(THBN 20) (Van Ruiten, Kooten, Eds.) Dust of The Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2,7) - The Problem of Dualistic Anth. in Early Jud. and CHRST PDF

Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7)
Themes in
Biblical Narrative
Jewish and Christian Traditions
Editorial Board
George H. van Kooten

Robert A. Kugler
Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten
Loren T. Stuckenbruck
Advisory Board
Reinhard Feldmeier
Judith Lieu
Florentino Garcia Martinez
Hindy Najman
Martti Nissinen
Ed Noort
volume 20
The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tbn

Dust of the Ground and Breath
of Life (Gen 2:7)
The Problem of a Dualistic Anthropology in Early
Judaism and Christianity
Edited by

leiden | boston
Cover illustration: The Creation of Adam (Monreale Cathedral, Sicily, Byzantine mosaic, 12th century).
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Ruiten, J. van (Jacques), editor. | Kooten, Geurt Hendrik van, 1969- editor.
Title: Dust of the ground and breath of life (Gen 2:7) : the problem of a dualistic
anthropology in early Judaism and Christianity / edited by Jacques T.A.G.M. van
Ruiten, George H. van Kooten.
Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2016. | Series: Themes in biblical narrative:
Jewish and Christian traditions, issn 1388-3909 ; volume 20 | This volume
contains the revised papers of a Themes in Biblical Narrative colloquium which
took place at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of
Groningen on September 9-10, 2010. | Includes bibliographical references and
index.
Identifiers: lccn 2016036264 (print) | lccn 2016036983 (ebook) | isbn
9789004210851 (hardback : alk. paper) | isbn 9789004334762 (e-book)
Subjects: lcsh: Bible. Genesis ii, 7Criticism, interpretation, etc.Congresses. |
Bible. Genesis ii, 7Social scientific criticismCongresses. | Bible and
anthropologyCongresses.
Classification: lcc BS1235.52 .D87 2016 (print) | lcc BS1235.52 (ebook) |
ddc 233.09dc23
lc record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016036264
Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: Brill. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn 1388-3909
isbn 978-90-04-21085-1 (hardback)
isbn 978-90-04-33476-2 (e-book)
Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Koninklijke Brill nv incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi and
Hotei Publishing.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,
without prior written permission from the publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Koninklijke Brill nv provided
that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive,
Suite 910, Danvers, ma 01923, usa. Fees are subject to change.
This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Contents
Abbreviations vii
Contributors ix
Introduction xi
Taken from the Soil, Gifted with the Breath of Life: The Anthropology of
Gen 2:7 in Context 1
Ed Noort
Theological Anthropology and the Enochic Book of Watchers (1 En.

616) 16
Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7 36

Michal N. van der Meer
Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two

Spirits Treatise (1qs iii, 13iv, 26) and Other Texts from the Dead Sea
Scrolls 58
Mladen Popovi
From Cosmogony to Psychology: Philos Interpretation of Gen 2:7 in De

opificio mundi, Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin and Legum
allegoriae 99
Beatrice Wyss
On Anthropology and Honor in the Testament of Job 117

Robert A. Kugler
Christ As Creator: Pauls Eschatological Reading of Gen 2:7 in 1 Cor

15:45 127
Reinhard Feldmeier
Anthropological Views in Nag Hammadi: The Bipartite and Tripartite

Conceptions of Human Being 136
Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta
vi contents
Adam, Dust, and the Breath of Life according to the Targumim of Gen
2:7 154
Robert Hayward
Index of Ancient Sources 173

Index of Modern Authors 188
Abbreviations
The abbreviations are according to the sbl Handbook of Style with the following
additions:
abg Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte

agsk Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse
ajec Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity
ate Aristote: Traductions et tudes
bcnht Bibliothque copte de Nag Hammadi textes
BdS Der Begriff der Seele
BEstB Biblioteca de estudios bblicis
BibTS Biblisch-theologische Studien
Bonnet aaa ii Bonnet, M. Acta apostolorum apocrypha ii. 2 vols. Hildesheim 1959.
bsih Brills Studies in Intellectual History
cejl Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature
ChrAnt Christianisme antique
co Cahiers d orientalisme
col Christian Origins Library
cqs Companion to the Qumran Scrolls
dcly Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature Yearbook
dk Diels, H., and W. Kranz. Fragmente der Vorsokratiker. 3 vols. 6th ed.
Berlin 19511952.
dv Dieu vivant
edss Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by L.H. Schiffman and
J.C. VanderKam. 2 vols. Oxford 2000.
er2 Encyclopedia of Religion. Edited by L. Jones. 15 vols. 2nd ed. Farming-
ton Hills, Mich., 2005.
ga Gesammelte Aufstze
gels1 Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: (Twelve Proph-
ets). Leuven 1993.
gels2 Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the
Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets. Leuven 2002.
gels3 Muraoka, T. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Leuven 2009.
ghkat Gttinger Handkommentar zum Alten Testament
gkb Wilhelm Gesenius Hebrischer Grammatik. Edited by E. Kautzsch.
Edited by G. Bergstrsser. 28th ed. Hildesheim 1962. Repr. of Leipzig
1909.
gra University of California Publications in Graeco-Roman Archaeology
viii abbreviations
hbs Herders biblische Studien

jaj Journal of Ancient Judaism
JAJSup Journal of Ancient Judaism Supplements
JSJSup Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism
leh2 Lust, J., E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie. Greek-English Lexicon of the Sep-
tuagint. 2nd rev. ed. Stuttgart 2003.
lnts Library of New Testament Studies
lsts Library of Second Temple Studies
mar Mitteilungen fr Anthropologie und Religionsgeschichte
mjs Mnsteraner Judaistische Studien
mveol Mededeelingen en verhandelingen van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch
Genootschap Ex Oriente Lux
nets A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other Greek Transla-
tions Traditionally Included under That Title. Edited by A. Pietersma
and B.G. Wright. Oxford 2007.
nf i Nock, A.D., ed., and A.-J. Festugire, trans. Corpus hermeticum i, Trai-
ts ixii. 2nd ed. Collection des universits de France. Paris 1960.
nf ii Nock, A.D., ed., and A.-J. Festugire, trans. Corpus hermeticum ii,
Traits xiiixviii; Asclpius. 2nd ed. Collection des universits de
France. Paris 1960.
nhms Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies
ohrt Oxford Handbooks in Religion and Theology
OSAPSup Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy Supplementary Volumes
OxfPap Oxford Paperbacks
pacs Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series
Perip Peripatoi
plb Papyrologica Lugduno-Batava
pms Publications in Medieval Studies
psv Phoenix Supplementary Volumes
QdP Quellen der Philosophie
PvdE Proeven voor de eredienst
RdM Religionen der Menschheit
sais Studies in the Aramaic Interpretation of Scripture
sapere Scripta antiquitatis posterioris ad ethicam religionemque pertinen-
tia
scs Septuagint and Cognate Studies
tsmj Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism
VCSup Supplements to Vigiliae christianae
WorldClass Worlds Classics
Zet Zetemata
Contributors
Reinhard Feldmeier
Professor of New Testament, Faculty of Theology, Georg-August-Universitt
Gttingen, Germany
Robert Hayward
Professor Emeritus in the Department of Theology and Religion, Durham Uni-
versity, United Kingdom
Robert A. Kugler
Paul S. Wright Professor of Christian Studies, College of Arts and Sciences,
Lewis & Clark University, United States of America
Ed Noort
Professor Emeritus of Ancient Hebrew Literature and the History of Religion
of Ancient Israel, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of
Groningen, the Netherlands
Mladen Popovi
Professor of Old Testament and Early Judaism, Faculty of Theology and Reli-
gious Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands

Senior Lecturer in New Testament and Early Christian Studies, Faculty of The-
ology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
Professor of New Testament, Protestant Theological Faculty, Ludwig-Maximili-
ans-Universitt, Munich, Germany

Lecturer in Old Testament, Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies, Univer-
sity of Groningen, the Netherlands

Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, Faculty of Theology and
Religious Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands
x contributors

Professor of the Reception History of the Bible: Historical Hermeneutics, Fac-
ulty of Theology and Religious Studies, University of Groningen, the Nether-
lands
Beatrice Wyss
Researcher in the Emmy Noether-Project Ratio religionis, Faculty of Theology,
Georg-August-University Gttingen, Germany; Visiting Lecturer in Latin Liter-
ature, Faculty of Humanities, University of Basel, Switzerland
Introduction
The concept of a division between body and soul, as an interpretation of the

principles defining the existence of human beings, is strongly associated with
Descartes rigorous dualism, with the body being understood as a corporeal
substance (res extensa) and the soul as a non-physical, mental substance (res
cogitans). However, the theological, psychological, and epistemological aspects
of this date back to classical antiquity: Issues such as the immortality of the
soul, the debate about matter versus life, and whether one was capable of
knowing the outside world were all being extensively discussed already. The
concept of an immortal soul in a mortal body is one of the oldest elements of
this problem, one that occurs in many religions in both East and West.
The present volume addresses this issue, and focuses on early Judaism and
Christianity, where this issue is often related to the initial chapters of the book
of Genesis. This volume contains the revised papers of a Themes in Biblical
Narrative colloquium which took place at the Faculty of Theology and Reli-
gious Studies of the University of Groningen on September 910, 2010, which
was devoted to the interpretation of Gen 2:7 in relation to this broader issue
of dualistic anthropology within the context of early Judaism and Christian-
ity.
In the history of the various interpretations, Gen 2:7 is often found to be
interpreted in a dualistic way, in that it refers to two fundamentally different
and in some ways conflictingprinciples determining the existence of human
beings. On the one hand, man is totally earthbound, a mortal being, while,
on the other, the gift of the breath of life is the God-given additional element
that enables man to survive death. In his article Taken from the Soil, Gifted
with the Breath of Life: The Anthropology of Gen 2:7 in Context, Ed Noort
states, however, that these different principles are complementary rather than
conflicting. He studies Gen 2:7 against the background of the literary tradition
of the ancient Near East, with which it has many motifs in common, such as
the thought that man is earthbound, formed or modeled from clay, along with
the thought that a second step is required to move from the model in clay
to the living being. In contrast to Mesopotamia, Genesis 2 does not suggest
a kind of mixture of divine and human essentials. There is no dualistic view
of creaturely body from below and an immortal soul from above in the non-
priestly pre-exilic text of Gen 2:7, and neither in the exilic prophetic text of
Ezek 37 nor in the wisdom reflections of Eccl 3:1921; 12:7 in Hellenistic times.
They all show a dichotomous picture in that they distinguish between the
body and the life force that animates the body. It is intangible but can be
xii introduction
discerned in the breath, the spirit, or in the blood. The active agent is God;
the context is creation/recreation and death. The breath is a complementary
but necessary element. Neither the breath nor the body is the better part of
a human being; they need each other. For the Hebrew Bible, from Genesis via
Ezekiel to Ecclesiastes, the use of dualism is not suitable.
Loren Stuckenbruck, in his article entitled Theological Anthropology
and the Enochic Book of Watchers (1 En. 616), discusses the theological anthro-
pology of the early Enochic traditions preserved in the Book of Watchers. The
place of the human being within the created order is situated in a dialogue with
the early chapters of Genesis, even though there is no citation of, or allusion to
the divine creation of Adam in Gen 2:7. In Genesis, humanity shares with the
animal world the status of being a living creature created from earth. People
have the task to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. At the same time,
among living creatures, humanity is endowed with a status that sets it apart.
It is fashioned in the image of God, and marked out by a divine bestowal of
the breath of life. Moreover, humanity functions as a steward of other parts
of the created order. In the Book of Watchers, humanity is compared with the
giants. Although the giants are regarded as misfits within the created structures
of the cosmos, they and humans have an analogous bipartite existence. They
both consist of spirit, and they both inhabit bodies. There are differences, how-
ever. In the Codex Panopolitanus, the term (souls) is withheld from the
giants, and applied exclusively to humanity. Moreover, the physical frame of
the giants could be called either body or flesh, whereas the term body is
never used for humanity. The distinction between humans and giants is further
emphasized by the attribution of blood to human beings. The bloodless giants
are thus made to shed the blood of innocent victims. The mix of spirit/soul
and flesh in humanity reflects what God gave to humans from the start. The
spirits and bodies of the giants, however, originated from a forbidden comin-
gling. Although the fallen angels and giants can be regarded as decipherable
metaphors (e.g., Diadochi: wayward priests), who have taken on objectionable
practices mediated by Hellenistic culture, 1 En. 616 does not present a social
dualism that pits one group of humans versus another; instead, it is the watch-
ers who have breached the boundaries that distinguish the heavenly from the
earthly sphere. The fundamental distinction between human nature, on the
one hand, and the demonic (which by its very nature is a perversion of the cre-
ated order), on the other, keeps humanity, in principle and as a whole, within
the purview of the divine purpose of redemption. For all the atrocities that peo-
ple, even in oppressive positions, commit against one another, there is some-
thing in human nature that, in principle, can be reclaimed by God, the creator
of all.
introduction xiii
Although Greek Jewish authors from the Roman period onwards read the
Septuaginta of Gen 2:7 through the lens of Platonic dualistic thought, there is
no reason to suppose that this was the purpose of the Greek translators roughly
three centuries earlier. In his article, Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Ver-
sions of Gen 2:7, Michal van der Meer shows that the Septuagint of Gen
2:7 played no role in the development of a dualistic anthropology. He proposes
reading the Greek translation in the light of contemporary documents from
the immediate cultural context of the Septuagint. It then becomes clear that
the Greek translators wanted to render their source text, to the best of their
abilities, in a language that was understandable for their contemporary audi-
ence. A study of the contemporary papyri makes clear that there is more of a
Greek literary context for the Septuagint than just Greek philosophical writ-
ings. By rendering the Hebrew into Greek in the way they did, the translators
often adopted words known from their cultural context. The combination of
the words ( and ; and ), however, was unprecedented, and
must have sounded strange and fascinating to Greek ears.
The Two Spirits Treatise from Qumran is usually interpreted as a unique
expression of dualistic anthropology in early Judaism. In his contribution An-
thropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two Spirits
Treatise (1qs iii, 13iv, 26) and Other Texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls, how-
ever, Mladen Popovi shows that there is in fact a lack of a clear, unequivocal
statement of dualistic anthropology in this work. Humankinds framework was
not created out of two opposing spiritual elements. Although the Two Spirits
Treatise does refer to two opposing groups of human beings, this opposition is
not strictly dualistic, since the Angel of Darkness also exerts influence over the
Sons of Light. The text is thus not concerned with expounding on a strict dual-
ism at the level of different groups of human beings. Notions of cosmological
and ethical dualism in the Two Spirits Treatise, however, are intricately con-
nected. They also exert their influence on an anthropological level, expressed
in human behavior, but this is not a dualistic anthropology.
Beatrice Wyss, in her contribution From Cosmogony to Psychology:
Philos Interpretation of Gen 2:7 in De opificio mundi, Quaestiones et solutiones
in Genesin, and Legum allegoriae, approaches Philos interpretation of Gen 2:7
in different writings. In De opificio mundi, Philo separates the man created in
Gen 1:2627 (the idea or genus of humankind) from the one molded in Gen
2:7 (the physical man), but he also brings both together in that he adopts
the Jewish reading that sees the godlikeness of the human mind realized by
the divine taking place in the human mind. De opificio mundi is a
literal account of the creation, containing many themes from, and allusions
to Platos philosophy. It can be considered as an explicitly Jewish treatment
xiv introduction
of the Timaeus. In the Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin, Philo presents

an ontological difference between the man created in Gen 1:2627 and the
physical one molded out of clay by the potter in Gen 2:7. He stresses the
composite nature of man as a conglomeration of a perishable body and a
non-perishable, immortal soul, which fits well with the Jewish division of the
realm of God (incorporeal, invisible and imperishable) from the realm of man
(corporeal, sense-perceptible and perishable). In Legum allegoriae, Philo reads
Gen 2 as a statement about the constitution of the mind, which was a popular
topic in his day. He states that there are two kinds of man: the heavenly one,
which is created according to Gods image (Gen 1:2627) and which does not
partake in perishable earthly substance, and the earthly one, which is said to
be molded out of disparate matter (Gen 2:7). The earthly man symbolizes the
mind at the moment of being incorporated into the body and before being
wholly absorbed by it. If the mind were already in the body, contact with the
divine would be impossible, since we have to suppose that the divine does not
partake in corporeal things. Without divine breath, the mind would fall into
ruin, but by means of the divine breath it is no longer merely molded but also
becomes a soul. The inspiration by God imparts the principle of life, by which
real life is differentiated from vegetative life. God breathes into the earthly man,
because God grants goodness to everyone, even to the imperfect. Moreover, this
breath serves as a basis for justice. By interpreting Gen 2:7 as mind before being
incorporated into the body, and therefore dwelling in the intelligible sphere
rather than in the realm of sense-perception, Philo manages to bypass the Stoic
connotations of a materialistic .
Rob Kugler, in his paper entitled On Anthropology and Honor in the
Testament of Job, shows that the Testament of Job has a positive view of dualistic
anthropology. He argues that the distinction between acquired and ascribed
honor that is made in the Testament of Job depends heavily on a contrast
between a kind of anthropological monism held by most characters in the story
and Jobs dualistic anthropology. Jobs understanding of the intrinsic duality
of the human being is the key to his appreciation of the dualistic cosmology
that everyone else in the narrative accepts but fails to value fully. Those who
embrace a dualistic anthropology are rewarded and satisfied with the honor
ascribed to this. When Jobs soul is carried to heaven by the heavenly one,
while his body remains behind to be buried, only he and his daughters discern
his passage between the two parts of the cosmos, and the honor this ascribes
to him for having persevered in loyalty to God. The theme of the testament
points in the direction of the second half of the first century ce, when Egyptian
Judeans were adjusting to the diminished opportunities Roman rule offered
them.
introduction xv
Reinhard Feldmeier, in his contribution on Christ As Creator: Pauls

Eschatological Reading of Gen 2:7 in 1Cor 15:45, shows how Pauls reading of
Gen 2:7 is developed in 1Cor 15. Christ is identified with Gods own life-giving
spirit. This close association of Christ and God is no exception in Pauls theol-
ogy and Christology, since this already occurred in the pre-Pauline hymn that
Paul included in his letter to the Philippians, and in which Christ is given the
name of Lord. Christs participation in Gods power as ruler of the whole world
also extends to his participation in Gods creation at the beginning. Paul distin-
guishes two Adams, probably using an exegesis of Alexandrian Judaism, where
the two creations of man in Gen 1 and 2 are interpreted as the creation of two
different men, as we have also seen in Wysss contribution. He combines this
double creation with the thought that it is the divine breath that gives immor-
tality to human beings. Pauls argumentation, however, is not protological but
eschatological: The first Adam was only a living being, doomed to death. He
caused his own death, because he did not resist the temptation of the snake
to become like God and therefore disobeyed Gods command. Christ is the last
Adam. As the Kyrios, he is identified with Gods own life-giving spirit, trans-
forming those who are doomed to die so that they attain a celestial existence.
Christ did not regard his equality to God as something to be exploited, but hum-
bled himself, taking the form of a slave, and became obedient to the point of
death. Paul does not distinguish an anthropological dualism within the human
being, between body and soul. He does distinguish, however, a dualism of rela-
tionship: He who is living in Christ is destined to be transformed by the last
Adam so he attains an everlasting existence and will bear the image of the heav-
enly man, whereas those who do not only bear the image of the earthly man
and will therefore die like the first Adam. Particularly when it comes to ethics,
Paul uses the antagonism of spirit and flesh, or, more precisely, the antagonism
between living according to the spirit and living according to the flesh.
In classical antiquity, anthropological schemes correlate with cosmological
ones, because of the view that the human being is a microcosmos. Platos bipar-
tite conception of man (soul and body), for example, strictly correlates with his
view of the cosmos (ideas and matter). The same holds true for Aristotle, since
his tripartite conception of man (intellect as opposed to soul and body) corre-
lates with his tripartite vision of the cosmos (the Unmoved Mover, the astral
sphere, and sublunar world). Even the Stoic dualistic conception of the cos-
mos (the active and passive) is determinant for the Stoics view of man (soul
and body). In his paper Anthropological Views in Nag Hammadi: The Bipartite
and Tripartite Conceptions of Human Being, Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta
shows how Gnostic texts shape their anthropological schemes. Texts including
a bipartite view of man present a bipartite view of the cosmos. They oppose
xvi introduction
divine and earthly regions in the same way that they contrast soul with body.
As for texts including a tripartite view of man (contrast of the intellect with the
soul-body conglomerate), they present a tripartite world-view (opposition of
the transcendent divine region to the realm of movement, including the astral
and earthly regions). The anthropological schemes of the Nag Hammadi texts
are due neither to the influence of a more basic Christian opposition of spir-
itual and material realities nor to the bipartite background of Gen 2:7. They
arise from the different conceptual milieus, in which the texts first saw light.
While bipartite schemes appear to remain faithful to traditional Platonism,
free of Aristotelian influences, trichotomous anthropologies reflect the tripar-
tite view of man current in Middle Platonic contexts under the influence of the
Peripatos, which from the second century onwards is more palpable thanks to
the edition of the Corpus aristotelicum by Andronicus of Rhodos more than a
century earlier.
Robert Hayward, in his paper Adam, Dust, and the Breath of Life accord-
ing to the Targumim of Gen 2:7, studies the Aramaic versions of Gen 2:7.
Targum Onqelos, Targum Neofiti, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan insist that God
created Adam (cf. Gen 1:27). They further insist that Gods breath within him
became a speaking spirit, which seems to be derived from the application of
scriptural verses from the Prophets and the Writings to Gen 2:7 in an attempt
to define what differentiated Adam as a living being from the animals as liv-
ing beings. It would seem that Ps 139, in particular, played an important part
in the thinking of at least some rabbis about the nature of Adams formation.
Adam was thus composed of both earthly and heavenly material. Targum Onqe-
los further implies, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan openly declares, that some
of the earth used in his creation was holy. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems
also to envisage an analogy between Gods mixing the dust and water, which
make up Adams body, and the mixture of holy substances by the priests in
the temple service. Fragment Targum of ms Vatican 440, which preserves a (lit-
erary) translation of only the last four words of the verse, might have been
aware of the danger involved in publishing too freely the notion that Adam
had within him a speaking spirit of divine origin. It might, therefore, have been
concerned with warning about having a too elevated view of Adam. Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan and Targum Onqelos might have been helpful in combating
gnostic, Manichean, or other dualistic-style notions about the low-grade qual-
ity of Adams formation. In particular, Targum Pseudo-Jonathans expansive
interpretation of the verse stands in complete contrast to the picture of the
human being presented in the Hodayot from Qumran, in which the physical
characteristics of humanity are intimately associated with negative qualities
like shame, iniquity, sin, and pollution.
introduction xvii
The contributions in this volume, And God Breathed into Man the Breath
of Life, suggest that the dualism of this dualistic anthropology was questioned
in different ways in early Judaism and in Christianity.
To bring to a close this introduction, we wish to express our thanks to the
Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the University of Groningen for
making the colloquium possible, both through its hospitality and through its
financial contribution. We greatly value the ongoing interest of Brill Publish-
ers in this series, and wish to thank, in particular, Loes Schouten and Tessa
Schild. Our student-assistant, Albertina Oegema, was of invaluable editorial
assistance.
Jacques van Ruiten & George van Kooten

