); cf. Larcher (1969:14–20), Romaniuk (1968) and Scroggs (1967). 90 Menzies (1991:303). 91 Menzies (1991:310). 92 Menzies (1991:310).

48

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

tion history of Israel’.93 Perhaps the best way to understand the ‘soteriological’ work of wisdom/spirit in Wis. 9:17–18 is as the logical outworking of wisdom’s role in the creation of the cosmos. Soteriology in this instance is but a sub-set of creation theology.94 If Wisdom did influence Paul, as Menzies and others argue, this fact would only serve to supplement the argument that I am trying to develop, that so-called ‘soteriological’ depictions of the spirit are in fact part of a broader and more common tradition locating the activity of the spirit within the creative work of God. More could be said about Wisdom of Solomon, in particular the influence of creation traditions within the broader genre of wisdom literature. These observations, however, are not essential to this continuing investigation, and limited space prevents adequate interaction with the material. 2.4.2 2 Maccabees95 In 2 Maccabees the terms μ and  occur in parallel on two separate occasions (7:22–23; 14:46). In each of these verses the parallelism appears to be synonymous, indicating that life and spirit are fundamentally intertwined. In the first passage, which tells the well-known story of the martyrdom of the seven sons, their mother speaks of her longing that they will be given new life and breath in the future. She refers to God as the creator of the world ('   7μ  #). In this context she specifically mentions both the original conception of her sons and their longedfor resurrection in terms of receiving μ and  . It is striking that original creation and future resurrection are described using the same terms.96 It must be noted that there is no specific mention of a renewal of creation itself in this text, as we have found in some other texts. However, this should not take away from the point that here resurrection is described as new creation. 93

Kolarcik (1992:104). On the importance of creation in Wisdom of Solomon see also Collins (2003) and Winston (2002). For connections between the spirit, wisdom and creation see further Wisdom 1:6–8 and 7:22–29. 95 2 Maccabees was probably written between the middle of the 2 nd century and the middle of the 1 st century BCE. Goldstein (1983:71f.) argues specifically for an origin between 134 and 63 BCE. 96 A similar bracketing of spirit and life occurs in the fourth book of the Sibylline Oracles. This book of the Oracles is likely a Jewish text, redacted in the late 1 st century CE (Collins [1983:381] defends the Jewish origins of this book of the oracles, while Davila [2005:188, fn.17] questions them). At 4.46 and 4.189 we learn that God will give ‘spirit and life’ to the pious at the judgment and at the resurrection of the dead. Here again creation traditions spill over into speculation and belief regarding the future resurrection of the dead. 94

2.4 Other Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

49

2.4.3 Philo The phrase μ  is found in Philo at Det. 80 and Leg. 3.161.97 In both of these passages Philo cites Gen. 2:7, replacing the well-attested LXX reading of 

. Philo was obviously aware of the reading found in the LXX of Gen. 2:7, since he cites it in Opif. 134; Leg. 1.31, 42; Plant. 19; Her. 56; Somn. 134 and Spec. 4.123. However, Philo chooses an alternative reading in these two other situations. Thomas Tobin believes that Philo’s interpretation of the text shows that he understood Gen. 2:7 to signify that a portion of the divine spirit was imparted to human creation. This, according to Tobin, was a move on Philo’s behalf to impart a Stoic reading to the text.98 Adequate explanation of Philo’s understanding of the role and work of spirit at creation would require a book of its own. As an interpreter of Scripture, and particularly as a Jewish thinker with a deep interest in the role and work of spirit in the created realm, Philo is without peer.99 However, Philo is both complex and, at times, seemingly inconsistent in his portrayal of the creation stories in Gen. 1–2. In certain passages he clearly articulates belief in a double-creation of man, with the creation of heavenly man in Gen. 1:26–27, and the creation of earthly man in Gen. 2:7. In other passages he prefers a single-creation interpretation of Gen. 1–2.100 In every description, spirit figures prominently, though with varying nuance and vocabulary. As shown already, one biblical text to which Philo is repeatedly drawn is Gen. 2:7. This proves to be a key source of his anthropology, and gives insight into his understanding of the concept of the spirit.101 Part of the difficulty in pinning down Philo’s understanding of μ is the way in which he seems to float between a more materialistic, Stoic understanding, and a Platonic (or Middle Platonic) understanding. In a number of places Philo refers to the divine spirit given to man at creation as a particle detached from the divine, an -7μ ( .102 This appears to have its origin in Stoic thought.103 Elsewhere, Philo describes the spirit as an