Groningen, October 2015
Taken from the Soil, Gifted with the Breath of Life:
The Anthropology of Gen 2:7 in Context*
Ed Noort
1 Introduction
In Western culture, most people are familiar with the words from Christian
liturgy spoken at the graveside: We commit his/her body to the ground, earth
to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust.1 The quotation from Genesis until you
return to the soil (), for out of it you were taken; you are dust (),
and to dust you shall return (Gen 3:19), with Gen 2:7 in the background, has
always been understood in a dualistic way. The dark words earth, ashes, and
dust are surrounded by a statement of eternal life, in sure and certain hope
of resurrection to eternal life, inspired by the confidence that the One who
breathed life into man will also renew that life.2
Jewish liturgy uses the magnificent poem of death at the end of the book of
Ecclesiastes in the same way, stating and the dust ( )returns to the earth
( )as it was, and the breath/spirit ( )returns to God (Eccl 12:7). In the
memorial prayer, a florilegium of psalm words prepares the stage for the quote
from Ecclesiastes.3 After Ps 49:16 (Surely God will free me from the grave,
he will receive me indeed), follows Ps 73:26 (My flesh and my heart fail, yet
God is my strength forever). Without doubt the quote in the Siddur in this
context, preceded by both psalms, serves a dualistic view: the dust to the earth,
mans self, his spirit, to God. Thus, we may start with the observation that in
the history of interpretation, and especially in a confessional context, Gen 2:7
was interpreted in a dualistic way. On the one hand, man is totally earthbound,
* A German version of this article was published in Viele Wege zu dem Einen: Historische
Bibelkritik Die Vitalitt der Glaubensberlieferung in der Moderne (eds. S. Beyerle, A. Graup-
ner, U. Rterswrden; BibTS 121; Neukichen-Vluyn 2012), 122.
1 T.W. Mundahl, From Dust to Dust: An Exploration of Elemental Integrity, ww 6 (1986): 86
96, esp. 86; Lutheran Book of Worship (Minneapolis 1978), 213; Dienstboek: Een Proeve ii, Leven,
zegen, gemeenschap (PvdE 5; Zoetermeer 2004), Orde i, 915; Orde ii, 922.
2 Mundahl, Dust, 86.
3 See P. Birnbaum, ed., ( New York 1969), 665, for a memorial service on Yom
Kippur and other occasions. For both Psalms, see H. Delkurt, Der Mensch ist dem Vieh
gleich, das vertilgt wird: Tod und Hoffnung gegen den Tod in Ps 49 und bei Kohelet (BibTS 50;
Neukirchen-Vluyn 2005), 1475.
koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004334762_002

2 noort
a mortal being, dust to dust. On the other hand, the communities of faith
understood the gift of the breath of life as the God-given additional element
that enabled man to survive death.
This volume encompasses the theme of a dualistic anthropology and its
development. The central question for this paper will be whether Gen 2:7 and
other important texts from the Hebrew Bible can be qualified as dualistic.
Without doubt later times used them in such a way. Often they were read in
the light of the Paulinic asynthetic wordpair and . Nevertheless,
the question remains: Does the qualification dualistic fit the texts from the
Hebrew Bible in their own setting? It is not necessary to restart the whole
discussion of dualism and its use in theology and exegesis, for it is a long
way from its first use by Thomas Hyde (16361703) in his characterization
of Zoroastrianism to its widespread reception in philosophy and systematic
theology.4 In this paper, it is used to refer to two fundamentally different, in
some way conflicting, principles determining the existence of human beings.
That may be true for the later developments, but for the basic principles of Old
Testament anthropology, the question of complementary rather than conflicting
elements comes first. I start this paper with death, because in the world of
the Old Testament (and not only there) death defines the condition and the
borders of life. A dead body is missing something, but what? What is the
difference between a corpse and a living being?
The answers in the Hebrew Bible vary. In violent situations and in the cultic
context of the slaughter of animals, the criterion is without doubt blood.5 In
the archetypical murder in Gen 4:10, the voice of the blood of Abel cries out to
Yhwh ( from the ground/earth), which is a link to the creation of man
from the soil ( ) in Gen 2:7. In Gen 4:10, the plural of ( blood) is used.
It always means spilt blood.6 This image appears again with the cry of Job in
Job 16:18 (O, earth cover not my blood and let my cry find no resting place).
With this background, the Holiness Code in Lev 17:11 reflects the empirical,
cultic, and mythological importance of blood with the crucial statement: The
life of the flesh is in the blood () . We translated here with
life, wich is the Leitwort of Gen 2:7.
4 T. Hyde, Veterum Persarum et Parthorum et Medorum religionis historia (Oxford 1700 [1st ed.],
1760 [2nd ed.).
5 S. Anthonioz, Le sang est la vie: Rflexion sur la cration humaine (Gn 2,7), rb 116 (2009):
514.
6 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J.J. Stamm, , halot 1:215b; H. Seebass, Genesis i, Urge-
schichte (1,111,26) (Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996), 155.
taken from the soil, gifted with the breath of life 3
A second and more general answer, however, is breath. Breath marks the
difference between the dead body and the living being. Breath is needed for
life. While this is a simple remark, it means that in the creation stories an
added element plays a fundamental role. It is a complementary but necessary
element, not a conflicting one. In the healing narrative of Elijah (1 Kgs 17), the
son of the widow dies (?!)7 because his illness grew worse until he had no
breath ( )left in him (17:17). Elijah stretches his body over the child and
prays for the return of the of the boy, which happens (17:22). In the parallel
narrative in 2Kgs 4, Elisha does the same, putting his mouth on his mouth, his
eyes to his eyes and his hands on his hands (2Kgs 4:34). These stories of revival
from death reflect popular beliefs honouring the magical powers of a man of
God. Nevertheless, the anthropological view is clear: without breath there is
no life. With breath ( )we have our second keyword in Gen 2:7.
In the creation hymn, Ps 104:27, 2930, the breath of life is exclusively con-
nected with Yhwh:
27 They all wait upon you

That you may give [them] their food in due time
29 You turn your face away, they suffer,
you take away their breath (), they die
and return to their dust ()
30 You send your breath (), they are created ()
And you [i.e., Yhwh] renew the face of the earth ()
Rather than we now have , but the function is the same: where the
divine breath is lacking, creatures die. Though and have different
roots, they can be used as synonyms. In a parallelismus membrorum Isa 42:5
states:
5 Thus says God, Yhwh,

Who gives breath ( )to the people upon it [i.e., the earth]
And breath/spirit ( )to those who walk in it
7 On the one hand, does not appear here, and on the other hand Dan 10:17 and 1Kgs 10:5
demonstrate that the phrase does not always mean death. In a balanced overview, Thiel
(W. Thiel, Knige ii.1, (1Kn 17,124) [bkat 9.2.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000], 7071) concludes:
geht dem Menschen der Atem aus oder kehrt dieser zurck zu Gott oder zieht Gott
ihn wieder an sich dann stirbt der Mensch. Da in 1 Kn 17,17 nichts anderes gemeint
ist, besttigen der Kontext und die sptere Interpretation in Sir 48,5. The last argument is
conclusive.
4 noort
Job 34:1415 is even clearer:
14 If he [i.e., God] should take back his spirit ( )to himself

And gather to himself his breath ()
15 All flesh ( )would perish together
And all man ( )return to dust ()
In the story of the flood, the reversal of creation, many phrases refer to that
creation. In Gen 7:22 a remarkable combination appears, coming from a redac-
tional hand. The verse reads All, in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of
life died. At the beginning of v. 22, refers to in v. 21. The breath
of life () , however, stems from Gen 2:7. It returns here together with
the of all the animals entering the ark in Gen 7:15, normally under-
stood as a part of the priestly version of the flood story. The result is the accu-
mulation of three nouns: . The redactional hand that inserted
could connect the and the because they were synonyms for
him.
The appears next to . Both expressions have a history of their own.
In exilic and post-exilic literature they can be used as synonyms. Several texts
connect them almost exclusively with Elohim or Yhwh. Breath is a conditio
sine qua non for human beings.8 With these two nouns we are already in
the neighbourhood of the third concept used in Old Testament anthropology:
.9 Despite the long debate on under pressure from the Greek concept
of soul, the root originally means throat, the part of the body related to
8 H.W. Wolff, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (Mnchen 1973), 96101.

9 A.R. Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (2nd ed.; Cardiff
1964); B. Janowski, Konfliktgesprche mit Gott: Eine Anthropologie der Psalmen (Neukirchen-
Vluyn 2003), 44, 204214; B. Janowski, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments: Versuch einer
Grundlegung, in Anthropologische Aufbrche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinre Zu-
gnge zur historischen Anthropologie (ed. A. Wagner; frlant 232; Gttingen 2009), 1341 (lit-
erature); D. Michel, np als Leichnam?, zah 7 (1994): 8184; M. Rsel, Die Geburt der
Seele in der bersetzung: Von der hebrischen nfsch ber die psyche der lxx zur deutschen
Seele, in Anthropologische Aufbrche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinre Zugnge zur
historischen Anthropologie (ed. A. Wagner; frlant 232; Gttingen 2009), 151170; O. Sander,
Leib-Seele-Dualismus im Alten Testament?, zaw 77 (1965): 329332; H. Seebass, n-
p, ThWAT 5:531555 (literature); A. Wagner, Wider die Reduktion des Lebendigen: ber
das Verhltnis der sogenannten anthropologischen Grundbegriffe und die Unmglichkeit mit
ihnen die alttestamentliche Menschenvorstellung zu fassen, in Anthropologische Aufbrche:
Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinre Zugnge zur historischen Anthropologie (ed. A. Wag-
ner; frlant 232; Gttingen 2009), 183199; Wolff, Anthropologie, 2548.
breath, and the weakest part. Though there is a wide variety in meaning, the
most accurate description is still Johnsons vitality, supported by Seebass and
Janowski.10
2 Genesis 2:7
Genesis 2:7 is among the most quoted passages from the Hebrew Bible. Trav-
elling through time it has changed function, meanings, and contexts.11 It had
different audiences and was part of the belief systems of different groups. The
starting point, however, is the Hebrew Bible and the Near Eastern context.
Within the canonical corpus, I focus on roughly three stages in the history of
tradition: the non-priestly pre-exilic text of Gen 2:7; the exilic text of Ezek 37;
and the reflections of Eccl 3:1921; 12:7 in Hellenistic times. Both texts, Ezek 37
and Eccl 3 and 12, refer to Gen 2:7. Besides I refer to texts from the Ancient Near
East as background for Gen 2:7.
The spotlight in Gen 23 is on the . Gen 2:7 is the first main clause of
the so-called second creation story in Gen 2:53:24. There man is formed out of
clay in the same way as every animal (Gen 2:19) and becomes a
through the ( Gen 2:7). Together with his partner he is placed in
the garden of Eden, which is full of trees that provide them with food
(Gen 2:9), but the first human beings end up east of Eden with the cherubim
guarding the way to the tree of life (Gen 3:24). The is cursed because of
Adam (Gen 3:17), and man will return to the from which he was taken
(Gen 3:19 [)] , and during his life he will till the
from which he was taken (Gen 3:23).
Genesis 2:7 reads12
10 Seebass, ThWAT 5:544: Mit Johnson handelt es sich um die Vitalitt, die sprudelnde
Lebenseneregie, die Leidenschaftlichkeit, die die np auszeichnet; Janowski, Konflik-
tgesprche, 205. For the problem of the and a corpse, see Michel, Leichnam, 81
84.
11 J. Fossum, Gen 1:26 and 2:7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism, jsj 16 (1985): 202
239; L. Nasrallah, The Earthen Human, the Breathing Statue: The Sculptor God, Greco-
Roman Statuary, and Clement of Alexandria, in Beyond Eden: The Biblical Story of Paradise
(Genesis 23) and Its Reception History (ed. K. Schmid and C. Riedweg; fat 2/34; Tbingen
2008), 110140.
12 On the interesting readings of the lxx, see the article by Michael N. van der Meer in this
volume, pp. 3657.
6 noort
7aa Then Yhwh Elohim13 formed man 7aa

7ab [(of) dust] from the soil, 7ab
7ac He blew into his nostrils the breath of life 7ac
7b and man became a living being 7b
Contextually, the circumstantial clauses of v. 56, with the non-existence of

plants, herbs, rain, and man, start the biblical narrative in the classical
manner of a creation story in the Mesopotamian tradition. It is well known that
the same type of opening occurs in Enuma Elish:14
Enuma Elish 1:15
1 When on high no name was given to heaven,

2 nor earth below was called by name
6 no cane brake was intertwined nor thicket matted close,
7 when no gods at all had been brought forth,
8 none called by names, none destinies ordained,
9 then the gods were formed within them
13 lxx: in 2:5, 7, 9, 19, 21; in 2:8, 15, 16, 18, 22; 3:1, 9, 13, 14, 21, 23; 4:6, 15 (bis);
5:29; 6:3.
14 In the older literature, Enuma Elish is often called The Epic of Creation. Hallo suggests
correctly that The Exaltation of Marduk would be a better name because while the epic
starts with creation, its real focus is the kingship of Marduk over the gods after his battle
against Tiamat and the celebration of Marduks temple Esagila in Babylon (W.W. Hallo,
introduction to Epic of Creation (1.111): (Enma Elish), by B.R. Foster, in The Context of
Scripture i, Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World [ed. W.W. Hallo and K. Lawson
Younger, Jr.; Leiden 1997], 390391). On the other hand, there is proof that Enuma Elish
was meant to be recited on the fourth day of the New Year Festival in Babylon. In other
words, Enuma Elish was part of the ritual. Dalley (S. Dalley, trans., introd., and notes, Myths
from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh and Others [OxfPap; WorldClass; 2nd
ed.; Oxford 1991], 232) refers to the propaganda purposes of the ritual: To the ceremony
came governors, plenipotentiaries, courtiers, top officials, and army officers to renew their
oaths of loyalty to the king and royal family, just as the gods swore an oath to Marduk
(or ) When the Kings subjects kiss his feet, they are doing no less than the great
gods of heaven and earth did for Marduk. There is no question of rivalry; loyal support
is absolute.
15 Cf. B.R. Foster, Epic of Creation (1.111): (Enma Elish), in The Context of Scripture i,
Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World (ed. W.W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger,
Jr.; Leiden 1997), 391.
The negations, both in the Hebrew Bible (no plant, no herb, no one to till)
and in the Ancient Near East (no name, no earth, no gods), prepare the stage
for the creative act of the deity in the main clause. Before Gen 2:7 does so,
there is, however, a remarkable first act. Between the missing rain of Gen 2:5
and the moulding of man in Gen 2:7, Gen 2:6 confronts us with the , often
translated as mist or stream, rising up from the earth. The poetic word
appears elsewhere only in Job 36:27, where it refers to water falling from the
clouds, a meaning that does not fit the verb ( to rise) from the in
Gen 2:7.16 The image probably aims at a spring, as the versiones17 understand
it, fed by the freshwater ocean aps18 and moistening the earth.
With a reference to Rashi, Benno Jacob has suggested that the uncommon,
poetic noun was chosen for a wordplay with and which seems
a real possibility.19 Whether Jacobs midrashic statement, it looks like half a
and an incomplete is also right, I am not so sure. Rashi and others
took up the midrash that says that the water moistened the dust, preparing
the clay for the divine potter. Now the moistened was ready for the next
step: the moulding of man. Nevertheless several scholars want to separate Gen
2:5 and Gen 2:7 from Gen 2:6, arguing that Gen 2:6 differs from the when
not or als noch nicht construction in Gen 2:5 through a positive act of
creation. Westermann and others understand the watering of the earth as the
first creation act.20 The better solution, however, is to explain Gen 2:6 as the
first step for Gen 2:7. The potter-artist of Gen 2:7 needs moistened material for
the moulding of man. Therefore, Gen 2:6 and Gen 2:7 belong together as Rashi
and Jacob proposed.
The verb in Gen 2:7 refers, though not exclusively, to the work of the
potter. Two-thirds of the references have God as a subject, for example, Isa
64:7 (Yet, Yhwh, you are our Father, we are the clay [ ]and you are our
potter).21 God forms people, animals, the dry land, and the mountains, but also
the light and the seasons. The counter-argument that the normal expression for
clay ( )is not used in Gen 2:7 is not that important. The moistened as
material fits with the image of the potter-artist.
16 C. Westermann, Genesis i, Genesis 111 (bkat 1.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974), 273.

17 lxx: ; Vg.: fons.
18 U. Rterswrden, Dominium terrae: Studien zur Genese einer alttestamentlichen Vorstel-
lung (bzaw 215; Berlin 1993), 1113, 1722 (Iconography of Enki and the aps), 2326 (Trans-
fer of the images on El).
19 B. Jacob, trans. and comm., Das erste Buch der Tora: Genesis (Berlin 1934), 8283.
20 Westermann, Genesis i, Genesis 111, 274.
21 Cf. Isa 29:16; 45:9.
8 noort
There is yet another problem with Gen 2:7a to resolve. The syntactical
construction of the verb with its first object followed by a second
object is a strange one. Many scholars refer to gkb 117hh,22 for the
possibility of such a second, material object and, indeed, the possibility exists.
In the direct context, however, God makes trees ( Gen 2:9), animals
( Gen 2:19), and man returns ( 3:19a) without mention of
. The crucial qualification only appears in Gen 3:19b (Dust are you, and to
dust you will return). It is this essential qualification of human existence that
returns in all later stages of the reception history. Man is dust. However, if man
is dust, he must have been made out of dust. Therefore a later hand corrected
Gen 2:7that man was made only adding .
After the forming of man, it is said that Yhwh blew into his nostrils the
breath of life () . We have already seen that and sometimes
occur in parallel. In fact, ( breath) is a narrower and rarer term than
(wind, spirit).23 In this case, the breath of life is the ability to breathe. It starts
at mans creation or birth and ends with his death. Indeed a definition of death
could be non-breathing.
Koch has proposed a more specific meaning of .24 His first obser-
vation is that the same expressions are used for the creation of animals and
human beings. Yhwh Elohim forms ( )the animals ( Gen 2:19). At the
end of Gen 2:19 they are ( living creatures). Thus, the beginningbeing
moulded out of the soil and the results of becoming a living creatureare the
same for man and animal. The second step for man is the blowing of the breath
of life into mans nostrils by Yhwh. However, this particular step seems not to
be necessary for the animals. The breath of life for animals is missing here, yet
animals also need to breathe. Mitchell demonstrated in 1961 that always
has to do with human life and/or with divine actions. It never refers to ani-
mals.25 Therefore Koch concluded that a general meaning such as breath for
all creatures cannot be sustained. What do humans have that animals do not?
A first clue could be the verbal use of the stem in Isa 42:14 (Now I will cry
out like a woman in labor). Here the verb has to do with speech, and indeed
22 E. Kautzsch, ed., Wilhelm Gesenius Hebrischer Grammatik (ed. G. Bergstrsser; 28th ed.;
Hildesheim 1962 [repr. of Leipzig 1909]), 117hh (p. 386).
23 G.J. Wenham, Genesis 115 (wbc 1; Waco, Tex., 1987), 60.
24 K. Koch, Der Gter Gefhrlichstes, die Sprache, dem Menschen gegeben : berlegungen
zu Gen 2,7, bn 48 (1988): 5060; repr. in Spuren des hebrischen Denkens: Beitrge zur
alttestamentlichen Theologie (K. Koch; ed. B. Janowski and M. Krause; ga 1; Neukirchen-
Vluyn 1991), 238247.
25 T.C. Mitchell, The Old Testament Usage of neama, vt 11 (1961): 177187.
the Targumim interpret the as the ability to speak. Therefore Koch

proposes reading as the gift of speech. Focusing on Gen 2, his pro-
posal would work. Adam understands the words of Yhwh in Gen 2:16, 17. He is
in need of speech during the act of giving names to all the animals (Gen 2:19),
and he exclaims that his real partner is a ( Gen 2:23). In this sense it is an
attractive proposal. Nevertheless, it seems too limited for the later use of .
For instance, Job 32:8 reads But truly it is the spirit ( )in a mortal, the breath
of the Almighty () , that makes for understanding. This understand-
ing is much more than mere speech. Moreover, Yhwh Elohim blows the
into the nostrils of his creature. If the breath of life indeed meant the
ability to speak one would expect that not the nostrils but the mouth would
be the object of the divine act. In biblical language the mouth is connected to
speech, the nostrils with breath. Clearly, there is a difference between the ani-
mals and human beings in the story of creation. However, the focus is on the
question of whether animals could really be the helper of Gen 2:18, the solu-
tion to the problem that it is not good that man should be alone. The same
can be asked of the woman created by Yhwh (Gen 2:22). Here the breath of
life is also absent. The breath of life is specifically bound to the first moment
of Yhwhs moulding of man from the soil. Therefore I understand in
the classical way as the intangible life force which animates the body. Nothing
more and nothing less.
3 Texts from the Ancient Near East
The narrative of Gen 2 does not have a direct parallel in the Ancient Near East,
in contrast to the flood narratives where there is a direct relationship or depen-
dence. Nevertheless, there is a general pattern of how man came into being,
how he stands in the world and toward his god(s), how he deals with mortality,
and how the world at the beginning is related to the world experienced by the
reader of the texts. The strongest links are with Mesopotamia. Sometimes there
are common motifs, sometimes the biblical authors choose different paths and
different answers.
Dietrich has revealed some of the most important parallels.26 From the
E-abzu temple of the creator-god Enki in Eridu stems the Sumerian Enki and
26 M. Dietrich, Die Menschenschpfung im Garten Eden: Ein mesopotamischer Mythos im

Alten Testament, in Mythen der Anderen: Mythopoetik und Interkulturalitt (ed. M. Diet-
rich; mar 16; Mnster 2004), 2133.
10 noort
Ninmach Myth. As in some other myths, man is created to relieve the gods from
their hard labour.27 Asked by his mother Nammu, Enki, the creator, who forms
all things, makes the sig7-en-sig7-r, a model of man to which he adds arms,
forms his breast, and introduces his wisdom. However, it is the mother-goddess
herself who must give birth to the model, and thus it happens: man is formed
by the creator-god Enki but brought to life by the mother-goddess.28
In the Akkadian Enuma Elish, the gods need humans to enjoy their status
as gods, to be relieved from their toil. Thus, Marduk plans to create Lull-man,
the primordial man, amelu-man will be his name.29 Something of the divine
should be in man and therefore the god Kingu, who conspired with Tiamat, is
slaughtered. With the help of his blood the god Ea/Enki creates man: After Ea,
the wise, had created mankind, he imposed upon it the service of the gods.30
Berossos, the Marduk priest in Babylon at the beginning of the third century
bce, knows the tradition that the blood of the slaughtered god was mixed with
clay. Man is not only formed from divine (criminal) blood, but also from earthly
material. The divine blood, however, gave man some divine qualities.
The Atrahasis Epic starts with a long prehistory. In the very beginning the
gods themselves did the heavy work of digging the canals and maintaining
irrigation. After an uprising of the Igigu gods a new category of workers was
needed to take over the toil of the lower gods. The wise god Enki then proposes
slaughtering a god and mixing his flesh and blood with clay.31 In this case, it is
the God Awlu (dpi=(getu).e) who is the victim of the proposal in the council
of the gods. He is a god who has organizational skills32 which humans will need
to take over the workload of the gods. After the slaughtering of the god, blood,
flesh, and clay are mixed and the gods spit on the clay. The gender problem is
solved by the creation of seven males and seven females. This all belongs to the
preparation, the first steps of creation. The next step, coming to life, again relies
on the mother-goddess, who gives birth to man.
The Epic of Gilgamesh describes the creation of Enkidu, the companion
of Gilgamesh. He is created by Aruru: Aruru washed her hands, pinched off
27 Enki and Ninmach Myth 1.910a: The senior gods did oversee the work, while the minor
gods were bearing the toil. The gods were digging the canals
28 M. Dietrich, Die Ttung einer Gottheit in der Eridu-Babylon-Mythologie, in Ernten, was
man st: Festschrift fr Klaus Koch zu seinem 65. Geburtstag (ed. D.R. Daniels, U. Glessmer,
and M. Rsel; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1991), 4973.
29 Enuma Elish 6.67.
30 Enuma Elish 6.3536.
31 Dietrich, Ttung, 63; Atrahasis Epic 1.204212, 223233.
32 German: Planungsfhigkeit.
a piece of clay, cast it out into open country. She created a [primitive man],
Enkidu the Warrior.33 Enkidu lives with the animals, as one of them. Here
sexuality and sexual contact make him wise; making him a real man.34
In the kar 4 Myth, which survives in both Sumerian and Akkadian versions,
two (or more) gods are slaughtered.35 Let us slay both Alla gods, with their
blood let us create mankind. The service of the gods be their portion for all
times.36 The motif is the same. Humans are needed to take over the work of
the gods and to serve the gods. The slaughtered gods are craftsmen. In this case,
the first humans have names: Ullegarra and Annegarra. They are probably the
first pair, male and female.
Looking back at this short overview it is remarkable that the Genesis tra-
dition has many motifs in common with the literary tradition of the Ancient
Near East. There is the common thought that man is earthbound, formed or
modelled in clay. There is the common motif that a second step is required to
move from the model in clay to the living being: birth by the mother-goddess in
Mesopotamia, by the breath of life in Gen 2. The motif of the slaughtered god
stresses the fact that man has some divine qualities. Sometimes the slaughter
is a punishment for revolt, sometimes the deity is chosen for his capacities and
characteristics.
Genesis 2, however, does not suggest this kind of mixture of divine and
human essentials. If we still suppose that the non-priestly version of Gen 2
belongs to the older narrative, the priestly account of the creation story of Gen
1 could be a correction of or a supplement to the anthropology of Gen 2. The
enigmatic formula of the creation of man in the image of God (1:27), male and
female, could be an expansion and/or correction of Gen 2:7.
In Mesopotamia, man is created to take over the toil of the gods, a motif that
does not return in Gen 2. Man is taken by Yhwh Elohim and put in the garden
of Eden to till it and keep it (2:15). This is also work, but not in the sense of the
Mesopotamian tradition of taking over the toil of the gods and the heavy work
of digging and maintaining the canals.
The Mesopotamian and the biblical myths ask the same questions about
the relationship between man, god(s), and world and they use the same ele-
ments in describing the situation occurring in the beginning. Nevertheless,
the answers differ because of their narrative context, their social and cultural
embeddedness, and the plot of the narratives. There is common ground, there
33 Epic of Gilgamesh 1.3441.

34 Epic of Gilgamesh 1.4.634.
35 See the discussion in Dietrich, Ttung, 68n49.
36 kar 4 Myth 2426.
12 noort
are common motifs, but there is no direct dependence. Here the creation nar-
ratives differ from the stories of the flood.
4 Ezekiel 37:110
During the long, colourful history of the reception of the dramatic vision in
Ezek 37 most attention has been paid to the problem of resurrection. My
focus is on the process of revival in Ezek 37:110. The exceptional situation is
described with a twofold in Ezek 37:2.
The prophet sees a plain full of scattered bones and exclaims: see, they were
very dry! This is the most radical image of death. More death is not possible.
The crucial question and answer appear in Ezek 37:3. Here Yhwh addresses the
prophet as ( sic!) and asks: Son of man, can these bones come to life
again? Here, on the edge of life and death the prophet returns the question to
the hands of God: (Only), you, [Lord] Yhwh know!
In his speaking to the bones (Ezek 37:5), the ultimate concern of the proph-
ecy is visible: See, I will put the spirit ()37 in you, so that you come to
life! The text refers to two stages of revivification: a rustling of bones moving
together (Ezek 37:7) and afterwards the appearance of sinews, flesh, and skin,
but there is still no life, no ( Ezek 37:8). No wonder that Ezek 37:9 describes
them as ( slain, corpses).
The difference is made by Ezek 37:9 and Ezek 37:10. The different semantic
fields of allow the wordplay in Ezek 37:9: Come from the four winds (),
o spirit (), and breathe on these slain, and thus it happens. Nevertheless, it
is not only a wordplay. Here the comes from all directions of the compass.
By this mighty spirit even the very dead can be revived.
A remarkable step is made in the second part of the vision. In the explana-
tion of Ezek 37:14, the is explicitly called the spirit of Yhwh, cq. my spirit
(). Here the intertextual link with Ezek 36:2627 cannot be overlooked:
And I will give you a new heart and I will put a new spirit within you I will
put my spirit ( )within you. The revivification of Ezek 37 is the recreation
of Ezek 36.
In the vision of the priest-prophet Ezekiel, anatomy plays a more important
role than in the myth of Gen 2. Genesis wanted to state that man is earthbound
and nevertheless comes to life. Breath is the difference between life and death.
Ezekiel starts with the ugliest and most radical face of death: dry shattered
37 lxx adds (b. of life), without doubt a reference to Gen 2:7.

bones. The image is probably that of a battlefield, the result of a violent event.
After all, the narrow corridor of Palestine is the battleground par excellence for
the states in the Near East.
The dichotomy that Gen 2:7, Ezek 37, and Ecclesiastes have in common is a
dichotomous picture: It is not to be confused with Idealisms dualistic concept
of man, insofar as it does not contrast a creaturely body which is from below
with an immortal soul which is from above. Rather it distinguishes between
the body, which can be seen with the eyes and felt with the hands, and the life
force, which animates the body, is intangible but no less effective and can be
discerned in the breath,38 the spirit or, in another context, in the blood.
5 Ecclesiastes 3:1921; 12:7
The first passage related to the anthropology under discussion is Eccl 3:1921.
Verse 19aa reads For the fate39 of the humans ( ) and the fate of animals
(), for them there is one [and the same] fate. Verse 19abac continues
As one dies, so does the other, they all have one breath (). Verse 19ba
follows with and the distinction of over the animal, there is none, for
everything is . Verse 20 confirms the harsh sayings of v. 19 with a reference
to Gen 2:7 in its final version and Gen 3:19 (All go to one place, all come from
the dust [ ]and all return to the dust [)]. The message of these verses is
clear. Earlier in his book Ecclesiastes concluded that there is a common fate for
all creatures. He touches upon the question of the wise and the foolish (Eccl
2:1416) and their common death. In the case of the comparison of humans
and animals, Ecclesiastes emphasizes that the levelling effect of death is made
more poignant than before. Human beings have one breath, just like animals,
and they die just like animals. As the wise die like fools, so people die like
animals. As far as mortality is concerned, there is no difference between the
wise and the foolish, or people and animals.40 If this message is so clear, how
should we deal with Eccl 3:21? The mt, with the vocalization of the full qamets
in and the patakh-dagesh in together with the article, must be
translated as Who knows the of the , that goes upward on high
and the of animals that goes down to the earth? Here it is already clear
38 W. Zimmerli, Ezekiel: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel ii, Chapters 2548
(trans. J.D. Martin; ed. P.D. Hanson and L.J. Greenspoon; Hermeneia; Philadelphia 1983),
261.
39 For ( fate), the construct noun ( the fate of ) should be read.
40 C.L. Seow, trans., introd., and comm., Ecclesiastes (ab 18c; New York, n.y., 1997), 175.
14 noort
that the breath/spirit of humans goes upward and the breath/spirit of animals
goes down. Probably, the best view is that this vocalization is a masoretic,
dogmatic correction.41 In line with the statement of Eccl 3:1920, 21 presents a
rhetorical question, opposing the view that there is a different fate for humans.
The question who knows that the of man goes upward on high and that
the of animals goes down to the earth?, should be answered nobody
knows!
I argue that there is no contradiction with the saying of the magnificent
poem on death and dying in Eccl 12, especially Eccl 12:7, the last words of
Ecclesiastes before one or two epilogists take up the difficult task of bringing
Ecclesiastes in line with the traditional focus on death and old age. This last
part starts with a hymn to the sunlight and youth in Eccl 11:7, while Eccl 12:1
starts with an unexpected formulation: Remember your in the days of
your youth. Several solutions have been discussed: ( the well), ( the
pit, the grave), or, parallel to Prov 5:1518, your wife. None of the alternatives
is really convincing. Therefore, the best solution is to stay with the participle of
> and read the singular form as the versiones do: Remember your
Creator. The text functions as a bridge between the call to rejoice over youth
and life of Eccl 11:9 and the awaiting of old age and death of Eccl 12:1b7. The
poem in Eccl 12:1b7 has several layers of meaning according to Fox.42 It may
describe a funeral in a literal way, but there is an interaction between the
literal and symbolic meanings.43 The poems purpose is to create an attitude
toward aging and, more importantly, death.44
Whether we read the poem literally, symbolically, or partly allegorically, two
verses (12:5, 7) are important for the theme of this paper. Ecclesiastes 12:5ba
reads ( For man goes to his eternal home). According
to Seow and most commentators, ( eternal home) is the semantic
equivalent of the Egyptian house of eternity, meaning the grave, as
grave is even confirmed by Deir Alla, by Punic texts, texts from Palmyra, and
41 A. Lauha, Kohelet (bkat 19; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978), 77: Die Textform von m verkehrt aber
den ursprnglichen Gedanken in sein Gegenteil; T. Krger, Kohelet (Prediger) (bkat 19
[Sonderband]; Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000), 168 on 3:21a: mt liest aus dogmatischen Grnden
den Artikel: Wer kennt den Lebensgeist des Menschen, der nach oben aufsteigt und den
Lebensgeist der Tiere, der hinabsteigt, zur Erde hinunter? Die Aussage des Textes wird
damit auf den Kopf gestellt. Seow (Seow, Ecclesiastes, 168) is more careful but insists on
the message, People and animals have the same fate (176).
42 M.V. Fox, Aging and Death in Qohelet 12, jsot 42 (1988): 5577.
43 Krger, Kohelet (Prediger), 352.
44 Fox, Aging and Death, 71.
even by contracts from Murabaat.45 The lamp and the fountain in v. 6 picture
the advent of death. Finally, 12:7 describes the death of man with the image of
the final form of Gen 2:7: And the dust ( )returns to the earth ( )as it
was, and the breath/spirit ( )returns to God who gave it.
In the later reception history of Ecclesiastes, the question arose concerning
whether Ecclesiastes offers an escape here: the body goes to the earth, but
the spirit goes to God, thus supposing that creatures possess some significant
element that remains after death and returns to God. However, with respect to
the message of Ecclesiastes this does not make sense.
In line with all his other statements about death, the totality, the bitterness
of death, death making life a problem (9:5, 10), Ecclesiastes describes death here
as the undoing of creation. God formed man from the dust, breathed into him
the breath of life, at his death the goes back to the earth and God takes back
the breath he gave. There is not the slightest indication in the entire book that
Ecclesiastes reflected on something other than the undoing of creation.
5 Conclusion
This paper surveyed three different textual units, a narrative (Gen 2), a prophet-
ic vision (Ezek 37) and a wisdom reflexion (Eccl 3:1921; 12:5, 7). They cover
a pre-exilic, an exilic and a Hellenistic stage. We may assume that the latter
two were familiar with the Genesis text. The three texts mark the difference
between life and death. In all three cases breath (, )is the distinction
between a moulded form, a corpse and a living human being. The active agent is
God, the context is (re)creation and death. The breath is a complementary, but
necessary element. It is never a conflicting one. Neither in Gen 2:7, nor in Ezek
37 and Eccl 12 breath and body are conflicting principles. Neither the breath,
nor the body are the better parts of a human being, they need each other. For
the Hebrew Bible, from Genesis via Ezekiel to Ecclesiastes, the use of dualism
is not suitable.
45 Seow, Ecclesiastes, 364.

Theological Anthropology and the Enochic Book of
Watchers (1 En. 616)
1 Introduction
Nowhere in 1Enoch is there a discernible citation of or allusion to the divine

creation of Adam in Gen 2:7. Nevertheless, as the following discussion will
argue, a not entirely different theological anthropology emerges in the early
Enochic traditions preserved in the Book of Watchers. Thus, in turn, the place
of the human being within the created order as the Enochic texts preserve can
be placed in conversation with the early chapters of Genesis. In particular, the
present paper shall take the core units of the Book of Watcherschs. 611 and
1216as a point of departure.
Before outlining what the early Enochic tradition has to say about human
beings, we may appropriately begin with a brief summary of what the opening
chapters of Genesis divulge in this regard.1 In the Priestly and Yahwist creation
accounts of Gen 1 and 2, respectively, the human being, though having much
in common with other beings of the created order, ultimately occupies a dis-
tinctive place. On the one hand, humanity shares with the animal world the
status of being a living creature (Gen 2:7 [ ; ]; cf. 1:20, 24).
In addition, along with animals, humans are told to be fruitful and multiply
and fill the earth (so 1:28 [ ;
]; 9:7; cf. 1:22; 9:1). Furthermore, according to the Yahwist, not
1 Of course, the place of humanity within creation, in both creatureliness and distinctive
features, merits investigation on its own; see, e.g., the contribution by Ed Noort in this volume.
The outline here is, in part, informed through observations made by the still foundational,
though one-sidedly source-critical discussions of H. Gunkel, trans. and comm., Genesis (6th
ed.; ghkat 1; Gttingen 1964), 159, 101137; O. Procksch, trans. and comm., Die Genesis (2nd
and 3rd ed.; kat 1; Leipzig 1924), 1363, 436467; C. Westermann, Genesis 111: A Continental
Commentary (trans. J.J. Scullion; Minneapolis 1994; 2nd ed. from C. Westermann, Genesis 1
11 [2nd ed.; EdF 7; Darmstadt 1976]), 74383. Of particular relevance here are the articles
by Tucker (G.M. Tucker, Rain on a Land Where No One Lives: The Hebrew Bible and the
Environment, jbl 116 [1997]: 317 [on Gen 13]) and Hendel (R. Hendel, The Nephilim Were
on the Earth: Genesis 6:14 and Its Ancient Near Eastern Context, in The Fall of the Angels
[ed. C. Auffarth and L.T. Stuckenbruck; tbn 6; Leiden 2004], 1134 [on Gen 6:14]).

theological anthropology and the enochic book of watchers 17
only humans (2:7) but also animals are created from the ground (2:19 [
; ]). On the other hand, among living creatures, humanity holds
a status that is set apart. In the Priestly account, it is humanitymale and
femalethat is fashioned in the image of God (1:2627 [ ;
]), while according to the Yahwist narrative the human being is marked out
by a divine bestowal of the breath of life (2:7 [ ; ]). More-
over, the instruction to be fruitful and multiply, given to humans and animals
alike, is accompanied in ch. 1 by the further statement that humans can sub-
due and have dominion over the animals (1:28 [i.e., over fish, birds, and land
creatures]), while replenishing plants and fruit trees are given as food supply
(1:29). This special function of humans as stewards of other parts of the created
order is echoed in ch. 2 by the Yahwist as Adam is commissioned to work the
ground (2:15; cf. 2:5).
Although things go wrong in Eden through Adam and Eves disobedience
in ch. 3, the elements which distinguished humanity from the other creatures
persist. Explicitly, what remains intact is the human ability to engage in agri-
cultural activity (3:23) and, significantly, the ongoing status of humans to be
in the image of God (5:1 [ ; ]; cf. 9:6).2 New devel-
opments, however, manifest themselves. Now the bearing of children by the
woman (3:16) and the tilling of soil for food by the man (3:1719; 5:29) are
accompanied, respectively, by pain ( ;) and toil ( ;). And, as
the narrative unfolds, readers become aware of rising conflict (4:116 [between
Cain and Abel]) and the human origination of culture (esp. 4:2022 [dwelling in
tents, raising cattle, making of musical instruments, and fashioning of bronze
and iron]). Although the biblical story does not focus on the emergence of
human culture as negative developmentin fact, the text offers no obvious
value judgmentit does arise in the aftermath of the foregoing stories of dis-
obedience and murder. Thus when an audience of the early chapters of Genesis
encounters events leading up to the narrative of the great flood (5:286:22),
Noahs birth is made to coincide with relief from the hard labour associated
with tilling the ground that God had cursed (5:29). Correspondingly, conditions
leading up to the deluge are fraught with the increase of evil through violence
among humans (6:57, 1113; cf. v. 3 [which introduces flesh as a problem-
atic feature of the human being]) although, analogous to the notices about the
development of culture in 4:2022, the description of the activities of the sons
2 Though the term ( likeness) replaces ( image; cf. Gen 1:27), it derives from Gen 1:26
([ according to our likeness]), where it stands in parallel with ( according to
our image).
18 stuckenbruck
of God as they sired offspring through the daughters of humanity remains

remarkably neutral in tone (6:12, 4).3
2 Elements Shared by the Book of Watchers and Genesis
A number of the features just described occur also in the Book of Watchers
(1 En. 136) in the Ethiopic version,4 supported by the Greek5 and, occasion-
ally, the fragmentary Aramaic Dead Sea manuscripts.6 First, the events asso-
ciated in Genesis with Eden, in the Enochic tradition called the paradise of
righteousness, are very briefly and vaguely recounted (1 En. 32:36), includ-
ing the note that the aged father and aged mother (Adam and Eve) were
driven from the garden when they learned wisdom by eating from the magnif-
icent tree of wisdom. However, unlike the Genesis account, nothing is stated
regarding any consequence (e.g., for child bearing and tilling the ground) of
what happened there. Second, as is well known, the deterioration of culture is
directly assigned to the seditious angels, the sons of heaven (6:2 Eth. and Gk.
Codex Panopolitanus [also known as the Gizeh Papyrus; hereafter Cod.Pan.]),
who instruct humans in the fashioning of metals for jewellery and weapons,
beautification techniques, herbal medications, and the reading and interpre-
tation of prognosticating signs (7:1; 8:13). Here, the expressions of culture, as
3 It is difficult to know which traditions behind Gen 6:14 are presupposed to have been known
among early hearers and readers of the text; the extent to which the sons of God and their
progeny are considered evil in the passage depends in part on the character of the traditions
underlying it; cf. Hendel, The Nephilim, 2332 (discussion of the Canaanite, Phoenician,
Mesopotamian, and Greek myths).
4 For a recent discussion on the relative value of the Ethiopic recensions, see L.T. Stuckenbruck,
1Enoch 91108 (cejl; Berlin 2007), 1926. My translations below from the Ethiopic, unless
otherwise indicated, adhere wherever possible to the earlier Eth. i recension.
5 Citations of the Gk. Codex Panopolitanus are based on the edition by M. Black, ed., Apoc-
alypsis Henochi graece (pvtg 3; Leiden 1970). Text cited and translated from the Syncellus
fragments is based on the edition by A.A. Mosshammer, ed., Georgii Syncelli Ecloga chrono-
graphica (Teubner; Leipzig 1984).
6 See J.T. Milik, ed., The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrn Cave 4 (Oxford 1976) and
L.T. Stuckenbruck, 201 28: 4QEnocha ar, in Qumran Cave 4.xxvi: Cryptic Texts; Miscellanea,
Part 1 (S.J. Pfann; P. Alexander et al.; djd 36; Oxford 2000), 37. For the citations below from
the Book of Giants, which is closely related to early Enochic traditions, see . Puech, 530533,
203 1: 4QLivre des, Gantsbe ar, in Qumrn Grotte 4.xxii: Textes aramens, premire partie,
4q529549 (. Puech; djd 31; Oxford 2001), 9115 and Stuckenbruck, 201 28: 4QEnocha ar,
894.
described above, are presented as a categorically bad development, attributed

to instructions of rebellious angels. Third, the deterioration of culture and vio-
lence against the created order run in parallel. While the fallen angels instruct
humans in how to engage in reprehensible activities, their offspring, the giants,
whose appetites are insatiable, make impossible demands of human whom
they compel to feed them (7:35). The giants not only force humans into agri-
cultural slavery and turn to cannibalism and destroy animalsland, sea, and
air creatures (7:5), they even begin to devour one anothers flesh7 and
to drink blood8 (7:5; cf. 1 En. 88:2; Jub. 5:9; 7:22), so that the ante-diluvian
evils assume dimensions of an environmental catastrophe.9 In its complex
narrative about events leading up to the great flood,10 the Enochic tradition
of the Book of Watchers, in contrast to the Gen 6, portrays human beings
as victims of oppressive forces represented most immediately by the fallen
angels offspring and, with less emphasis, as complicit in following the angels
instructions (7:1; 8:13), instructions which the writer(s) regarded as objection-
able.
3 1Enoch 616: The Theological Anthropology of Giants and

Humanity Compared
The details given about the giants physique (7:3) and the flesh of one another
that they devour (7:5) presuppose an awareness of a certain analogy between
the nature of the giants and that of humanity. Here, the Enochic tradition,
especially through the divine speech in 1 En. 15 and 16, reflects an understanding
7 The text of 4q201 iii, 21 has ( ]Cod.Pan. [ ]).