97

Cf. QG 2.8, which has the phrase μ 0 in reference to Gen. 6:17. Tobin (1983:78), fn. 62. 99 See Runia (1986), cf. Barclay (1996:158–180). 100 For a useful introduction and outline of the different passages see Tobin (1983:20ff.). 101 Key passages in which Gen. 2:7 is discussed, particularly in relation to anthropology are Opif. 30, 67, 134–135; Leg. 1.32–42; QG 1.4; 1.8; 2.56, 59; Spec. 4.123; Det. 80–86; and Plant. 18–20. 102 Det. 90; Opif. 146; Somn. 1.34; Leg. 3.161. 103 See, eg. Diogenes Laertius 7.138–139; 156–157. 98

50

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

‘effulgence’ of the divine, in particularly immaterial, Platonic terms.104 Tobin concludes that Philo’s portrayal of the creation of man ultimately takes on a Platonic shape, such that ‘the Stoic interpretation of Gen. 2:7 was now only a Stoic fragment in a larger Platonic whole’.105 The broader role of spirit at creation is also described in Philo’s work. Philo attributes some kind of creative function to the divine spirit in Gen. 1:2, specifically as the spirit establishes order in the cosmos. This is clear, as Marie Isaacs points out, in Philo’s description of the chaos of the flood as a ‘symbol of spiritual dissolution’ (QG 2.15), and in his attribution to the spirit of a re-ordering role after the flood (QG 2.28).106 Isaacs, however, stops well short of claiming that for Philo the divine spirit functions as creative agent. Rather, she explains, the spirit is more closely identified with the actual being of God, and the extension of that being into the created realm. If one is to speak of agency one is better off referring to Philo’s use of the logos. As Isaacs explains, ‘Whereas the 7  is the agent in the creation of the universe, μ is the life-principle itself’.107 In this regard spirit is always spoken of as something imparted to creation, rather than as something active in the creation event. In addition to being the life-force of creation, the spirit functions as the principle of reason and order, as mentioned above.108 This principle applies to the broader created realm, but more particularly to man himself. For Philo, μ is strongly associated with reason and the mind.109 Isaacs puts her finger on the most important components of Philo’s presentation of spirit when she says that, for Philo, μ is seen as the principle of order and cohesion in the life of man and the cosmos. As such it is permanent and all-pervading. It is the principle of reason, which is the link between God and His creation. As conscience, it is the possession of all, necessary for the apprehension and attainment of the truth. 110

104

Spec. 4.123; cf. Opif. 146; cf. Wisdom 7:26; see Tobin (1983:86). Tobin (1983:100), cf. Runia (2001:345, 326). Although Runia and Tobin agree on this point see Runia’s critique of Tobin’s methodology (1986:556–558) and (2001:19– 20). 106 Isaacs (1976:43). 107 Isaacs (1976:56, cf. p.64). She refers the reader to Opif. 30; Spec. 4.217; and QG 3.3. On logos as the agent of creation see also Leg. 3.96; Cher. 124–127; Migr. 6; Fug. 12. 108 This too quite possibly reflects Stoic influence. Note the similarities between this view of ‘spirit’ and the Stoic idea of hexis, which is the ‘principal of cohesion’ or ‘tenor’ of the world - see Galen’s comments in Long and Sedley (1987:55, F and 47, N), cf. Leg. 2.22–23. 109 See Isaacs (1976:38); cf. Leg. 1.33; Det. 82–83; and Gig. 23. 110 Isaacs (1976:63–64). 105

2.4 Other Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

51

According to Philo, the divine spirit pervades the created realm through the act of creation; this provides the context for his theological development of the spirit in fresh and creative ways. One notable facet of Philo’s work, when compared to others in this survey, is the lack of any significant eschatological significance attached to the spirit. It is conceivable that Philo does not think of the spirit in an eschatological sense because he believes in a doctrine of eternal creation, without definite beginning, and clearly without an end.111 In this sense the spirit acts in the same way from the beginning and there is no need for eschatological development or change by the agency of the spirit.112 Returning once more to the use of the phrase μ , an interesting question is raised by Tobin’s argument that Philo has a specific meaning in mind when he uses the phrase. If Tobin is correct, and Philo replaces the usual reading of Gen. 2:7 in order to signal a technical understanding of what happens in the infusion of divine breath, then it is possible that at some stage the phrase μ  has developed a technical meaning. For Philo this appears to have had Stoic implications. Stoic associations, however, would not have been necessary, or even likely, in other situations where the phrase occurs. What is more likely is that this phrase came to describe human vitality, yet with a special emphasis on the divine origin of the animating principle of human existence. This emphasis is partially evident in Philo’s use, and also found in a text such as Judith 10:13 (as seen above).113 2.4.4 Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum114 In a thorough analysis of Pseudo-Philo’s re-telling of the Balaam story of Numbers 22–24, John Levison demonstrates that the author of Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum (LAB) very carefully modifies the role of the spirit in the biblical text from the idea of Spirit as special endowment, to holy spirit as life itself.115 Levison’s observations are worth summarising briefly. 111