8 Extant in 4q202 1 ii, 25a (supralinear) ( ]Cod.Pan. [ ]).
9 The Book of Giants retells and perhaps expands on this tradition to include vegetation such
as seed yielding plants, grain, and trees (4q531 1; 23), no doubt an allusion to Gen 1:1112,
29.
10 The combination of three distinguishable strands in the present form of chs. 611 has been
noted by a number of scholars. See esp. P. Hanson, Rebellion in Heaven, Azazel, and Euhe-
meristic Heroes in 1 Enoch 611, jbl 96 (1977): 195233; G.W.E. Nickelsburg, Apocalyptic
and Myth in 1Enoch 611, jbl 96 (1977): 383405; J.J. Collins, Methodological Issues in the
Study of 1Enoch: Reflections on the Articles of P. D. Hanson and G. W. Nickelsburg, sbl
Seminar Papers, 1978 (2 vols.; sblsp 13; Missoula 1978), 1:315322; D. Dimant, 1Enoch 611:
A Methodological Perspective, sbl Seminar Papers, 1978 (2 vols.; sblsp 13; Missoula 1978),
1:323339; C. Newsom, The Development of 1 Enoch 619: Cosmology and Judgment, cbq
24 (1980): 310329.
20 stuckenbruck
of what a human being is based on the inadmissible nature embodied by

the giants. In order to clarify the theological anthropology sustained in the
tradition, it is necessary to recount what is said about the giants whose very
being stands in deliberate contrast.11
Within the context of his visionary encounter in the heavenly throne room,
Enoch is instructed by God what to say in response to the rebellious angels
pleas for mercy (1 En. 15:116:4). According to the speech, attributed to God,
the fallen angels (called watchers of heaven in 15:2), have violated the created
order, which was originally set up in distinct parts with boundaries between
them: the heavenly sphere of spirits (15:6, 10), on the one hand, and the earthly
(human) sphere of flesh and blood (15:4, 6), on the other. By abandoning
their heavenly dwelling and impregnating the women of the earth, they are
held responsible for having sired a hybrid race of giants. This gargantuan race,
produced through an intermingling of flesh (from the human, earthly side)
and spirit (from the angelic, heavenly side), embodies spheres created to be
separate. Illegitimate by their very nature, the giants are branded mamzerim (1
En. 10:9 Cod.Pan. []).12
Now, although the giants are regarded as misfits within the created struc-
tures of the cosmos, they and humans have, on the surface of things, an anal-
ogous bipartite existence. With respect to non-physical existence, the giants,
by virtue of being sired by the angels, consist of spirit (cf. 1 En. 15:816:1).13 A
similar dimension is attributed to humans (9:3, 10 [Eth. nafest; Gk. Cod.Pan.
11 For more thorough analysis and description of the giants nature in Enochic tradition, see
esp. A.T. Wright, The Origin of Evil Spirits: The Reception of Genesis 6.14 in Early Jewish
Literature (wunt 2/198; Tbingen 2005), esp. 96177 and, with a focus on its elabora-
tion in the Book of Giants, L.T. Stuckenbruck, Giant Mythology and Demonology: From
the Ancient Near East to the Dead Sea Scrolls, in Die Dmonen: Die Dmonologie der
israelitisch-jdischen und frhchristlichen Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt / Demons: The
Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early Christian Literature in Context of Their Environ-
ment (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and K.F. Diethard Rmheld; Tbingen 2003), 318
338; L.T. Stuckenbruck, The Origins of Evil in Jewish Apocalyptic Tradition: The Inter-
pretation of Genesis 6:14 in the Second and Third Centuries b.c.e., in The Fall of the
Angels (ed. C. Auffarth and L.T. Stuckenbruck; tbn 6; Leiden 2004), 87118, esp. 104
109.
12 The Gk. transliterates the term ( Heb.) or ( Aram.); in several cases among
the Heb. Dead Sea documents refers to the spirits of the giants which are
regarded as demonic beings; cf. 4q510 1, 5; 4q511 35, 7; 48+49+51, 23; 4q444 2 i, 4.
13 Eth. uses pl. nafest, nfest, and manfest interchangeably; Gk. Codex Panopolitanus and
Syncellus have .
;14 from Heb./Aram. 15).16 Although the Aramaic vocabulary behind

the terms for the angels and giants spirits in 1 En. 1516 cannot be confirmed
(e.g., as / )for lack of preserved text, it is significant that the Codex
Panopolitanus withholds the term (souls) from the giants,17 unless
it is further qualified further by flesh (cf. 16:1 [spirits which proceed from
the soul of their flesh]). When standing alone, is applied exclusively to
(deceased) humanity, a distinguishing feature that was lost when the text was
translated into Ethiopic. This choice of vocabulary in Codex Panopolitanus,
which restricts the absolute use of souls to human beings alone, steers in a
different direction from the Greek translation tradition for Genesis in which
living soul is casually applied to the animal world as well (cf. Gen 1:21, 24; 2:19).
With respect to physical existence, both the giants and human beings inhab-
it bodies. The physical frame of the giants could be called either body (15:9
[Cod.Pan. ;18 Eth. seg]) or flesh (7:5 [ in 4q201 1 iii, 21; 4q202 1 ii, 25a;
16:1; in a more qualified sense Cod.Pan. ; Eth. nfesta
seghomu]).19 Humanity is also endowed with flesh (15:4 [bis]), while in the
Greek textual traditions the term body () is never used. As will be noted
further below, the term blood is also associated with the humans physical
being. In fact, both times when humans are associated with flesh in 15:4, the
term /seg is associated with blood. In the first instance, the life force
of the human women with whom the angels mixed is called blood of flesh
14 In an expansionary move, both Syncellus recensions read .

15 See the somewhat uncertain, yet probably reading in 4q202 1 iii, 11 to 1 En. 9:3 ()],
in which the cry of the souls of the giants victims rises up in complaint to the gates of
heaven. Unfortunately, the overlapping fragmentary texts in 4q201 1 iv, 611 and XQpapEn
1, 15 do not preserve more of the vocabulary to reinforce this reading.
16 In addition to soul, the term describes the post-mortem existence of humans, esp.
later in the Book of Watchers; see 1 En. 22:3 (in combination with souls), 57 (the spirit of
Abel), 913 (spirits of the righteous and sinful dead).
17 Codex Panopolitanus continues to apply to dead humans in 1 En. 22:3 (bis; once in
the construction ), while (as in ch. 15) designating the fallen angels
as only (19:1).
18 Here Syncellus, as in 9:3, 10, expands the expression to .
19 Syncellus simply equates the two terms from their soul, the flesh (
), prompting Charles to emend an apparently awkward text to
(from their soul, as from the flesh) in R.H. Charles, The Book of
Enoch or 1Enoch (Oxford 1913), 45. According to a fragmentary text in the Book of Giants
at 4q531 19, 34, words that might be attributed to the giants specify that they do not regard
themselves as either bones or flesh in an unqualified sense (]we are n[ot] bones []]
and not flesh [ )]but have a form ( )from which they will be removed.
22 stuckenbruck
(Gk. ; Eth. dama seg), while in the second instance, the human
species with whom the angels should not have intermingled is more generally
designated flesh and blood (Gk. ; Eth. seg wa-dam).
The differences between the giants and human beings within the early
Enochic traditions can be elaborated along several further lines. The first, as
provisionally mentioned above and from which the other points follow, the
unsanctioned half-breed existence of the giants reflected their questionable
origin. The spirits and bodies of the giants originated, respectively, from a for-
bidden comingling of their rebellious fathers and their ravaged human moth-
ers; therefore, they are mala mixta.20 The mix of spirit/soul and flesh in human-
ity is of a different sort; it reflects what God gave to humans from the start. This
essential difference is underlined by the divine speech of 1 En. 15 and 16.
Second, the distinction between humans and the giants is underlined by
the attribution of blood to human beings, whereas never are the giants in
their own nature said to have blood, even when the narrative refers to their
destruction (cf. 1 En. 10:910; 12:6). The absence of any apparent association of
blood with the body or flesh of the giants may have its explanation in what
the Enochic tradition includes among their heinous crimes: the consumption
and shedding of blood (7:4; 9:1, 9 [Gk. Syncellus]; cf. Book of Giants at 4q531
1, 4; 7, 6 and 4q533 4, [2]). In the aftermath of the flood, the text of Gen 9:45
prohibits the consumption of flesh while the blood is in it, an injunction picked
up again in Lev 19:11 and Deut 12:23.21 Blood, which signifies a life force within
20 For more extensive discussions that focus on the hybrid nature of the giants and its impli-
cations for demonology, see esp. P. Alexander, The Demonology of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
in The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years ii, A Comprehensive Assessment (ed. P.W. Flint
and J.C. VanderKam; Leiden 1999), 331353, esp. 337341; E. Eshel, Demonology in Pales-
tine during the Second Temple Period (Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, 1999), 1090 (The
Origin of the Evil Spirits) (Hebrew); E. Eshel, Genres of Magical Texts in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, in Die Dmonen: Die Dmonologie der israelitisch-jdischen und frhchristlichen
Literatur im Kontext ihrer Umwelt / Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early
Christian Literature in Context of Their Environment (ed. A. Lange, H. Lichtenberger, and
K.F. Diethard Rmheld; Tbingen 2003), 395415; Wright, Origin of Evil Spirits; K. Coblentz
Bautch, Putting Angels in Their Place: Developments in Second Temple Angelology, in
With Wisdom As a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida Frhlich (ed.
K.D. Dobos and M. Kszeghy; Sheffield 2009), 174188; K. Coblentz Bautch, Heavenly
Beings Brought Low: A Study of Angels and the Netherworld, in Angels: The Concept
of Celestial Beings: Origins, Development and Reception (ed. F.V. Reiterer, T. Nicklas, and
K. Schpflin; dcly 2007; Berlin 2007), 5975; and publications by myself given in n. 11
above.
21 See the important recent discussion of these texts in relation to the giants activities by
human beings, is endemic to the created order; the Enochic tradition, for its
focus on the ante-diluvian plight of humanity, does not say anything about
blood or the shedding of blood in relation to land creatures against which the
giants began to sin (cf. 7:5). Whereas the biblical texts cited above associate
the blood with the with which God endowed both Adam and animals at
the beginning, the Enochic tradition implicitly singles out the special place of
humanity in the created order by focusing on the association of blood with
the flesh which the giants are denied.
The bloodless giants, whose nature is out of step with the created order,
are thus made to shed the blood of innocent victims. Both the giants and their
angelic progenitors do things to subvert what God has created. This is made
clear in a sustained way in 1 En. 7:35 (cf. also Book of Giants at 4q531 1 and
23). Following the Greek and Ethiopic versions while staying attentive to the
Aramaic text in 4q201 1 iii, 1721, one can discern and comment briefly on the
following information about what the giants do:
They consume the labor of all humanity (4q201 1 iii, 18 [;]

Cod.Pan. [ ]) who, in turn, are unable to satisfy them
(v. 3). The object of consumption here is the produce resulting from the
agricultural work (cf. 1 En. 11:1 for this sense of ) to which, according
to Gen 2:5, 15, humans were assigned.
They begin to kill humankind and to eat them (v. 4; Gk. Syncellusa places
this note after 8:3 [to eat flesh of humanity ( )]).
Humans become victims of the giants cannibalistic activity, with the result
that their souls (9:4, 10) are left.
They begin to sin against animals, enumerated as the birds and beasts and
creeping things and the fish (v. 5; the Aramaic text, as constructed by Milik
for 4QEna 1 iii, 2021,22 is longer: all birds and [beast]s of [the] earth [and
creeping things that creep upon the earth and in the waters / and in] the
heavens, and the fish of the sea).
They eat flesh (v. 5 [)]. The Aramaic text breaks off without making
clear whose flesh was devoured (4q201 1 iii, 21). However, Codex Panopoli-
tanus, followed by the Ethiopic, furnishes the rest of the sentence: they ate
the flesh of each other and they drank blood. Taken as a whole, the activity
M. Goff, Monstrous Appetites: Giants, Cannibalism, and Insatiable Eating in Enochic

Literature, jaj 1 (2010): 1942, esp. 2933. The commandment lay behind language that
emphasizes the scandalous character attached to particular deeds; cf., e.g., 1Chr 11:19;
Ps 106:38; Isa 63:3, 6; Jer 2:34; Ezek 36:18.
22 Milik, Books of Enoch, 150151.
24 stuckenbruck
represents the endpoint of the escalating violence that had began with the
consumption of agricultural produce, and when this was not enough, the
giants began to be carnivorous. If we take the Aramaic text alone, the writer
would have regarded food consumption before the flood as wholly vegetar-
ian, while fuller and more complete texts of the Greek and Ethiopic versions
state, doubly, that (1) the internecine deeds among the giants display how
chaotic things could get (so that even evil is seen to turn against itself) and
that (2) the giants were blatantly destroying the life force with which cre-
ation, with humanity at its centre, was endowed.
Parallel lists of species affected by ante-diluvian upheaval can also be found

in Jub. 5:2; 7:24. In Jubilees, however, the giants are not specifically mentioned
in relation to this and there is very little reflection regarding their make-up in
comparison to that of humanity. A further description of the giants destructive
deeds is provided in several fragments from the Book of Giants (4q531 1 iii; 2
3; 1q23 9+14+15). According to 4q532 1 ii+2, 9 they (the context suggests the
subject to be the nefilim [4q532 2, 3]) inflicted a great injury on [the] ea[rth]
and according to 1q23 9+14+15, 4 they (probably also the giants) killed many.
Most significant, however, is a catalogue of parts of the created order detrimen-
tally affected by the ante-diluvian atrocities found in 4q531 2. The text, which
supplies an even lengthier and more detailed list of victims than the Aramaic
text to 1 En. 7:5 (see above), mentions the moon (4q531 2, l [)]], great
fish (2, 3 [ ;)] ][all birds of the sky (2, 4 [)] , everything
that bears fruit (2, 4 [)] , vegetation with seeds of the earth (2, 5 ] [
[) , all kinds of wheat and trees (2, 5 [)] , sheep and
small cattle (2, 6 [)] [ , and all sorts of creeping things (2, 7
[)][ . Perhaps inspired by the Book of Watchers (at 1 En. 7:35), the
victims of destruction before the flood include basic categories of the natural
world (including the moon, if the context of the term is correctly interpreted).
Together with the Book of Giants, the early Enochic tradition emphasizes not
only that the giants themselves are by virtue of their mixed nature misfits in
the world, but also that, appropriate to their nature, the giants activities are
completely bent on effecting an environmental meltdown. The purpose of
humanity, by contrast, works in the opposite direction; in the eschatological
scene following the punishment and destruction of evil (1 En. 10:416a), the
text anticipates a time for the remaining righteous humanity reproductivity,
long life, and agricultural replenishment (10:16b19; cf. Book of Giants at 1q23
1+6+22; 2Bar. 29:57).
Third, in an ironic twist, in the narrative, God-given developments among
humanity provide the basis for the angels wayward response that leads to
cosmic disarray. Taking up a tradition also found in Gen 6:2, 1 En. 6 opens
up by setting the scene for the angelic rebellion: And when the sons of men
had become numerous in those days, beautiful and attractive daughters were
born to them; and the angels, the sons of heaven, saw them and desired them
(vv. 12a).23 Two angels wayward response to humanity emerges from two
features in the text. The first has to do with the procreativity of humanity.
Humans, not the angels, are commissioned to multiply and become many on
the earth (Gen 1:28; 9:1, 7), not angelic, spirit-beings (1 En. 15:57a24). By seek-
ing to participate in the reproductivity of humanity the angels bring about
events that undermine this mechanism. Secondand here the irony becomes
conspicuous, the beauty of the women which attracted the watchers to
begin with is not held to be sufficient by the watchers themselves. And so,
the instructions given by the watchers to humanity are in 8:1 made to include
how to fashion jewellery (bracelets and ornaments) for women out of gold
and silver, as well as the use of antimony and beautification of the eyelids
and all manner of precious stones and dyes. In other words, the beauty with
which women were endowed is subverted, replaced by beautification tech-
niques which, according to the Enochic author(s), the world was not created
to yield.
4 The Book of Watchers Understanding of Humanity: Implications

for Eschatology
4.1 The Eschatological Outcome: A Restored Humanity

The above review has attempted to show that the earliest Enoch traditions
underline the essential integrity of humanity within the created order, doing
so by setting up the giant offspring of the fallen angels as a foil. This discussion
now turns to a further consideration of 1 En. 616 as a whole, in order to
23 The translation is my own, based on Codex Panopolitanus and the Eth. i recension. No
text is extant for this text from the Dead Sea materials.
24 This is born out well in the translation for this passage by Nickelsburg and VanderKam;
cf. G.W.E. Nickelsburg and J.C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation: Based on the
Hermeneia Commentary (Minneapolis 2004), 3637 (with bracketed additions my own):
Therefore I gave them [i.e., men who have flesh and blood] women, that they might cast
seed into them, and thus beget children by them, that nothing fail them upon the earth.
/ But you originally existed as spirits, living forever [i.e., and therefore did not need to
reproduce yourselves], and not dying for all the generations of eternity. / Therefore I did
not make women among you.
26 stuckenbruck
demonstrate that this integrity of humanity is not taken for granted. In doing
so, we may take the text from 1 En. 10:2022 as a point of departure:25
1Enoch 10
20 But as for you, cleanse the earth from all uncleanness,

and from all injustice,
and from all sin and godlessness.
And eliminate all the unclean things that have been done on the earth.
21 And all the children of men will become righteous,
and all the peoples will serve and bless me,
and they will all worship me.
22 And the entire earth will be cleansed
from all defilement and all uncleanness.
And no wrath or torment
will I ever again send upon them,
for all the generations of eternity.
1 En. 10:2022
This passage, which follows an account describing a series of divine punish-

ments and the destruction of evil (10:416a), comes to a remarkable conclusion
for a Jewish text from the Second Temple period: all humanity will become
righteous (so Eth.; omitted in Cod.Pan. through homoioteleuton26) and will
worship God. What grounds could there have been for the text to make such
an open claim?
Considerable scholarly discussion has been devoted to 1 En. 611 and 1216,
including the passage just cited, but surprisingly little has been done to offer a
sustained reading of how the motif of eschatological restoration of humanity
relates to its immediate literary setting, for example, within the flow of chs.
616. Instead, commentators on this text have mostly treated this vision of the
future by either noting how it coheres with biblical traditions regarding the fate
of the nations and their ultimate relation to Israel or by observing its influence
on the later Enochic (and perhaps further) texts.27 Influential has been the
25 The translation below is my own, based on the Eth. i recension, with insertions of corre-
sponding Greek terms from the Codex Panopolitanus.
26 So correctly G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch i, A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch, Chapters
136; 81108 (Hermeneia; Minneapolis 2001), 219.
27 See esp. M. Black, comm. and notes, The Book of Enoch or i Enoch: A New English Edition
(svtp 7; Leiden 1985), 140; Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch i, A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch,
comments over a century ago by Charles who, in an overview of apocalyptic

ideas that he attributed to the 2nd cent. bce, commented that, [a]ccording
to i Enoch x. 21, all the Gentiles are to become righteous and worship God.28
Charles interpretation of the passage has been largely retained, except that the
Book of Watchers, in particular chs. 611, is now with wide agreement dated back
to at least the 3rd cent. bce.29
Within the context of attempt to isolate distinguishing features of humanity
in 1 En. 616 above, we may ask to what extent 10:2022 is shaped by and how
it relates to the foregoing fallen angels mythology and to the literary context in
chs. 1216 that immediately follows.
The framework for addressing these questions regarding 10:2022 (within
10:1711:2) is determined by three factors: (1) its relation to passages in the
Hebrew Bible which refer to the eventual recognition of Israels God among the
nations (Isa 2:3; 18:7; 19:22; 45:1415; 60; 66:1823; Jer 16:19; Zech 8:2023; 14:16
21; Ps 22:2728; 47:8; 63:24; 86:9; 102:15; 117:1); (2) its conceptual relation to late
Second Temple traditions which either signal the recognition by the nations of
Israels God (Pss. Sol. 17:2932, 34; Book of Parables in 1 En. 48:5; 50:2; Dan 7:14)
or similarly anticipate among the nations a turning to or worship of God (Tob
14:6; Animal Apocalypse at 1 En. 90:37; Apocalypse of Weeks at 1 En. 91:14; Epistle
of Enoch at 1 En. 100:6; 105:1; Dan 7:14); and (3) its role and function within the
Book of Watchers, especially the distinguishable literary unit of chs. 611. As it
falls outside the scope of the present discussion to deal fully with the second
dimension,30 I shall focus more on the first and third dimensions.
The first thing to note about the claim is what sets it apart from texts con-
cerned with the fate of the nations in the Hebrew Bible. In the Hebrew Bible,
Chapters 136; 81108, 224, 228; S. Uhlig, Das thiopische Henochbuch, in Apokalypsen
(jshrz 5.6; ed. H. Lichtenberger et al.; Gtersloh 1984), 531532; D. Olson, Enoch: A New
Translation (N. Richland Hills, Tex., 2004), 40.
28 R.H. Charles, Eschatology: The Doctrine of a Future Life in Israel, Judaism and Christianity:
A Critical History (introduction by G.W. Buchanan; New York 1963), 246; repr. from the
2nd ed. published in 1913. Charles does not elaborate on this aspect of the text in his
commentary (Charles, Book of Enoch, 26), but does refer back to it while commenting on
the conversion of Gentiles in the Animal Apocalypse at 1 En. 90:30 (Charles, Book of Enoch,
214215).
29 See esp. Milik, Books of Enoch, 24 and Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch i, A Commentary on the Book of
1Enoch, Chapters 136; 81108, 169171.
30 I have focused on the early reception of 1 En. 10:21 among Enoch traditions in L.T. Stuck-
enbruck, The Eschatological Worship by the Nations: An Inquiry into the Early Enoch
Tradition, in With Wisdom As a Robe: Qumran and Other Jewish Studies in Honour of Ida
Frhlich (ed. K.D. Dobos and M. Kszeghy; Sheffield 2009), 191208, esp. 198205.
28 stuckenbruck
texts which can similarly anticipate a time when the nations will recognize the
God of Israel and walk in his paths (so Isa 2:3; Mic 4:2), the geographical focus
of this activity is Jerusalem (cf. also Isa 18:7; 45:14; 60:5, 11; 66:23; Zech 14:16
19; Ps 22:27; 86:9). Now it is possible that 1 En. 10:21 implies participation in the
Jerusalem cult, if we follow the reading of Codex Panopolitanus that all peoples
will serve (God) ( ); moreover, there is
no attempt here to steer away from Jerusalem as the centre of worship. Never-
theless, the complete lack of emphasis on Jerusalem, in contrast with biblical
traditions and other parts of 1Enoch (chs. 2527)31 and Animal Apocalypse (cf. 1
En. 90:2836), is conspicuous.32 This may suggest that 1 En. 10:2022 anticipates
a scenario on a scale so grand that the worshippers of God do not simply consist
of a small, more narrowly defined Jewish group, such as the plant of truth and
righteousness (10:16). Put succinctly, the tradition is at this point concerned
with humanity as a whole. If this is the case, it remains to be discerned how
is it that the text can move from an inner-Jewish group (contemporary to the
time of the composition of ch. 10) to a comprehensive framework which, at a
fundamental level, includes all human beings.
4.2 1Enoch 611 and the Figure of Noah

Although as a literary unit 1 En. 611 is casually referred to as belonging to
Enochic tradition, it is significant that, unlike much of the rest of 1 Enoch,33
it leaves no mention or trace of the patriarch Enoch. If any patriarch figure
receives attention, instead, it is the son of Lamech (i.e., Noah) at the beginning
of ch. 10 (vv. 13). For this reason Charles, for example, suggested that the
acquired form of chs. 611 was Noachic.34 Whether or not chs. 611 belonged
to a lost Noachic work, the function of Noah within these chapters should not
escape notice.
31 Later in the Book of Watchers, it is probably Jerusalem that is regarded as the centre of the
earth (26:1) in Enochs journeys. It is where God rules in the temple, where the righteous
will enjoy long life (25:67), and where there will be an abundance of fruit and trees
(25:45; 26:1), while the accursed valley below and nearby is the place of punishment for
the wicked (26:427:2); cf. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch i, A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch,
Chapters 136; 81108, 317319. The source of this tradition is different from that of 1 En. 10,
where there is no obvious clue that Jerusalem is in view.
32 Interestingly, the Eth. mss traditions all read here the verb ymelleku (lit. to be subject
to), which has no obvious cultic connotation.
33 For exceptions, see the Noachic fragments in the Book of Parables at 1 En. 65:412; 67:168:5.
34 So esp. Charles (Charles, Book of Enoch, 1314), who regarded chs. 611 as a fragment from
a now lost Apocalypse or Book of Noah.
That the figure of Noah should be connected with the story about the rebel-
lious angels is not surprising. In the biblical tradition, the mating of the sons
of God with women on earth serves as a prelude to the great flood narra-
tive and its aftermath in which Noah is the main protagonist (Gen 6:59:17),
while the few verses mentioning Enoch (Gen 5:2124) have been left behind.
It is known, too, that traditions about Noah circulated as a constituent part
of several sources that date back to at least the 2nd cent. bce.35 Two of these
sources are concerned with Noahs birth (Genesis Apocryphon at 1q20 ii, 1v,
26 and Birth of Noah at 1 En. 106:1107:3). In addition, the discussion above
has already referred to the Book of Giants which, similar to 1 En. 10:13, pre-
serves material related to the theme of Noahs escape from the flood (6q8 2).36
Furthermore, within the wider socio-religious, Hellenistic context, one should
note the appearance of the figure of Noah in Euhemeristic tradition. This avails
in the so-called Pseudo-Eupolemus fragments (preserved in Eusebius, Praep.
ev. 9.17.19; 18.2), which claimed a genetic link between Noah (and even Abra-
ham) and the giants, a connection that is vigorously denied in the Enochic and
related traditions just mentioned.37
Now, as far as chs. 611 are concerned, the Noahic framework makes sense
not only because of the reference to Noah as the son of Lamech in 10:13 but
also because of the motifs and imagery in ch. 10 that derive from the story
of the great flood (Gen 5:2832; 6:59:17). In its present shape, the Noachic
storyline is introduced as a divine response to the cries of lament raised by the
35 For discussions of the texts, see D.M. Peters, Noah Traditions in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Conver-
sations and Controversies of Antiquity (sblejl 26; Atlanta 2008); L.T. Stuckenbruck, The
Lamech Narrative in the Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen) and Birth of Noah (4QEnochc ar):
A Tradition-Historical Study, in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on
the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June2 July 2008 (ed. K. Berthelot and
D. Stkl Ben Ezra; stdj 94; Leiden 2010), 253276; E. Eshel, The Genesis Apocryphon and
Other Related Texts from Qumran: The Birth of Noah, in Aramaica Qumranica: Proceed-
ings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June2 July
2008 (ed. K. Berthelot and D. Stkl Ben Ezra; stdj 94; Leiden 2010), 277298; M. Weigold,
Aramaic Wunderkind: The Birth of Noah in the Aramaic Texts from Qumran, in Aramaica
Qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-
Provence 30 June2 July 2008 (ed. K. Berthelot and D. Stkl Ben Ezra; stdj 94; Leiden 2010),
299316.
36 Interestingly, although the Book of Giants refers to Enoch as the authoritative interpreter
of the giants ominous dreams, it is not written as an Enochic pseudepigraphon, i.e., it is
not written in the name of Enoch (as 1 En. 611).
37 See further Stuckenbruck, Origins of Evil, 93104; Stuckenbruck, 1Enoch 91108, 633641,
648655.
30 stuckenbruck
souls of the giants murdered victims (1 En. 8:49:11). In the context of the story
about the destruction of the created order through the unsanctioned offspring
of the rebellious angels, the introduction of Noah as the son of Lamech is
significant. Noahs parentage is legitimate, and, as noted above in relation to
10:9, stands in clear contrast to that of the giants. It is, then, in relation to a
representative human being, an integral part of the created world, that the
catastrophic chaos is addressed. The message, mediated to Noah through the
angel Sariel, announces three things: (1) the imminence of a destruction upon
the whole earth through a deluge (10:2); (2) Noahs survival of the coming
cataclysm (10:1, 3); and (3) the ongoing procreation through Noah of a plant
(Eth.; Gk. Syncellus; Cod.Pan. [seed]) which will remain forever (10:3 Eth.;
Eth. Cod.Pan.).
Those familiar with the Genesis narrative would perhaps anticipate a retel-
ling of the flood story as found in Gen 6:58:22. The writer38 of the text, however,
has more in sight than the ante-diluvian period. Proleptic to the eschatological
conclusion in 1 En. 10:1711:2, the narrative begins to work out an analogy dis-
cerned between the Noachic period, on the one hand, and the texts present and
imminent future, on the other. The extent of this analogy is not immediately
clear. While the Noachic storyline does not entirely disappear,39 the ensuing
events in 10:413 have to do with punishments meted out against the notori-
ous evildoers already known from chs. 6 and 8: Asael (10:46 [he is bound,
thrown into darkness, and is to be burnt with fire at the great judgement]), the
giants (10:910 [they are condemned to annihilate one another; cf. 7:5]) and
Shemihazah and his companions (10:1113 [they are bound for seventy gener-
ations and eternally confined in a prison where in the end they will undergo
fiery torment]). These acts which hold the forces of evil to account are carried
out, respectively, by the chief angelic emissaries Raphael, Gabriel, and Michael.
By having the execution of divine punishment carried out by same group of
angelic beings (10:1, 4, 9, 11) that conveyed the human souls appeals for justice
to heaven (9:1, 4), the narrative has woven the story of Noah into the rebellious
angels myth.
Noahs story is not only linked back to the foregoing ante-diluvian events
about angels and giants. The reference to plant to come from Noah for eter-
nity (10:3) and the anticipation of the final judgment of the angelic evildoers
(cf. 10:56, 1213) correlate Noahs time with eschatological time. What happens
38 This is a convenient way of referring to what is more accurately described as the compiler
of traditions underlying 1 En. 611; cf. the bibliography in n. 10 above.
39 Motifs relating to the Genesis flood story occur again from 10:14 (cf. n. 40 below).
in judgment and escape from the flood in Noahs time (Urzeit) converges with
its counterpart in the future when Gods design for creation will be fully realized
(Endzeit). Within 1 En. 611 it is not until ch. 10 that the story about the fallen
angels, now anchored in the Noachic period, has an impact on how the writer
conceived of the future and, vice versa, how this understanding of the future
shapes the present. Significantly, the scope of this correlation between Urzeit
and Endzeit involves all humanity, for which Noah stands as a representative.
The story begins with the procreativity among the mass of humanitythe
sons of men and the daughters of men (6:12)who are then overwhelmed
by the rebellious angels violation of the cosmic order when the watchers breed
with the human women. Through Noah it is this victimized humanity whose
survival is assured, not only now but through to eschatological time. In the end,
at 10:2022, it is then fitting that all humanity (because all humanity belongs to
the created order) should be expected to worship God.
4.3 From the Figure of Noah to the Worship of God by All Humanity
The path from Noah to 10:2022 is not straightforward. The condemnation of
the watchers and slaughter of their offspring (10:1415)inaugurated in the
writers sacred past with the announcement of the flood40 and to culminate
destruction in the writers sacred futureis in force during the writers present,
that is, during an intervening period when evil, though essentially defeated,
persists alongside the emergence of the plant of truth and righteousness
(10:16). Though this second plant alludes to the plant associated with Noahs
offspring in 10:3, it no longer represents the human species as such.
Who or what is this plant of truth and righteousness in the text? Here the
narrative is concerned with those who are obedient to the covenant, that is, a
community with whom the writer(s) would have more immediately identified.
Significantly, this community is characterised by works of righteousness (10:16
Eth.; omitted in Cod.Pan. through homoioteleuton41). As such, they are the
ones who, presumably as Noah had in the past during the flood, will escape in
the future when all iniquity and every evil work is destroyed (10:16; cf. also
40 However, the flood does not itself constitute the punishment of either the watchers or
giants (in contrast to the perishing of the giants in 1 En. 89:1; 4q370 i, 6; Wis 14:6; 3Bar.
4:10; 3Macc 2:4). Instead, deluge imagery relates to the theme of Noahs escape (10:3), the
destruction and elimination of iniquity and impurity from the earth (10:16, 20, 22), and the
escape of the righteous in the eschaton (10:17).
41 See Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch i, A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch, Chapters 136; 81108,
218, who notes in accord with Milik (Milik, Books of Enoch, 189) that the longer reading is
supported by the Aramaic text in 4QEnc 1 v, 1.
32 stuckenbruck
Birth of Noah at 1 En. 107:142). Read in relation to the story about the iniquitous
sons of heaven, the text draws an analogy between the destruction and eternal
punishment of the angels and giants (cf. 10:914) and the final destruction of
iniquitous activities. Given the angelic (i.e., non-human and demonic) source
of the ante-diluvian evils, punishment is not anticipated for human beings as
much as the reprehensible deeds and knowledge which they have acquired and
which the myth traces back to the angels (7:35; 8:13).43
The categorical distinction between humans, on the one hand, and the
giants (and their angelic progenitors), on the other, has implications for the
interpretation of the activities described as evil in 1 En. 78. With some justifica-
tion, Nickelsburg and Suter, for example, have regarded the fallen angels and
giants as decipherable metaphors, respectively, for the late 4th cent. and early
3rd cent. bce Diadochi (in the wake of Alexander the Greats death) or wayward
priests who have taken on objectionable practices mediated by Hellenistic cul-
ture.44 While the notion of unwanted incursion by bearers of Hellenistic culture
may provide a plausible socio-political setting for the fallen angels myth, the
theological perspective offered in 1 En. 611 operates on a more profound level:
demonic forces are not only at work behind those human beings who have
engaged in and adopted reprehensible activity (i.e., the humans who have been
taught by the rebellious angels), they are even at work behind those humans,
oppressive as they are, who have introduced them in the first place. For all
its rejection of aberrant culture and of the oppression that comes through
it, this storys essentially mythic character imparts an extraordinary openness
that holds the existence of a community of obedient Jews in tension with the
existence of a human species which, though perhaps largely aligned with the
demonic world, is nevertheless created by God and, in itself45 has not set the
world down the wrong path. The Enochic tradition at this point may be lament-
ing the tyranny and coercive domination on the part of groups like the Seleucid
overlords and their conduits in the Jewish priesthood. However, the text does
not descend into a reductionistic demonization of these groups: they were and
remain human beings who, though to be held responsible and punished for
42 Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91108, 682.

43 In this way, the traditions focus on the culpability of the watchers and giants is nuanced:
it does not imply that humans who have been taught by them are not held responsi-
ble.
44 Nickelsburg, Apocalyptic and Myth, 383405; Nickelsburg, 1Enoch i, A Commentary on the
Book of 1Enoch, Chapters 136; 811081 Enoch 1, 170; D. Suter, Fallen Angels, Fallen Priests,
huca 50 (1979): 115135, who takes 10:9 as his point of departure.
45 Because the text emphasizes the destruction of works and deeds (10:16, 20).
their activities, do not provide any warrant for a destruction of humanity as

a whole. 1Enoch 616 does not, then, present a social dualism that pits one
group of humans against another; instead, it is the watchers who have breached
the boundaries that distinguish the heavenly from the earthly sphere (implied
here and explicated in 15:710) while, significantly, the non-human giants exist
as a malum mixtum (i.e., a hybrid combination of spheres that ought to have
remained separate). The fundamental distinction between human nature (a
bonum mixtum), on the one hand, and the demonic (which by its very nature
is a perversion of the created order), on the other, keeps humanity in principle
and as a whole within the purview of divine purpose of redemption. For all the
atrocities people, even in oppressive positions, commit against one another,
there is something in human nature which, in principle, can be reclaimed by
God the creator of all. In the Enochic tradition we have looked at, all is not
really all (including the giants) at all, but the cosmos as circumscribed by
God.
Is there anything, then, that helps us to account for the worship of God
by all humanity in 1 En. 10:21? To be sure, a distinction remains in the text of
ch. 10 between the plant of truth and righteousness (10:16 [i.e., elect Jews])
and all the children of men (10:21). The formerthat is, the righteous ones
who will escape the punishment meted out to the watchersare promised a
limitless period of reproductive and agricultural activity (10:1719) that reverses
the annihilation and oppression suffered in the time before the flood (7:3
5). The extant Ethiopic and Greek texts do not spell out that this bliss will
include all humanity, nor do any of the recensions specify precisely how the
special plant is related to the rest of humanity. However, the arena of what the
righteous will enjoy is all the earth. While the idea of a new beginning evokes
the Noachic covenant following the deluge (Gen 9:117; see the allusion to Gen
9:11 in 10:22), the passage draws conceptually on the language of Isa 65:1725;
66:2223. Both these Isaianic texts refer to Gods creation of a new heaven and
earth, the former passage associating it with images of fertility (cf. 10:1719; 11:1)
and the latter anticipating a world order in which all flesh ( ; Gk.
) will worship God (cf. 10:21).
We have already noted above that, unlike Isaiah, the conclusion in 1 En. 10
does not specify Jerusalem as the locus for the eschatological worship of God.
There are two further respects that distinguish 1 En. 10 from its antecedents in
Isaiah. First, unlike Isaiah, eschatological expectation is articulated within a
Noachic framework. The new beginnings envisioned in Isa 65 and 66 are recast
through a reading of tradition found in Gen 6:14, a reading that highlights
the otherworldly dimension of evil. Second, and following from this, 1 En. 10
projects the activity of divine salvation onto the world stage. Thus, whatever
34 stuckenbruck
its precise status, the plant of truth and righteousness in 10:16 is of necessity
linked up with the entire human race which has also been subjected to demonic
powers.
How is it that the worship of God by all humanity will come about? The
text in 10:1411:2 does not draw a direct line of continuity between the plant
of truth and righteousness and the deliverance of humanity from destruction;
the righteous do not, for example, testify or bear witness to anything that
results in a turning of all people to God. Instead, to the extent that the Isaianic
paradigm is operative, eschatological worship by the nations will take place
as part of the establishment of a new world order after all uncleanness and
godless activities have been eradicated from the earth. For this new beginning
of humanity in the coming era (10:22), the period after the flood (Gen 9:117)
serves as an archetype.
5 Conclusion
By drawing the theological anthropology of 1 En. 616 into conversation with

Gen 16, the present discussion has attempted to put into sharp relief what the
Enochic authors thought was at stake in their understanding of human nature.
Unlike Gen 6:67, there is no regret on Gods part in the Book of Watchers for
having created humanity; the Enochic tradition in 1 En. 616, perhaps drawing
on the insight preserved in the early chapters of Genesis that humans occupy a
singular position in creationthough specifying that humanity has the divine
breath of life or bears the image of Godassumes that humanity, since
their creation, has always been and always will be, come what may, integral
to the created order. Although people are held to account for their deeds,
human beings are in the world to stay, while there is no ultimate recourse
for evil but annihilation. The angelic and gargantuan actors in the storyline
should not, therefore, be entirely decoded as if they function as metaphors for
people, whether socio-political oppressors in the wake of Alexander the Greats
conquests to the East or members of the priesthood who were thought to be
complicit with Hellenistic assaults on pious Jewish culture. The underlying
cause and human mediation are distinct.
As after the disobedience in Eden recounted in Gen 3, the early Enoch
tradition discussed here allowed for a continuing creatureliness of humans,
including features that distinguish and set them apart from other parts of
the world. In 1 En. 611 (and, by extension, chs. 1216), however, the notion
of a malevolent angelic world, fuelled by the experience of anarchic, chaotic
and overpowering expressions of evil, came into mythic view, enabling its
writer(s) to adopt a worldview which, even more than the traditions preserved
in Genesis, drove a principled wedge between such the nature of evil and the
nature of humans who nonetheless can fall victim to it.
Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of
Gen 2:7
1 Introduction
Within the study of the early reception history of the Hebrew Bible, the study
of the oldest translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin has gained an
important place. As is well known these translations often present the oldest
preserved interpretations of the books of the Hebrew Bible. The way later gen-
erations read the Hebrew Bible is often determined decisively by the way the
first translators of Hebrew Scripture chose to render their Hebrew parent text.
This is particularly true for the oldest Greek translation of the Pentateuch, the
so-called Septuagint translation, which shaped many ancient Israelite concep-
tions into Hellenistic vocabulary. Yet, within the study of the Septuagint there
is much discussion concerning the question to what extent the Jewish trans-
lators deliberatedly transformed Israelite religion into what was to become
Hellenistic and later Christian interpretation of the Old Testament. One could
distinguish between a minimalist and a maximalist approach regarding the
amount of acculturation and adaptation present in the Septuagint: whereas
some scholars tend to see the Septuagint predominantly as a praeparatio evan-
gelica (maximalist approach), others tend to stress the Hebraistic character
of the Greek translation and the possibility that differences between the Sep-
tuagint (lxx) and the received Hebrew text (mt) may or do reflect a Hebrew
Vorlage of the Septuagint different from mt. The question this paper addresses
is, therefore, if and to what extent the Septuagint played a role in the develop-
ment of dualistic anthropology. In order to address this question properly, it is
necessary to have a closer look at recent developments within Septuagint stud-
ies as a whole, before we can proceed to formulate an answer to this question.
In the wake of Qumran studies, the scholarly interest in the ancient versions,
particularly the Old Greek translations of the books of the Hebrew Bible, has
risen exponentially. In the last decades no less than ten modern translations
have seen the light (e.g., Bible dAlexandrie,1 the New English Translation of
1 M. Harl et al., La Bible dAlexandrie (Paris 1986). Thus far, the following volumes have

anthropology in the ancient greek versions of gen 2:7 37
the Septuagint,2 Septuaginta Deutsch,3 and the Spanish La Biblia griega4). Fur-
thermore a number of commentary series (besides the annotated French and
German translations, the sbl Commentary Series,5 and the Brill Septuagint
Commentary Series6), several lexical tools (the Leuven Greek-English Lexicon
of the Septuagint,7 the final edition of Muraokas Lexicon,8 now accompanied
by a new Greek-Hebrew index,9 and a new Historical and Theological Lexicon
appeared: (1) La Gense (M. Harl et al.; 1986); (2) L Exode (A. Le Boulluec and P. Sandevoir;
1989), (3) Le Lvitique (P. Harl and D. Pralon; 1988), (4) Les Nombres (G. Dorival et al.; 1994);
(5) Le Deutronome (C. Dogniez and M. Harl; 1992); (6) Jsus ( Josu) (J. Moatti-Fine; 1996); (7)
Les Juges (P. Harl and T. Roqueplo; 1999); (8) Ruth (I. Assan-Dhte and J. Moatti-Fine; 2009);
(9.1) Premier Livre des Rgnes (B. Grillet and M. Lestienne; 1997); (11.2) Deuxime livre dEsdras
(Timothy Janz, 2010); (15.3) Troisime Livre des Maccabes (J. Mlze Modrzejewski; 2008); (17)
Les Proverbes (D.-M. d Hamonville and . Dumouchet; 2000); (18) LEcclsiaste (F. Vinel; 2002);
(23.1) Ose (E. Bons et al.; 2002); (23.49) Jol-Abdiou-Jonas-Naoum-Ambakoum-Sophonie
(M. Harl et al.; 1999); (23.1011) Agge-Zacharie (M. Casevitz, C. Dogniez, and M. Harl; 2007);
(25.2) Baruch-Lamentations-Lettre de Jrmie (I. Assan-Dhte and J. Moatti-Fine; 2005). See
further: http://www.editionsducerf.fr.
2 A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint and Other
Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title (Oxford 2007). See my review:
M.N. van der Meer, review of A. Pietersma and B.G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation
of the Septuagint and Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under That Title, bioscs
41 (2008): 114121.
3 M. Karrer and W. Kraus, Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher
bersetzung (Stuttgart 2009). See my review: M.N. van der Meer, review of M. Karrer and
W. Kraus, Septuaginta Deutsch: Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher bersetzung,
bioscs 42 (2009): 111119. See further the overview of Septuagint research in Wuppertal and
Saarbrcken: http://www.septuagintaforschung.de/.
4 N. Fernndez Marcos and M.V. Spottorno Daz-Caro, La Biblia griega-Septuaginta i, Penta-
teuco (BEstB 125; Salamanca 2008).
5 See http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/ioscs/commentary/.
6 Thus far the following volumes have appeared: Genesis (S. Brayford; 2007); Joshua (A. Graeme
Auld; 2005); Tobit (R.J. Littman; 2008); 3 Maccabees (N. Clayton Croy; 2006); 4Maccabees
(D. DeSilva; 2006); Ezekiel (J.W. Olley; 2009). See the criticisms in the review section of the
bioscs.
7 J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Stuttgart 1992, 1994;
2nd rev. ed., Stuttgart 2003 [= leh2]).
8 T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint (Leuven 2009) (= gels3). This lexicon
replaces the earlier lexica on the Minor Prophets (T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the
Septuagint: Twelve Prophets [Leuven 1993] = gels1) and the Pentateuch (T. Muraoka, A Greek-
English Lexicon of the Septuagint: Chiefly of the Pentateuch and the Twelve Prophets [Leuven
2002] = gels2).
9 T. Muraoka, A Greek-Hebrew/Aramaic Two-Way Index to the Septuagint (Leuven 2010), which
38 van der meer
of the Septuagint underway), and a large number of monographs and congress