See Winston (2002:113). For Philo the eternity of creation is not inherent within creation itself, but within God’s sustaining providence (see Decal. 58). 112 On Philo’s eschatology more generally, see Tobin (1997) and bibliography found there. 113 This may help to explain why the phrase 

 appears to fall out of use. In the LXX it occurs only at Gen. 2:7 and 7:22. In later literature it is found at Jos. Asen. 12:1 and 16:8, and in two of the Greek fragments of Irenaeus (AH V. frags 11, 12). 114 Although the earliest surviving copies of LAB are Latin manuscripts (the earliest dating to the 11 th century), it is almost certainly a Jewish work composed in Hebrew during the 1 st century CE (see Davila [2005:155–159]; cf. Jacobson [1996] for a comprehensive introduction and commentary). 115 Levison (1997:57–62).

52

Chapter 2: The Spirit and Creation in Jewish Literature

In LAB 18 Pseudo-Philo condenses the story of Balaam while at the same time adding several references to the ‘spirit’ that dwells within him. In 18:3 Balaam says to the messengers of Balak, ‘Behold this has given pleasure to Balak, but he does not know that the plan of God is not like the plan of humans. Now he does not realize that the spirit that is given to us is given for a time. But our ways are not straight unless God wishes’.116 This addition to the biblical story is followed by a revised reference to the spirit in 18:10, ‘And when he saw part of the people, the spirit of God did not abide in him’. This re-telling of Numbers 24:2 is significant in that it contains the opposite of the biblical text which says, ‘the spirit of God came upon him’. Pseudo-Philo adds a further reference to the spirit in Balaam’s oracle (18:11), ‘I am restrained in my speech and cannot say what I see with my eyes, because there is little left of the holy spirit that abides in me. For I know that, because I have been persuaded by Balak, I have lessened the time of my life.’ These three mentions of the spirit, two of which are additions to the biblical narrative, reveal a fascinating exegetical pattern of treating the spirit as a human endowment, the loss of which means death. Levison argues that this concept of the loss of the spirit is dependent on Gen. 6:3. That this is the basis for Pseudo-Philo’s exegetical movement is based on the fact that inserted allusions to the Genesis narrative abound in LAB 18, and that Pseudo-Philo refers to Gen. 6:3 elsewhere in LAB on three occasions in 3:2, 9:8 and 48:1.117 Levison summarizes his argument saying, ‘The addition of two allusions to Gen. 6:3 in LAB 18:3 and 18:10 alongside this explanatory insertion [18:11] produce a remarkable transformation of the biblical text. Balaam does not succumb to the powerful prophetic spirit; instead he loses the vital power of life in the face of impending death.’118 This exegetical inversion of the text affirms the widespread influence of the ‘breath of life’ tradition. In this particular instance it also shows that this tradition could trump the more dominant strand of thinking about the spirit/holy spirit as a special endowment.

116

Translations provided are Levison’s own. Levison (1997:59–60). Other scholars argue that LAB 18:10 is a reference to the spirit of prophecy departing from Balaam, and not a reference to the spirit of life. Levison argues, however, that Pseudo-Philo’s decisive difference in language from the MT and LXX, and the book-end references to the ‘spirit of life’ elsewhere in LAB 18 confirm his stance (pp. 60–61). 118 Levison (1997:62). A similar tradition is found in 4Q416 2.ii.6–7. It reads, ‘do not for any money exchange your holy spirit, for no price is adequate.’ Given the wider context of this column (particularly lines 17–18) it seems that this reference to ‘holy spirit’ is simply another way of saying ‘life’; cf. T. Naph. 10.9. 117

2.4 Other Jewish Literature of the Second Temple Period

53

2.4.5 Joseph and Aseneth119 In the story of Joseph and Aseneth, the pagan virgin, Aseneth, converts to the faith of Joseph and then marries him. The story is filled with the language and imagery of creation/new creation, including repeated reference to the breath/spirit of life. Joseph and Aseneth 8.9–11 records Joseph’s prayer for Aseneth. Here he asks that God renew her by his spirit saying: Lord God of my father Israel, the Most High, the Powerful one of Jacob, who gave life to all (things) and called (them) from the darkness to the light, and from the error to the truth, and from the death to the life; you, Lord, bless this virgin, and renew her by your spirit, and form her anew by your hidden hand, and make her alive again by your life120 (G ' (   7 μ