proceedings have been produced.10
Although it is now generally accepted that the Greek translations reflect a
considerable amount of interpretation of the Hebrew text, it is a hotly debated
issue in present-day Septuagint scholarship whether the Greek translators
interpreted their parent text only on the basis of Hebrew Scripture or delib-
erately incorporated contemporary politics and philosophy into their transla-
tion. There is, for instance, a sharp divide regarding the question whether the
Old Greek translation of the Psalter reflects theological concepts as eschatol-
ogy, messianism, and dualistic anthropology.11 With respect to the Old Greek
translation of Isaiah there is also a sometimes vehement discussion regarding
the question whether the Old Greek translation deliberately adapted the old
prophecies concerning the Assyrians to his own political situation in which
the Syrian Seleucids dominated the Hellenistic Near East.12 As we shall see,
something similar can be said about the question whether the Greek Gene-
replaces his earlier Hebrew/Aramaic Index to the Septuagint: Keyed to the Hatch-Redpath
Concordance (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1998).
10 See the volumes in the scs Series as well as the proceedings of the Wuppertal Septuagint
Conferences: M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser, eds., Die SeptuagintaTexte, Kontexte,
Lebenswelten (wunt 219; Tbingen 2008); W. Kraus, M. Karrer, and M. Meiser, eds., Die
SeptuagintaTexte, Theologien, Einflsse (wunt 252; Tbingen 2010).
11 J. Schaper, Eschatology in the Greek Psalter (wunt 2/76; Tbingen 1995) versus the critique
by A. Pietersma in his review of this book (A. Pietersma, review of J. Schaper, Eschatology
in the Greek Psalter, bo 54 [1997]: 185190). See also the contributions in E. Zenger, ed., Der
Septuaginta-Psalter: Sprachliche und theologische Aspekte (hbs 32; Freiburg im Breisgau
2001) and H. Gzella, Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit: Studien zur Eschatologie und Anthropologie
des Septuaginta-Psalters (bbb 134; Berlin 2002).
12 Thus in the classical study by I.L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Dis-
cussion of Its Problems (mveol 9; Leiden 1948); followed by A. van der Kooij, Die alten
Textzeugen des Jesajabuches: Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte des Alten Testaments (obo 35;
Fribourg and Gttingen 1981); A. van der Kooij, The Oracle of Tyre: The Septuagint of Isaiah
23 As Version and Vision (VTSup 71; Leiden 1998). This position is scrutinized by R.L. Troxel,
lxx-Isaiah As Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Sep-
tuagint of Isaiah (JSJSup 124; Leiden 2008). See further the discussion at sbl 2009, to be
published in bioscs 43 (2010). See also the contributions in A. van der Kooij and M.N. van
der Meer, eds., The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives (cbet 55; Leuven 2010)
and my own contribution, M.N. van der Meer, Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis:
The Phenomenon of the Vision Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of Contemporary
Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt, in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der
Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday (ed. M.N. van der Meer et al.; VTSup 138;
Leiden 2010), 283316.
sis reflects Platonic influence. Since the Greek version of the biblical books
does not contain long explanatory additions as we find in the Targumim, nor
contains commentaries as in the Qumran pesharim, or free rewritings, such
elements of interpretation are not always very self evident. Furthermore, the
question of interpretation in the Greek translation should be studied within
the cultural and historical context of the Septuagint.
As is well known, the translation of the books of the Pentateuch were made
at a relatively early period of the Hellenistic era, probably around 280 bce.13 The
legendary tale described in the Letter ascribed to Aristeas that the translation
was made at the request of the Ptolemaic king and executed with the aid
of the high priest of Jerusalem by 72 extraordinary wise translators should
certainly be seen in the light of Hellenistic hyperbolic literary conventions. Yet,
in the light of what we know about early Hellenistic interests in cultures and
customs of oriental civilizations, an increasing number of scholars tend to see
the Septuagint as the product of sophisticated interpretation with political and
cultural interests made under the auspices of the Ptolemaic court, rather than
a clumsy product of incompetent Jews translating a slightly different Hebrew
text for the sake of Jewish worshippers unable to read the source text. In the
list of unclean animals in Leviticus we therefore do not find a literal rendering
of the Hebrew word for haze since the Greek counterpart might offend
the Ptolemaic king whose ancestor was called Lagos. In the same way, however,
the Greek translators rendered the Hebrew word for Uhu with Ibis, probably
as religious polemic against the Egyptian Ibis-cult.14
The amount of interpretation involved in these lexical choices made by the
translators is relatively small, yet the impact of the Greek translation on later
Jewish and Christian concepts and Bible interpretation can hardly be overes-
timated. The Septuagint was the Bible for Hellenistic Jewish authors such as
Artapanus, Demetrius the Chronographer, Eupolemus, Philo of Alexandria as
well as the authors of early Christian writings. Concepts such as (an
unilateral testament) for Hebrew ( a bilateral treaty), the rather static
divine self representation for the more dynamic Hebrew
, the generic name the Lord ( ) or the Deity ( ) for
the proper name of Yhwh, the God of Israel, and the transformation of the old
military connotation Lord of Hosts ( ) into the universalistic -
.
13 N.L. Collins, The Library in Alexandria and the Bible in Greek (VTSup 82; Leiden 2000).
14 See the introductions to the Septuagint, e.g., F. Siegert, Zwischen Hebrischer Bibel und
Altem Testament: Eine Einfhrung in die Septuaginta (mjs 9; Mnster 2002), 191.
40 van der meer
The question thus arises what role the Greek translation of Hebrew Scrip-
ture, particularly that of Gen 2:7, played in the development of a dualistic
anthropology in early Judaism and Christianity. As is well known, a dualistic
anthropology was foreign to the world of the ancient Israelites.15 Only in Greek
philosophical schools as Orphism, Pythagoreanism, Platonism, and Stoicism,
from the sixth century bce onwards, do we find the roots of dualistic anthropol-
ogy in the classical world. In Jewish writings from the beginning of the Christian
era, however, a dualistic anthropology can be discerned in Jewish writings by
Philo of Alexandria, the Wisdom of Solomon, Paul, and other early Jewish and
Christian writings. Since we find the basic concepts of such a dualistic anthro-
pology, i.e., the terms and , as opposed to and , attested
already in presumably the very first Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture, i.e.,
the Septuagint of Genesis, the issues to be addressed in this contribution to the
reception history of Gen 2:7 and the development of dualistic anthropology, are
the following:
1. Does the Old Greek translation of Gen 2:7 mark a turning-point, a transfor-
mation in the Israelite and early Jewish anthropology?
2. If so, was the Old Greek translation a deliberate departure from the ancient
Israelite concepts, and
3. Was the Old Greek translator influenced by Greek philosophical concepts?
2 The Hebrew and Greek Versions of Gen 2:7
The text of Gen 2:7 in Hebrew and Greek reads as follows. For the sake of
convenience, I add the New Revised Standard Version and the New English
Translation of the Septuagint:
15 See, e.g., the classical treatment of Old Testament anthropology by H.-W. Wolff, Anthro-
pologie des Alten Testaments (Mnchen 1973; rev. ed. by B. Janoswki, Gtersloh 2010).
See further H. Ringgren, Israelitische Religion (2nd ed.; RdM 26; Stuttgart 1982), 108
136; F. Crsemann, C. Hardmeier, and R. Kessler, eds., Was ist der Mensch ?: Beitrge
zur Anthropologie des Alten Testaments: Hans Walter Wolff zum 80. Geburtstag (Mnchen
1992); U. Mittmann-Richert, F. Avemarie, and G.S. Oegema, Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschun-
gen zum Menschbild in Bibel, antiken Judentum und Koran: Festschrift fr Hermann Licht-
enberger zum 60. Geburtstag (Neukirchen 2003); U. Neumann-Gorsolke, Herrschen in den
Grenzen der Schpfung: Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Anthropologie am Beispiel von
Psalm 8, Genesis 1 und verwandten Texten (wmant 101; Neukirchen 2004); A. Wagner,
ed., Anthropologische Aufbrche: Alttestamentliche und interdisziplinre Zugnge zur his-
torischen Anthropologie (frlant 232; Gttingen 2009).
mt

nrsv Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a
living being.
lxx
, .
nets And God formed man, dust from the earth, and breathed into his face
a breath of life, and the man became a living being.
We do not have variant readings from the Hebrew text from the Samaritan
Pentateuch or the Qumran scrolls.16 There is no reason to assume that the
Hebrew Vorlage from which the Greek translation was made, differed from
the received Masoretic Text (mt). The Greek translation seems to render the
Hebrew in the same literal way as we find throughout the Greek Pentateuch. It
follows the Hebrew word order and offers a Greek rendering of each Hebrew
lexeme. The Greek translator renders the three Hebrew clauses starting with
wayyiqtol verbal forms in a paratactical way, which is usual for Septuagintal
Greek, but uncommon in genuine Greek, where the hypotactical constructions
prevail. When the Hebrew and Old Greek text are compared, a few minor
observations can be made:
The Greek text renders the double reference to God in the Hebrew text
by the simple Greek phrase . The same phenomenon can be
observed throughout the chapter (vv. 5, 7, 9, 19, 21; cf. 3:22), although the
double divine name is also attested in this chapter (vv. 8, 15,
16, 18, 22). The shorter Greek reference to God corresponds with the simple
designation God in the previous chapter (Gen 1:12:3) both in Greek and
Hebrew.
The Greek translator rendered the Hebrew phrases lit-
erally, thereby creating a rather awkward Greek construction with a double
object: , which later Greek copyists modified
into the more elegant Greek construction
([And God formed] the man taking dust from the earth).
Whereas the Hebrew text states that God breathed into the nostrils of man
() , the Greek translator took this phrase totum pro partibus:
16 Only 4QGeng seems to contain fragments of Gen 2:7, but the few preserved letters could
equally contain remnants of v. 14.
42 van der meer
(in his face). Since, however, already the Hebrew dual of

has the same pars pro toto meaning face, it need not surprise that the
Greek translator did not employ the word (nostril) here.
3 Interpretations of the Greek Text of Genesis 2
It would seem that the Greek translation of the first chapters of the book of Gen-
esis offers a very faithful and straightforward rendering of the Hebrew parent
text with only a few minor negligeable modifications. Yet, as early as the first
century bce later Jewish translators (Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus)
found it necessary to correct this translation, which implies that the translation
was found to be open for different interpretations already at that early stage. As
a matter of fact, we find already allegorical interpretations in Philos De opifi-
cio mundi and in Wis 2 in the late last century bce and early first century ce.
These writings reflect a strongly developed impact of Greek philosophy, mainly
Middle Platonism.17 Therefore, the question has been raised whether the Old
Greek translation of Genesis reflects already a pristine stage of Platonic influ-
ence.
Whereas the French commentaries to the Septuagint of Genesis by Harl and
others in the Bible dAlexandrie volume and in even more detail Alexandre in
her study of the first five chapters of lxx Genesis merely describe the reception
history of the Greek Genesis,18 without discussing the purposes and intentions
of the Greek translator, Rsel in his dissertation bersetzung als Vollendung
der Auslegung offers an affirmative answer to this question.19 In his view, the
choice of Greek equivalents for key-terms in the Hebrew text betrays influence
of the works of Plato. Thus, the rendering (nets:
invisible and unformed) for Hebrew ( nrsv: a formless void) is best
understood, according to Rsel,20 as an adaptation of the Platonic description
of the world of ideas, see Plato, Tim. 36e37a:21
17 See, e.g., D. Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon (ab 43; New York 1979), 2559.
18 Harl et al., La Bible dAlexandrie i, La Gense; M. Alexandre, Le commencement du livre
Gense iv: La version grecque de la Septante et sa rception (ChrAnt 3; Paris 1988).
19 M. Rsel, bersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta
(bzaw 223; Berlin 1994).
20 Rsel, bersetzung, 3133.
21 Text and translation of Platos Timaeus have been taken from Plato, Timaeus, Critias,
Cleitophon, Menexenus, Epistles (trans. R.G. Bury; lcl 234; Cambridge, Mass., 1929).
And whereas the body of the Heaven is visible, the Soul is herself invisible
() but partakes in reasoning and in harmony, having come into
existence by the agency of the best of things intelligible and ever-existing
as the best of things generated.
plato, Tim. 36e37a
Likewise, the rendering in Gen 1:26 of God creating man in his image and in
his likeness (Hebrew: ) by
(nets: according to our image and according to likeness), reflectsthus
RselPlatos ideas about the creation of a visible world as resemblance of
the invisible world of ideas, thus Plato, Tim. 30cd:22
This being established, we must declare that which comes next in order.
In the semblance of which of the living Creatures did the Constructor of
the cosmos construct it? But we shall affirm that the Cosmos, more than
aught else, resembles most closely that Living Creature of which all other
living creatures, severally and generically, are portions. For that Living
Creature embraces and contains within itself all the intelligible Living
Creatures, just as this Universe contains us and all the other visible living
creatures [30d] that have been fashioned. For since God desired to make
it resemble most closely that intelligible Creature which is fairest of all
and in all ways most perfect, He constructed it as a Living Creature, one
and visible, containing within itself all the living creatures which are by
nature akin to itself.
plato, Tim. 30cd
According to Rsel, the Greek translator of Genesis solved the problem of

the doublets and discrepancies between Gen 1 and 2, which modern scholars
explain in terms of different Yahwist and Priestly literary layers, in Platonic
terms: Gen 1 would narrate the creation of the immaterial world of ideas,
whereas Gen 2 the creation of the material world.23
Recently Dafni has gone even further than Rsel by claiming that both Plato
and Euripides in fact knew the Hebrew Scriptures and used the motifs of Gen
12 in order to compose their own literary works.24 Although this thesis has its
22 Rsel, bersetzung, 42, 4849.

24 E.G. Dafni, Genesis, Plato, und Euripides: Drei Studien zum Austausch von griechischem
und hebrischem Sprach- und Gedankengut in der Klassik und im Hellenismus (Biblisch-
Theologische Studien 108; Neukirchen 2010).
44 van der meer
antecedents already in Antiquitythe Jewish Hellenistic second century bce

philosopher Aristobulus made the same claim (frg. 2.5 apud Eusebius, Praep.
ev. 9.6.65)it has never gained credence since it does not explain how Greek
authors from fifth century bce Athens would have been able to get access to
the Hebrew Scriptures in a form comprehensible to them.
Other Septuagint scholars are far more cautious. The late Wevers in his Notes
on the Greek Genesis explains the deviations of the Greek text from the Hebrew
purely in terms of inner-biblical harmonisations and elucidations.25 Van der
Louw also follows a far more prudent methodology. He defines different cat-
egories of free translations, transformations in his own terms.26 In a long
chapter on the transformations in lxx Gen 2, van der Louw starts with stressing
the exotic character of the translation: the literal rendering of the Hebrew with
its paratactical structure falls outside the categories of literary genres common
in Hellenistic literature as defined by Demetrius of Phaleron.27 Thus, when lit-
eralism is the rule for the Greek translator of Genesis (and in van der Louws
view any ancient Greek translator of Hebrew scriptural book), deviation from
this rule must have a special reason. Van der Louw therefore reconstructs the
most plausible literal alternative for a Greek translation and tries to discover
the rationale for the rejection of this literal rendering and the motives for the
Greek translators preference for the present translation. Where a Hebrew lex-
eme and its Greek counterpart share the same basic semantic connotation
external influence on the Greek translation should be dimissed, as is the case
in Gen 2:1, where the word as rendering for Hebrew should not be
seen with Rsel as a reference to Platos cosmogony in Timaeus, but on the basis
of the shared etymological connotation orderly arrangement.
Van der Louws cautious approach thus comes close to what I have labeled
above a rather minimalistic approach to the Septuagint as interpretation of
the Hebrew text. Only where the Greek text clearly departs from the Hebrew,
it is justified to speak of deliberate exegesis of the source text. Yet, since the
Greek translators of the Pentateuch were the first to coin fixed equivalents for
25 J.W. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Genesis (sblscs 35; Atlanta 1993).
26 T.A.W. van der Louw, Transformations in the Septuagint: Towards an Interaction of Septu-
agint Studies and Translation Studies (cbet 47; Leuven 2007).
27 Demetrius, Eloc. , , , (The
simple types of style are four: the plain, the elevated, the elegant, and the forcible).
See van der Louw, Transformations, 9495. See also Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Comp.
(written ca. 2010 bce) who distinguished three styles: austere composition (
), elegant composition ( ), and well-blended composition (-
).
Hebrew words and expressions, it is worthwile to study not only those instances
where the Greek translators departed from their custom, but to examine the
translational options that have been rejected.
I will now study the vocabulary for anthropology in the Septuagint of Gen
2:7 in the light of the interpretations offered by Rsel, van der Louw, and others,
but also in the light of the alternatives provided by the later Greek translators
(Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus). I will examine cognate Greek words
from the same semantic domain that have not been adopted by the Greek
translator in order to get a sharper view on the motives behind the Greek
translation.
4 Anthropology in the Greek Versions of Gen 2:7
The elements in the Septuagint of Gen 2:7 that are relevant for our discussion
concerning the development of dualistic anthropological concepts are the
following.
(a) The formation of man is expressed in plastic terms: The Hebrew text has the
verb which describes the activities of a potter: . This verb is the older, more
concrete counterpart of Hebrew .28 The Greek verb has the same
connotations of the moulding activity of a potter.29 Alexandre points out that
later Greek translators of the books of Isaiah, Proverbs, Psalms, and Jeremiah
all adopted this lexical choice.30 The younger Greek revisers of the Septuagint
(Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus) also adopted this lexical choice of the
Old Greek translation without modification.
Rsel attaches great value to this particular choice for , as it is also
found prominently in Plato, Tim. 42de:
When He had fully declared unto them all these ordinances, to the end
that He might be blameless in respect of the future wickedness of any one
of them, He proceeded to sow them, some in the Earth, some in the Moon,
others in the rest of the organs of Time. Following upon this sowing, He
28 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J.J. Stamm, , halot 2:428b429a.

29 H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H.S. Jones, , lsj 1412ab; J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Haus-
pie, , leh2 495ab; T. Muraoka, , gels3 561a.
30 Alexandre, Commencement, 233235. See also Harl et al., La Bible dAlexandrie i, La Gense,
100.
46 van der meer
delivered over to the young gods the task of molding mortal bodies (
), and of
framing and controlling all the rest of the human soul which it was still
necessary to add, together with all that belonged thereto, and of governing
this mortal creature in the fairest and best way possible, to the utmost of
their power, except in so far as it might itself become the cause of its own
evils.
plato, Tim. 42de
Since, however, the Greek verb corresponds so neatly to Hebrew ,

van der Louw finds Rsels proposal to read the Greek Genesis in the light of
Platos Timaeus a daring assumption, which he dismissed straight at hand.31
(b) The substance from which man is made is dust from the earth, according
to the English translations of the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Hebrew word
means fine dry top-soil: dust, but also soil;32 Greek means layer
of tiny particles lying on the ground; soil.33 It has often been noted that the
Greek translator employed other Greek translations for the same Hebrew word
elsewhere,34 e.g., in the parallel passage Gen 3:19: ( for
you are dust and to dust you shall return), where the Greek has:
. Elsewhere, e.g., in Gen 28:14, Hebrew is rendered by Greek
, which is the word for fine dust. Although Theodotion, Aquila, and
Symmachus retained the lexical choice for in Gen 2:7, they modified
the following phrase:
Theodotion, Symmachus:

Aquila:

According to Rsel the lexical choice for emphasizes the inferior quality of
the material from which men is made; this in contrast of course with the soul
and spirit which is blown into this valueless body.
31 Van der Louw, Transformations, 110111.

32 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J.J. Stamm, , halot 2:861b862b.
33 T. Muraoka, , gels3 735a. See further H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H.S. Jones, ,
lsj 2000b; J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, , leh2 666a.
34 Alexandre, Commencement, 236237; Rsel, bersetzung, 61.
(c) This substance is activated, so to speak, by means of divine breath of life

( [ )] breathed ( [ )]in the face of man. The key-
term here is breath, which in Hebrew ( )refers to movement of air, or
breath.35 The Greek word likewise refers to the movement of air both
from animate and inanimate objects.36 The later Greek revisers (Theodotion
and Aquila) not only corrected the translation into
(Theodotion), respectively (Aquila), but
also altered into .
The result of this constellation of dust or soil infused () with the
breath of life is that man becomes a living being. The Hebrew word used here is
; the Greek is . Both the Hebrew and the Greek noun occur frequently
either in Classical Hebrew or Classical and post-Classical Greek. Both nouns
have a large range of meanings. Besides the meaning throat, neck, and
breath, the Hebrew word can also mean living being, person, personality,
life, or soul.37 In Greek, the meaning soul seems to prevail.38
(d) According to Rsel and others this translation opens up associations with
Greek philosophical concepts of the immortal soul and dualistic anthropolog-
ical concepts that are absent from the original Hebrew text:
Damit ist m.E. fr griechisch gebildete Leser/innen ein Tor zum Ver-
hltnis im Sinne einer Differenzierung, wenn nicht eines Gegensatzes,
zwischen Leib/Krper und Seele/Geist geffnet: Der beseelende Atem
stammt direkt von Gott her, aber das Material, aus dem der Krper ge-
formt wurde, ist nur Staub, eher minderwertig. So kann diese Textstelle,
gemeinsam mit der Erwhnung des Bildes Gottes in 1,26, den berset-
zer, bzw. die Kreise, aus denen er stammt, dazu veranlat haben, eine
Interpretation des Textes in Kategorien der Philosophie der Umwelt als
der Aussage des Textes angemessen erscheinen zu lassen.39
35 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J.J. Stamm, , halot 2:730ab.

36 H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, and H.S. Jones, , lsj 1425b; J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie,
, leh2 501a; T. Muraoka, , gels3 568a.
37 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner, and J.J. Stamm, , halot 2:711b713b.
38 lsj 2026b2027b; J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, , leh2 674b; T. Muraoka, ,
gels3 743a745a; T. Muraoka, Apports de la lxx dans notre apprehension de lhbreu et
du grec et de leur vocabulaire, in L apport de la Septante aux tudes sur lAntiquit (ed.
J. Joosten and P. Le Moigne; Paris 2005), 5768, esp. 6065.
48 van der meer
The relation between these two words has been subjected to numerous stud-
ies over the last century. Whereas major works on Old Testament theology from
the middle of the twentieth century drew a sharp distinction between what was
perceived as genuine Hebrew synthetical thinking and Greek binary thinking,
careful examinations of the semantic range of the Greek word in early
Greek, i.e., pre-Platonic, in a study by Bratsiotis made clear that such a dis-
tinction is inappropriate, since the earlier Greek writings attest to the same
range of physical and biological connotations of (seat of emotions, sensa-
tions, decisions, and religious experiences) as the cognate Hebrew has.40
In a comprehensive study of all renderings of Hebrew in the Septuagint,
Lys concludes that the Septuagint never goes in the direction in which soul
would be understood as opposite to body (as in Platonic dualism), but in a
footnote immediately notes a possible exception in lxx Job 7:15.41 Lys compre-
hensiveness is also his weakness, since he does not differentiate between the
different Greek translations and, furthermore, only concentrates on the ren-
derings of Hebrew , without taking into account the related words from the
same semantic domain. A modest attempt to remedy for this onesidedness was
offered subsequently by Scharbert who studied the translations of the Hebrew
words , , and in the different books of the Greek Pentateuch.42 His
study does not contribute so much to the semantics of as equivalent or
extension of Hebrew , but rather to the study of the translation technique
of the Pentateuch.
In his classical studies on the Greek concepts of the soul and the afterlife,43
Bremmer offers stimulating ideas about the origin of the Greek ideas about
soul, reincarnation, afterlife, and paradise, but leaves the question of the inten-
tion of the first equation between and somewhat open:
Through the Septuagint, which was gradually composed in Alexandria

in the third century bc, psyche entered into the vocabulary of the Greek
40 N.P. Bratsiotis, Nephe-psych, ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der Sprache und Theologie der
Septuaginta, in Volume du congrs: Genve 1965 (VTSup 15; Leiden 1966), 5889.
41 D. Lys, The Israelite Soul according to the lxx, vt 16 (1966): 181228, here 227.
42 J. Scharbert, Fleisch, Geist und Seele in der Pentateuch-Septuaginta, in Wort, Lied und
Gottesspruch: Beitrge zur Septuaginta: Festschrift fr Joseph Ziegler (ed. J. Schreiner; fb 1;
Wrzburg 1972), 121143.
43 J.N. Bremmer, The Early Greek Concept of the Soul (Princeton 1983); J.N. Bremmer, The Rise
and Fall of the Afterlife: The 1995 Read-Tuckwell Lectures at the Univeristy of Bristol (London
2002); J.N. Bremmer, The Soul in Early and Classical Greece, in Der Begriff der Seele in der
Religionswissenschaft (ed. J. Figl and H.-D. Klein; BdS 1; Wrzburg 2002), 159170.
speaking Jewish community and subsequently that of the early Chris-

tians. As the Old Testament does not yet know the opposition of soul and
body, it would take a while before the early Christians started to use psy-
ch in such a way.44
As we have seen, Rsel has argued that the Greek translator of Genesis deliber-
atedly imported Platonic concepts into his translation. In a recently published
essay on the history of the concept of the soul from Hebrew via Greek
and Latin anima through German Seele,45 he pays much attention to the
broad scope of meanings of the Greek word in early Greek literature before
Plato, much in the same way as Bratsiotis had already done. Nevertheless, he
also finds evidence for the Platonic distinction between body and soul in lxx
Gen 6:3,46 where it is said that God will not let his spirit dwell in man forever,
because he is flesh: ( Then the
Lord said, My spirit shall not abide in mortals forever, for they are flesh); lxx:

(and the Lord God said: My pneuma will
not remain in these men forever, because they are sarx ). Yet, the opposition
here is not -, but -.
In what is undoubtedly the most extensive and detailed study of anthro-
pology in the Septuagint, Gzella accepts the idea that the Greek translators of
the Pentateuch and later books, particularly the Psalter, adopted Greek philo-
sophical concepts in their translation.47 He combines these anthropological
notions with concepts of the afterlife which he detects throughout the Greek
Psalter as well as in such key passages as lxx Isa 26:19; lxx Job 14:14; 19:2526a
and argues that the Greek translator of the Psalms consistently rendered his
Hebrew parent text with an eye to the Ewigkeit of the soul after the Lebenszeit
in the present life. Like Schaper before him, Gzella argues on the basis of the
cumulative strength of words that would have eschatological or mythological
connotations, such as Greek , , , , , -
, and .
44 Bremmer, Soul, 161.

45 M. Rsel, Die Geburt der Seele in der bersetzung: Von der hebrischen nfsch ber die
psyche der lxx zur deutschen Sprache, in Anthropologische Aufbrche: Alttestamentliche
und interdisziplinre Zugnge zur historischen Anthropologie (ed. A. Wagner; frlant 232;
Gttingen 2009), 151170.
46 Rsel, Geburt der Seele, 168169.
47 Gzella, Lebenszeit und Ewigkeit.
50 van der meer
Interestingly, Gzella does not argue solely on the basis of the perceived
connotations of Greek words in the Septuagint, which remains a somewhat
uncertain enterprise, but finds support in the use of the Greek tempora and
the use of the words like and in Jewish inscriptions from second
century Leontopolis and Jerusalem.48 Although the use of and in
these epitaphs is from a somewhat later date, we find an interesting parallel
in an eighth century bce Aramaic inscription from Zincirli (kai 214) where we
find the wish that the soul ( )of King Panammuwa i of Samal may drink with
Hadad: .. .. . One wonders nevertheless to what extent the
religion of the ancient Arameans can be used as evidence for determining the
meaning and ideology of a Greek translation from a much later and different
cultural context such as the Septuagint.
I will not go into a discussion of the concept of the afterlife in the Septuagint,
since van der Kooij has shown that in fact in none of the Greek translations
of Hebrew Scripture one can really find solid proof for such concepts of the
afterlife.49 Just as is the case in Hebrew Scripture, statements about life after
death in the Septuagint should be understood in a metaphorical sense usu-
ally with political and ideological overtones, thus van der Kooij. Van der Louw,
who applies his classification system of transformations in the Septuagint to
the whole of Gen 2, does not deny the metaphysical notions of the use of
in lxx Gen 2:7, but argues with Aejmelaeus that already before the Greek trans-
lation was made Hebrew anthropological thinking had moved in the direction
of Greek philosophy.50 Unfortunately, however, he does not substantiate this
claim.
48 See, e.g., W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt: With an
Index of the Jewish Inscriptions of Egypt and Cyrenaica (Cambridge 1992), no. 29 (= im 70;
Leontopolis, dating from the 1st cent. bce to the 1st cent. ce); and no. 39 (= cpj iii
1530a = im 16; Leontopolis, dating from the mid-2nd cent. bce to the early 2nd cent. ce).
See also L. Triebel, Jenseitshoffnung in Wort und Stein: Nefesch und pyramidales Grab-
mal als Phnomene antiken jdischen Bestttungswesens im Kontext der Nachbarkulturen
(agju 56; Leiden 2004).
49 A. van der Kooij, Ideas about Afterlife in the Septuagint, in Lebendige Hoffnungewiger
Tod?!: Jenseitsvorstellungen im Hellenismus, Judentum und Christentum (ed. M. Labahn and
M. Lang; abg 24; Leipzig 2007), 87102.
50 Van der Louw, Transformations, 110112; A. Aejmelaeus, Von Sprache zur Theologie: Me-
thodologische berlegungen zur Theologie der Septuaginta, in The Septuagint and Mes-
sianism (ed. M. Knibb; betl 195; Leuven 2006), 2148.
5 Methodology
What remains a methodological problem for me is the question of the appro-

priate context from which parallels are drawn that are credited with evidentiary
value for determining the meaning of a Greek translation as early as the Greek
Pentateuch. What we have seen thus far are basically the same bipolar positions
in Septuagint research which I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution:
a maximalist and a minimalist approach. The maximalist approach embues as
much as possible Greek words with ideological and theological connotations
and borrows such concepts from relatively remote areas as Greek philosophy,
which was far from popular in early Ptolemaic Egypt, or Jewish philosophical
and eschatological speculations from a much later, viz. the Roman period. The
minimalist approach sticks closely to the Hebrew source text and has hardly
any eye for the historical and cultural context in which the Septuagint came
into being.
An intermediate approach to the study of the Septuagint is offered by the
vast corpus of Greek documentary papyri from Ptolemaic and early Roman
Egypt. There are thousands of Greek documents which stand much closer in
time and space to the environment and mental map of the Greek translators
than the sources we have discussed so far (Hebrew Scripture and Plato), com-
prising of sales and contracts, official and private correspondence written in
Ptolemaic Egypt and preserved until the present day in almost their original
shape, which provide a wealth of information about the cultural context of the
Septuagint.51 With the exception of a few scholars,52 most Septuagint schol-
ars have ignored the relevance of these documents. Thanks to the Internet and
new digital tools all published documents are now available online and easily
51 See now the papyri portal: http://www.papyri.info. Abbreviations of publications in the

field of papyrology follow the system developed by J.D. Sosin et al., Checklist of Editions
of Greek, Latin, Demotic, and Coptic Papyri, Ostraca and Tablets, n.p. Online: http://
scriptorium.lib.duke.edu/papyrus/texts/clist.html.
52 J.A.L. Lee, A Lexical Study of the Septuagint (scs 14; Chico, Calif., 1983). See also my
articles: M.N. van der Meer, Trendy Translations in the Septuagint of Isaiah: A Study
of the Vocabulary of the Greek Isaiah 3:1823 in the Light of Contemporary Sources, in
Die SeptuagintaTexte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten (ed. M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser;
wunt 219; Tbingen 2008), 581590; M.N. van der Meer, The Question of the Literary
Dependence of the Greek Isaiah upon the Greek Psalter Revisited, in Die Septuaginta
Texte, Theologien, Einflsse (ed. W. Kraus, M. Karrer, and M. Meiser; wunt 252; Tbingen
2010), 162200; M.N. van der Meer, Papyrological Perspectives on the Septuagint of Isaiah,
in The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives (ed. A. van der Kooij and M.N. van der
Meer; cbet 55; Leuven 2010), 105133.
52 van der meer
searchable. It is not only possible to search all the documentary papyri online
with the help of the Duke Databank of Documentary Papyri, we also have a
wealth of Greek inscriptions available thanks to the Packard Humanities Epi-
graphical Search Tool, of course the digital Thesaurus Linguae Graecae with
all the literary Greek texts from Homer up until the fall of Constantinople, but
also the Perseus Digital Library with dictionary lookup and English to Greek
search tools which allows for searches for cognate words with the same or sim-
ilar definitions as the headword.53 My own research over the past years has
concentrated on precisely this relatively unexplored area, particularly, but cer-
tainly not excusively with an eye to the Greek translation of Isaiah.
6 A Fresh Semantic Analysis of the Greek Anthropological Terms of

lxx Gen 2:7
To my mind, a study of the Greek anthropological notions of lxx Gen 2:7

(, , and ) in the light of these documentary papyri adds interesting
contextual dimensions to the study of the Septuagint. I want to discuss the
meaning of these three terms in the light of the documentary papyri, within
their immediate literary context and in the light of the cognate terms that have
not been chosen by the Greek translator.
6.1
The first of the three words which should be considered here, viz. the substance
from which man is made, Greek , should be redefined in the light of its
usage in contemporary Greek documentary papyri. To my mind, the word does
not mean dust as Muraoka in his Septuagint lexicon, Hiebert in nets, and
Rsel and van der Louw in their commentaries on the Greek Genesis all seem
to contend, but rather dredge, sludge, or any other type of mud thrown
artificially or by nature on the surface of the earth. In one of our oldest extant
papyri, an excerpt of the Alexandrian city laws from the middle of the third
century bce, we find a provision for the case when a citizen wants to dig a canal
and has to throw the either on his own parcel or on that of his neighbour:
[Cutting and cleaning] of graves. If anyone wishes to cut a bew grave or to

dig up an old one to the neighbors of the land and each shall contribute
53 See http://www.perseus.tufts.edu, http://www.tlg.uci.edu/, and http://epigraphy

.packhum.org/inscriptions/.
a share towards the expense, and he shall cast up half of the excavated
earth on each side. If anyone does not wish to contribute, the person
cutting the grave or digging it up shall cast up the dirt for his side onto the
land of whichever one is willing (to contribute) ( [] []
[]-110[, ]
[] [] 111[), and if succesful in a
suit he shall exact twice [the expense].54
P.Hal. 1, ll. 107111
The substance that is dug from the Alexandrian soil, situated between the Lake
of Mareotis and the Mediterrenean Sea, can hardly be qualified as fine, dry
particles, which is the common definition of dust. The meaning mud seems
to be more in place here.
Another document from a somewhat later period (114 bce) found in the
ancient city of Tebtunis (P.Tebt. i 13) reports the undermining of the dikes,
which played a vital role in the elaborate irrigation system of the Fayum oasis
developed under the first Ptolemees:
Menches, the kommogrammateus of Kerkeosoiris in the division of Pole-

mon, to Ptolemaeus, greeting. On the 16th of Epeiph of the third year as
I was inspecting, in company with Horus the komarch and Patanis and
other elders of the cultivators, the embankment works near the village,
when we came along the drain the banking up of the surrounding dyke
of the great god Soknebtunis, the lands near the village being situated
between, we found that certain persons in the employ of Philonautes son
of Leon, one of the catoecic cavalry-soldiers ar Berencis Thesmophori, had
dug away part of the aforesaid drain, (undermining) the mounds of the
surrounding dyke called that of Themistes for the length of eight schoe-
nia, and had heaped the earth from it on to the mounds of the holding of
the said Philonautes (10a.... . . () 11[[
[ ] () ]] 12..[... ] ()
[[()]] () () 13[]
11 14 12 ()
() 15 () ). Whereupon we immediately seized one
of the above-mentioned persons and sent a message to Polemon who is
performing the duties of epistates of the village, asking him to bring the
54 R.S. Bagnall and P. Derow, eds., The Hellenistic Period: Historical Sources in Translation
(Malden, Mass., 2004), 207208.
54 van der meer
offenders before you I send this report therefore in order that you may,
if you please (give instructions), first of all that the mounds are made
secure and that Philonautes and his agents may appear before you
and receive the punishment which they deserve for their (offences).55
P.Tebt. i 13 [letter from Menches the kommogrammateus to Ptolemaeus, 114 bce]
It becomes clear that our word dust is an inappropriate rendering for Greek
, since the latter word refers to wet earth thrown up from the ground. Our
word dust is expressed in Greek by the words (dust), (stucco,
plaster; dust), , (dust), (dust: sprinkled on the head
as a sign of mourning), and (ashes, dust). By contrast, the substance
indicated in Greek by presupposes a certain amount of moisture. Read
within the context of Gen 2:56, where irrigation of the earth is the central
theme, and 2:1014, where we learn about the four rivers flowing from Eden,
the use of as the substance from which Yhwh moulds his first creature
is perfectly understandable. It is also clear now, why the Greek translator of
Genesis used as rendering for Hebrew in 2:7, but for the same
Hebrew word in the following chapter. In the light of these observations there
is no reason to suspect a negative connotation of the material part of man as
found in Platonic writings and as presupposed by Rsel for Greek Gen 2:7. Read
in its own right, the Greek rendering makes perfect sense as a contextual
adaptation of the Hebrew source text. If the Greek translator of Genesis would
have wanted to evoke the body-soul dichotomy, he would have used the word
. A study of the word combination and in all Greek writings,
documentary or literary, from the earliest stages until the patristic period,
makes clear that the Greek translator was the first to coin this combination,
evidently led by his Hebrew source text.
6.2
The Greek word or its compound cognate refers to breath and
has the same metaphorical connotations as our word breath, particularly in
the phrase to his or her last breath. The expression (at his last
gasp) occurs in 2Macc 3:31 and has a striking parallel in a Ptolemaic decree
from Ptolemy vii(i) Euergetes ii found at Nicosia, Cyprus, dating from 145 bce,
which declares amnesty to all soldiers after the tumultous period in which
55 Text and translation: B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt, and J.G. Smyly, eds., The Tebtunis Papyri i
(gra 1; London 1902). For a contextual reading of the Menches papyri from Tebtunis, see
A.M.F.W. Verhoogt, Menches, Komogrammateus of Kerkeosiris: The Doings and Dealings of
a Village Scribe in the Late Ptolemaic Period (120110 b.c.e.) (plb 29; Leiden 1998).
both Euergetes and his sister Cleopatra sought to secure dominion over the
Ptolemaic Empire:
16 [ ] [ ]
17 [ ] [] [, ]
18 [, ] [ ] 19
[ ], [ ]
20[, ] [ -
] 21[] [] [
] 22 [
, ] 23 [] [-
, ] 24 [] []
[ ]-25 ,
[ , ]-26[] -
, [ , ]-27[] ,
[] [ ]
sb viii/2 10011 = I.Kition 2017 = seg 37:1372 = ig xv = C.Ord.Ptol. 42
Similar phrases are found in Flavius Josephus, b.j. 2.144 and Diodore of Sicily,
Bibliotheca historica 17.33. The combination (breeze, vapour) and
(life) was another innovation first coined by the Greek translator of Genesis
and applied further only by Jewish and Greek writings dependent upon that
usage, starting with Philo, Opif. 134; Leg. 1.31; Plant. 19; Her. 56; Somn. 1.34;
Spec. 4.123; qg 2.59 and with Jos. Asen. 12:2; 16:4, and continuing with Christian
writings: Acts 17:25. The Greek translator did not employ cognate words such
as (wind; with the same negative smelling connotations as our word
wind), (only in Wis 11:18), or the etymologically related noun ,
which the Greek translators reserved for the translation of Hebrew .
6.3
Although a lot has been said already about the connotations of , I think
the epigraphic sources may be of help to determine more precisely the function
and nuances the word had in the time and place where the Greek translations
of Hebrew Scripture were made. In a short letter from Petesuchus to Marres,
late second century bce, again from Tebtunis (P.Tebt. i 56) we find a request
for assistance after a flood:
Petesuchus son of Marres, cultivator at Kerkesephis, to Marres son of

Petosiris his brother, greeting. You must hear about our plain having
been inundated; we have not so much as food for our cattle. Please
56 van der meer
therefore in the first place to give thanks to the gods and secondly to save
many life (9 10
11 ) by seeking out in the neighbourhood of your
village 5 arourae for our maintainance so that we may thence obtain food.
If you do this I shall be eternally obliged to you. Good-bye.
P.Tebt. i 56
Here the use comes close to that of the phrase save our souls. No metaphysical
dimension is implied here. The word does not refer to an immortal soul
as opposed to the mortal material in which the soul would be encapsulated,
as in Platonic doctrine. It simply refers to life in general. It is probably for this
reason that the Greek translators did not opt for related Greek words such as
, , or , which refer to the emotional and intelligent capacities of
a human being.
Returning to lxx Gen 2:7 we see that functions in the same way. God
has given the breath of life to a premodelled heap of clay, washed up by the
well that came up from the earth (Gen 2:6). In lxx Gen 2:7 there is no dualism
between body and soul. In fact, it is only through the combination of matter
() and spirit () that a comes into being.
7 Conclusions
Although Greek Jewish authors from the Roman period onwards read lxx Gen
2:7 through the lens of Platonic dualistic thought, there is no reason to suppose
that this was the purpose of the Greek translators roughly three centuries
earlier.
In fact, when the Greek translation is read in its own right and in the
light of contemporary documents from the immediate cultural context of the
Septuagint, it becomes clear that the Greek translators had a different agenda.
They wanted to render their source text to the best of their abilities in a
language that was understandable for the same people that wrote and read the
papyri. A study of these papyri makes clear that there is more Greek literary
context for the Septuagint than only Greek philosophical writings. By rendering
the Hebrew into Greek in the way they did, the translators often adopted words
known from their cultural context. The combination of the words ( and
; and ), however, were unprecedented and must have sounded
strange and fascinating to Greek hearers.
If Greek philosophy did play a role at all in the process of translation of
Hebrew Scripture i would suggest it was rather a negative role. There where the
Greek translators had a good opportunity to employ the word as render-

ing for Hebrew , they seem to have taken pains to avoid this Libertine notion,
popularized in their own days through the school of Epicurus. The Greek trans-
lator of Genesis either transliterated the word as or employed the more
neutral term for luxuriousness (). As Siegert in his contribution to anthro-
pology in the Septuagint has demonstrated, the Greek translators displayed a
somewhat Calvinistic notion minimizing elements of humor, eroticism, and
human autonomy versus divine authority, and strengthening the cognitive ele-
ments of human existence.56
If one wants to appreciate the interpretative character of the Septuagint in its
own right, one has to be prepared to stand with both feet in the of the direct
cultural context of the Septuagint as witnessed by papyri and inscriptions from
Ptolemaic Egypt and study these sources in order to
capture the true of the Septuagint, its translators, and their readership.57
56 F. Siegert, Anthropologisches aus der Septuaginta, in Der Mensch vor Gott: Forschun-
gen zum Menschbild in Bibel, antiken Judentum und Koran: Festschrift fr Hermann Licht-
enberger zum 60. Geburtstag (ed. U. Mittmann-Richert, F. Avemarie, and G.S. Oegema;
Neukirchen 2003), 6574.
57 After completion of this manuscript in 2010 a number of studies appeared that need to
be mentioned here. Additional volumes in the La Bible dAlexandrie series (footnote 1)
are: (12) Esther (C. Cavalier; 2012); (23.12) Malachie (L. Vianes, 2011); and A. Le Boulluec,
Ph. Le Moigne, Vision que vit Isae (2014). The Spanish translation of the Septuagint (foot-
note 4) is now complete, see N. Fernndez Marcis and M.V. Spottorne Daz-Caro, La Biblia
griegaSeptuaginta 2. Libros histricos (2011); 3. Libros potcos y sapienciales (2013); 4. Libros
profticos (2015). Additional volumes in the Brill Septuagint Commentary series (foot-
note 6) are: Exodus (D.M. Gurtner; 2013); 1 Esdras (M.F. Bird; 2012); Hosea (W.E. Glenny,
2013); Amos (W.E. Glenny, 2013); Micah (W.E. Glenny, 2015); Jeremiah (G. Walser; 2012); and
Baruch and the Epistle of Baruch (S.A. Adams, 2014). Additional volumes in the Wuppertal
congress volume series (footnote 10) are: S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, and M. Sigismund, eds.,
Die Septuaginta Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte (wunt 286; Tbingen, 2012); W. Kraus,
S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, and M. Sigismund, eds., Die Septuaginta Text, Wirkung, Rezeption
(wunt 325; Tbingen 2014), S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, M. Sigismund, M. Karrer, and W. Kraus,
Die SeptuagintaOrte und Intentionen (wunt 361; Tbingen 2016). Special mention should
also be made of the recently published Septuagint syntax: T. Muraoka, A Syntax of Septu-
agint Greek (Leuven 2016). Finally, mention should be made of R.C. Steiner, Disembodied
Souls. The Nephesh in Israel and Kindred Spirits in the Ancient Near East, with an Appendix
on the Katumuwa Inscription (anem 11; Atlanta 2015). Steiner argues convincingly on the
basis of Ezek 13:1721, Old Aramaic inscriptions such as the Panamuwa and Katumuwa
inscriptions and related passages that body-soul (in the sense of disembodied souls) was
already current in the Levant during the Iron Age. This important monograph thus chal-
lenges the widely accepted thesis of ancient Hebrew monistic body-soul concepts.
Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in
Early Judaism: The Two Spirits Treatise
(1qs iii, 13iv, 26) and Other Texts from the Dead
Sea Scrolls
Mladen Popovi
1 Introduction
When it comes to anthropological notions in early Judaism, and especially

dualistic anthropological notions, virtually all scholarly discussions devote
attention to the so-called Two Spirits Treatise from Qumran. The Two Spirits
Treatise is recognized as a separate composition that was adopted and adapted
into the Rule of the Community (Serekh ha-Yahad) at a certain stage of its
development. It is only completely preserved in the Rule of the Community
copy from Cave 1 (1qs iii, 13iv, 26), dated to 10075bce. Known since the
early days of the Dead Sea discoveries, the Two Spirits Treatise and what it is
about, however, still presents somewhat of a conundrum. Levison concludes
his overview by stating that the first fifty years of research have yielded a bewil-
dering lack of consensus concerning the two issues of whether the two spirits
represent cosmic beings or human dispositions and their relationship to Qum-
ran thought.1
The Two Spirits Treatise purports to be:
For the maskil,2 to instruct and to teach all the sons of light about the
nature of all the sons of man, concerning all the types of their spirits with
1 J.R. Levison, The Two Spirits in Qumran Theology, in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran
Community (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; vol. 2 of The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls; ed. J.H. Charles-
worth; Waco, Tex., 2006), 169194.
2 For the leadership figure of the maskil in the so-called sectarian texts from Qumran, see, e.g.,
A. Lange, Weisheit und Prdestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und Prdestination in den Text-
funden von Qumran (stdj 18; Leiden 1995), 144148; C. Hempel, The Qumran Sapiential Texts
and the Rule Books, in The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential
Thought (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange, and H. Lichtenberger; betl 159; Leuven 2002), 277295,
esp. 286294; C.A. Newsom, The Self As Symbolic Space: Constructing Identity and Community
at Qumran (stdj 52; Leiden 2004), 165174.

anthropology, pneumatology, and demonology in early judaism 59
their signs, concerning their deeds in their generations, and concerning

the visitation of their punishments as well as the times of their reward.
1qs iii, 1315
Thus, from the outset the Two Spirits Treatise states that it is about the nature
of humankind, one element of which is all their kinds of spirits. However, the
texts opening is far from clear as to how human nature must be understood
in relation to its spirits, and the exposition that follows on the two spirits
complicates matters further, at least for modern readers.
A basic question is how the different references to spirit ( )in the Two
Spirits Treatise should be understood. Shaked argued in 1972 that the term
is similar to the Iranian term mng and is used in Qumran in at least three
senses: (a) it indicates the two spiritual entities which represent the two poles
of the ethical dualism, in a cosmic manner; (b) it designates the two opposing
qualities inherent in man, corresponding to the cosmic dualism of a; and (c) it is
applied to the numerous qualities and faculties in Man. These qualities and fac-
ulties are again conceived of as being inherent in man, i.e. psychological, and
at the same time also existing on an independent level, i.e. as being cosmic. In
addition, the term rua is also used to indicate angel.3 In other words, accord-
ing to Shaked the notion of is applied in a triple manner, to designate a psy-
chological faculty, a metaphysical entity, and a divine being (angel or demon).4
Unfortunately, Shakeds approach to the Two Spirits Treatise seems not to
have received the attention it deserves, although it is an important perspective
for understanding early Jewish and Christian pneumatology and demonology
such as that found in the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. While scholars
have come to interpret the Two Spirits Treatise as a combination of cosmic
and anthropological elements, there is no consensus about which particular
references are to human spirits and which are to cosmic spirits.5 Scholars
acknowledge that the Two Spirits Treatise expresses dualistic or oppositional
notions on different levelscosmological, ethical, and anthropological6
3 S. Shaked, Qumran and Iran: Further Considerations,ios 2 (1972): 433446, esp. 436. Cf. also
Levison, Two Spirits, 191192.
4 Shaked, Qumran and Iran, 436.
5 Levison, Two Spirits, 185.
6 See, e.g., J. Frey, Different Patterns of Dualistic Thought in the Qumran Library, in Legal Texts
and Legal Issues: Proceedings of the Second Meeting of the International Organization for Qum-
ran Studies Cambridge 1995: Published in Honour of Joseph M. Baumgarten (ed. M. Bernstein,
F. Garca Martnez, and J. Kampen; stdj 23; Leiden 1997), 275335, esp. 289295; E. Puech,
LEsprit Saint Qumrn, lasbf 49 (1999): 283298, esp. 286n10; Levison, Two Spirits, 185;
60 popovi
but it is less clear how exactly these interrelate with regard to the use of
in the text.
Shakeds suggestion that the distinctions between the different senses of
can be somewhat blurredi.e., qualities and faculties existing as distinct
entities and at the same time being inherent in manseems in particular
to have had little impact.7 Garca Martnez, for example, acknowledges the
polyvalent sense of in the Two Spirits Treatise but is not convinced that the
term has a triple meaning as proposed by Shaked.8
Now that all of the texts from Qumran have been published we are in a better
position to assess Shakeds proposal with regard to the Two Spirits Treatise,
and especially since the publication and first phase of study of magical texts
or texts with magical elements.9 Taking into account other texts from the
Qumran corpus, somewhat disregarding sectarian and nonsectarian labels, is
not meant to imply a generic connection between the texts, nor to suggest a
unified notion of . Rather, this may sharpen our view of the different ways
in which the relationship between human nature, character traits, the human
spirit, and spirits or demons was conceptualizedanthropologically, ethically,
and cosmologicallyin various early Jewish texts.
In this regard, I will argue that the vocabulary and imagery (of the body) in
the various texts suggest, from a systemic point of view, a general framework
M. Popovi, Reading the Human Body: Physiognomics and Astrology in the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Hellenistic-Early Roman Period Judaism (stdj 67; Leiden 2007), 179184; M. Kister, On Good
and Evil: The Theological Foundation of the Qumran Community, in The Qumran Scrolls
and Their World (ed. M. Kister; 2 vols.; Jerusalem 2009), 2:497528 (Hebrew); L.T. Stucken-
bruck, The Interiorization of Dualism within the Human Being in Second Temple Judaism:
The Treatise of the Two Spirits (1qs iii: 13iv: 26) in Its Tradition-Historical Context, in Light
against Darkness: Dualism in Ancient Mediterranean Religion and the Contemporary World (ed.
A. Lange et al.; JAJSup 2; Gttingen 2011), 145168, esp. 162166.
7 See Puech, LEsprit Saint, 286n10; E. Tigchelaar, The Evil Inclination in the Dead Sea Scrolls,
with a Re-Edition of 4q468i (4QSectarian Text?), in Empsychoi LogoiReligious Innovations
in Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst (ed. A. Houtman, A. de Jong,
and M. Misset-van de Weg; ajec 73; Leiden 2008), 347357, esp. 352353; A. de Jong, Iranian
Connections in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed.
T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins; ohrt; Oxford 2010), 479500, esp. 491, 494.
8 F. Garca Martnez, Iranian Influences in Qumran?, in Qumranica minora i: Qumran Origins
and Apocalypticism (F. Garca Martnez; ed. E.J.C. Tigchelaar; stdj 63; Leiden 2007), 227241,
esp. 237. Published previously in Apocalyptic and Eschatological Heritage: The Middle East and
Celtic Realms (ed. M. McNamara; Dublin 2003), 3749.
9 This also means that the material from Qumran can now be meaningfully studied in a wider
context. See G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge 2008).
of thought that is shared by the different texts, and also that the Two Spirits
Treatise should be understood within this context. The Two Spirits Treatise is
not the first or only text to speak of more than one spirit within human
beings.10 Other sectarian (Hodayot, Songs of the Sage) and nonsectarian
texts, such as the Hebrew Barkhi Nafshi and Incantation or the Aramaic Visions
of Amram texts from Cave 4 provide meaningful parallels.11
The term takes on different senses: at times it is understood as a distinct
and external entity that affects the human self and at other times it is less
easily distinguished as a character trait expressing the human self. Following
Shakeds suggestion, I will argue that the distinctions are often blurred: spirits
exist as independent, created beings and at the same time also relate to human
beings. This, however, should not lead us to think that distinctions are never to
be made. Sometimes human beings and spirits are clearly distinct from each
other (see below on 1qs iv, 12).
Considering the theme of this volume, the development of a dualistic an-
thropology in early Judaism and Christianity and their Umwelt, the Two Spirits
Treatise is usually interpreted as a unique expression of dualistic anthropology
in early Judaism. Scholars often synthesize 1qs iii, 1819 and iv, 1516, 23
25 to argue that there is both good and evil in every human being as God
appointed for man two spirits that struggle with each other within human
beings. Whether or not one assumes a literary growth in different phases of
the Two Spirits Treatise,12 this scholarly synthesis is not without problems.
There is no doubt that the two spirits in the Two Spirits Treatise are two
opposing spirits, but this, I will argue, does not turn the Two Spirits Treatise
10 Klein (A. Klein, From the Right Spirit to the Spirit of Truth: Observations on Psalm 51 and
1qs, in The Dynamics of Language and Exegesis at Qumran [ed. D. Dimant and R.G. Kratz;
fat 2/35; Tbingen 2009], 171191, esp. 181) suggests that the Two Spirits Treatise presents a
completely new understanding of the spirit, one of the characteristics being that not one
but two spirits struggle within mans heart.
11 In earlier research a distinction was made between Geistlehre and Geisterlehre. See Lev-
ison, Two Spirits, 186. Now that all texts have become available, I do not think this dis-
tinction is as helpful in understanding the conceptualization of in all of the texts. At
the same time, this is not meant to imply the existence of a uniform notion of in the
Dead Sea Scrolls.
12 See P. von der Osten-Sacken, Gott und Belial: Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum
Dualismus in den Texten aus Qumran (Gttingen 1969), 1727, 116189; E.J.C. Tigchelaar, To
Increase Learning for the Understanding Ones: Reading and Reconstructing the Fragmen-
tary Early Jewish Sapiential Text 4QInstruction (stdj 44; Leiden 2001), 201203. Cf. Popovi,
Reading the Human Body, 178.
62 popovi
into an early Jewish example of a dualistic anthropology.13 The one passage

that seems most clear on a dualistic anthropology (1qs iv, 23) should not
be understood as a reference to two opposing spirits that are inherent to
humanitys essence and these spirits should not be understood as part of
humanitys created nature.
2 The Two Spirits Treatise at Qumran and Beyond
Scholarly evaluation of the position of the Two Spirits Treatise at Qumran has
a certain ambivalence to it. The Two Spirits Treatise is seen both as unique
in its particular expression of theological concepts and as central to Qumran
theologya nonsectarian composition in a core sectarian document. This
assessment is partly due to the chronology of the modern discovery of the Dead
Sea Scrolls and the order in which the texts became available for study. The Rule
of the Community from Cave 1 was available early on and has determined to an
important degree and for a long time the direction of research.14
Acknowledging the unique character of the Two Spirits Treatise, some schol-
ars recognize it to be a presectarian composition antedating the establishment
of the Qumran community.15 Opinions are divided on whether there is evi-
dence for Persian influence on the notion of dualism in the text or whether it
should be explained as a development from Jewish traditions with no outside
influence, referring to 1Sam 16:14.16
13 Cf. also the argument by Ed Noort in this volume that there is no dualistic anthropology
in the Hebrew Bible.
14 See, e.g., M.A. Knibb, The Qumran Community (Cambridge 1987), 77, 93.
15 See H. Stegemann, Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken von 1qs iii, 13iv, 26, RevQ
13 (1988): 95131, esp. 128; Lange, Weisheit und Prdestination, 127130; Frey, Different
Patterns of Dualistic Thought, 295300.
16 See, e.g., K.G. Kuhn, Die Sektenschrift und die iranische Religion,ztk 49 (1952): 296316;
A. Dupont-Sommer, Linstruction sur les deux esprits dans le Manuel de Discipline,rhr
142 (1952): 535; A. Dupont-Sommer, Le problme des influences trangres sur la secte
juive de Qoumrn, rhpr 35 (1955): 7594; H. Michaud, Un mythe zervanite dans un des
manuscrits de Qumrn, vt 5 (1955): 137147; E. Kamlah, Die Form der katalogischen Par-
nese im Neuen Testament (wunt 7; Tbingen 1964), 4971, 163168; Shaked, Qumran and
Iran; Knibb, Qumran Community, 9596; M. Philonenko, La doctrine qoumrnienne des
deux esprits: Ses origines iraniennes et ses prolongements dans le judasme essnien et le
christianisme antique, in Apocalyptique iranienne et dualisme qoumrnien (ed. G. Widen-
gren, A. Hultgrd, and M. Philonenko; Paris 1995), 163211; Puech, LEsprit Saint, 286n10;
Garca Martnez, Iranian Influences; Seitz (O.J.F. Seitz, Two Spirits in Man: An Essay
From the very beginning of Dead Sea Scrolls research the Two Spirits Trea-
tise took central place in reconstructions of Qumran theology, predestination
and dualism, and especially dualistic anthropology. For example, more recently
Newsom analysed the Two Spirits Treatises teaching about human nature to
enquire about certain ways in which knowledge as a symbolic form is related to
specific conditions of history within which the sectarian community existed.17
While Newsom does not argue for the Two Spirits Treatises centrality to Qum-
ran thought, her choice of this text suggests a more than ephemeral importance
of it for an understanding of the Qumran community.
However, in light of all the material now available after the full publication
of the Dead Sea Scrolls, one wonders whether the Two Spirits Treatise in 1qs iii,
13iv, 26 was less of a central, core text of the Qumran community and more
of a special, quite unique text. The publication of the Cave 4 Rule of the Com-
munity manuscripts has shed new light on the place of the Two Spirits Treatise
within this composition. Also, the notion of the Qumran community and its
relationship to the collection of manuscripts in the caves surrounding Qumran
is changing. Recent research on the Damascus Document and the Rule of the
Community proposes related, but different groups behind these texts.18 Further-
more, the publication of all of the available Rule of the Community manuscripts
may suggest that multiple Yahad communities elsewhere in Judea may also
be behind the different versions of the Rule of the Community.19 The relevance
of the Qumran texts not only extends to a community at Qumran, but also to
broader strands of Jewish society and culture in the Second Temple period in
in Biblical Exegesis, nts 6 [1959]: 8295) argues for an Old Testament background con-
cerning the notion of two opposing spirits; Wernberg-Mller (P. Wernberg-Mller, A
Reconsideration of the Two Spirits in the Rule of the Community [1QSerek iii,13iv,26],
RevQ 3 [1961]: 413441) understands the Two Spirits Treatise as a purely Jewish document,
although he earlier admitted Persian influence, see P. Wernberg-Mller, trans., annot., and
introd., The Manual of Discipline (stdj 1; Leiden 1957), 70n56. The most recent discussions
of this issue are P. Heger, Another Look at Dualism in Qumran Writings, in Dualism in
Qumran (ed. G. Xeravits; lsts 76; London 2010), 39101; de Jong, Iranian Connections,
490495. See also Tigchelaar, Evil Inclination, 352353.
17 Newsom, The Self, 7790.
18 See, e.g., C. Hempel, The Damascus Texts (Sheffield 2000), 5470; J.J. Collins, Sectarian
Communities in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in The Oxford Handbook of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed.
T.H. Lim and J.J. Collins; ohrt; Oxford 2010), 151172, esp. 152156.
19 See A. Schofield, From Qumran to the Yaad: A New Paradigm of Textual Development for
the Community Rule (stdj 77; Leiden 2008); A. Schofield, Between Center and Periphery:
The Yaad in Context, dsd 16 (2009): 330350; Collins, Sectarian Communities, 159
160.
64 popovi
Palestine. These insights may contribute to a new perspective on the position

of the Two Spirits Treatise at Qumran and beyond.
The Rule of the Community manuscripts from Cave 4 demonstrate that the
Rule of the Community was available in different textual forms, and that, impor-
tantly, some Rule of the Community manuscripts circulated without the equiv-
alent of 1qs iii, 13iv, 26. The Rule of the Community manuscripts thus show
that textual developments occurred during the transmission of the Two Spir-
its Treatise within the Rule of the Community, but they do not provide enough
evidence to assess this growth in detail.20 Nonetheless, what is clear is that, as
Hempel puts it, the Two Spirits Treatises particular dualistic frame of reference
is confined to a limited portion of the corpus, and what is more the portion has
proportionally shrunk with the publication of the remainder of the Cave 4 frag-
ments.21
Of course, scholars have referred to parallels in other texts from the Dead Sea
Scrolls, such as 4QBeatitudes (4q525 1112, 14) and the Damascus Document
(cd ii, 213), and argued that the Two Spirits Treatise influenced other texts,
such as the Hodayot (1qha v) and Instruction,22 or, wrongly in my opinion,
4q186, a text mistakenly named Horoscope.23 However, such parallels seem
20 For some of the details concerning the manuscript evidence for the Two Spirits Treatise,
see Popovi, Reading the Human Body, 177n14.
21 C. Hempel, The Treatise on the Two Spirits and the Literary History of the Rule of the
Community, in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. Xeravits; lsts 76; London 2010), 102120,
esp. 102103. See also already Stegemann, Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken, 125130.
In addition to distinctive features, Hempel (Hempel, The Treatise on the Two Spirits)
has also drawn attention to intriguing elements of continuity between the Two Spirits
Treatise and other parts of the Serekh ha-Yahad, especially 1qs vix. She suggests that this
continuity should be attributed to the redactor or compiler of the Endredaktion, both of
the Two Spirits Treatise and 1qs in its present form. These elements of continuity, however,
do not encompass notions of dualism. Thus, the comparison made by Hempel sets into
even sharper relief the distinctiveness of the dualism of the Two Spirits Treatise in relation
to the Serekh ha-Yahad texts.
22 For parallels to the Two Spirit Treatise in 4q525 and cd, see . Puech, Qumrn grotte 4.xviii:
Textes hbreux (4q5214q528, 4q5764q579) (djd 25; Oxford 1998), 141142; P.S. Alexander
and G. Vermes, Qumran Cave 4.xix: Serekh ha-Yaad and Two Related Texts (djd 26; Oxford
1998), 3. For the relationship between the Two Spirits Treatise, the Instruction text, and the
Hodayot text 1qha v, see Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning, 194207. Cf. also Puech, LEsprit
Saint, 287288.
23 Popovi, Reading the Human Body; M. Popovi, Light and Darkness in the Treatise on the
Two Spirits (1qs iii 13iv 26) and in 4q186, in Dualism in Qumran (ed. G. Xeravits; lsts 76;
London 2010), 148165.
above all to relate to expressions of predestination and dualism in a more

general sense. None of these other texts, except perhaps Instruction, evinces
the kind of dualistic anthropology of two spirits as the Two Spirits Treatise
supposedly does.24 This assessment calls into question the Two Spirits Treatises
prominence within the collection of Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the thinking
of the people behind the collection: it seems increasingly likely that the Two
Spirits Treatise was less central and more a particular text. It can no longer
simply be assumed that the Two Spirits Treatise reflects the ideology of the
Qumran community.25 However, in terms of the ways in which the notion of
was conceptualized in the Two Spirits Treatise the text remains less isolated.
3 The Two Spirits Treatise in 1qs iii, 13iv, 26
Dualism can be defined as a concept according to which two fundamentally

opposed, causal principles underlie the existence of the world and its consti-
tutive elements. Scholars duly observe that this notion can be further refined
according to a typology of forms in which dualism is expressed. Thus, as men-
tioned above, scholars acknowledge that the Two Spirits Treatise seems to
express dualistic notions on different levels: cosmic, ethical, eschatological,
and psychological. It is also evident that dualism as an idea of two opposing
24 However, I do not think that Instructions description of two different types of humanity
the spiritual people and those characterized as fleshly spiritreally helps to shed
much light on the Two Spirits Treatise, puzzling as that passage is. Some scholars see
similarities between the two texts, but these are too vague or, upon closer scrutiny, do
not hold water. On this issue in Instruction, see, e.g., J. Frey, The Notion of Flesh in
4QInstruction and the Background of Pauline Usage, in Sapiential, Liturgical and Poetical
Texts from Qumran: Proceedings of the Third Meeting of the International Organization for
Qumran Studies, Oslo 1998: Published in Memory of Maurice Baillet (ed. D.K. Falk, F. Garca
Martnez, and E.M. Schuller; stdj 35; Leiden 2000), 197226; J. Frey, Flesh and Spirit
in the Palestinian Jewish Sapiential Tradition and in the Qumran Texts, in The Wisdom
Texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (ed. C. Hempel, A. Lange,
and H. Lichtenberger; betl 159; Leuven 2002), 367404; Tigchelaar, To Increase Learning,
186188; C.H.T. Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory of Adam: Liturgical Anthropology in the Dead
Sea Scrolls (stdj 42; Leiden 2002), 113118; M.J. Goff, The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom
of 4QInstruction (stdj 50; Leiden 2003), 9499; B.G. Wold, Women, Men and Angels: The
Qumran Wisdom Text Musar leMevin and Its Allusions to Genesis Creation Traditions
(wunt 2/201; Tbingen 2005), 124149; J.-S. Rey, 4QInstruction: Sagesse et eschatologie
(stdj 81; Leiden 2009), 298303.
25 See also Stuckenbruck, Interiorization of Dualism, 161.
66 popovi
principles that constitute all existence does not appear in such a radical form
in the Two Spirits Treatise. The two spirits and their ways are presented as sub-
ordinate to God, who is the one determining everything.26 Yet, in terms of a
dualistic anthropology, does the Two Spirits Treatise understand humans to be
made up of two opposing principles? In order to answer this question we need
to consider the Two Spirits Treatise more closely. The main interest will be in
what manner the spirits are presented and how they relate to human beings.
3.1 1qs iii, 1315: On Human Spirit Only?

The Two Spirits Treatise can be divided into five sections, preceded by a head-
ing.27 Quoted earlier in the introduction above, the heading indicates that the
text is about humankinds nature,28 concerning peoples types of spirits, their
deeds, and their punishments and rewards. The focus of the heading is first of
all on the types of spirit. The use of the word ( kind, type) recalls the lan-
guage of creation from Gen 1 (1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25), even more so in light of other
creational language in the Two Spirits Treatise. Newsom suggests that on the
one hand the Two Spirits Treatise presupposes Gen 1 as already read, but on the
other manages to open up a space behind Gen 1, to insert itself into that space,
and to establish itself as the pre-text for Gen 1.29
However, the first occurrence of the word in the Two Spirits Treatise
immediately divides scholars as to what is exactly meant here. This division
is exemplary for the scholarly interpretations of the Two Spirits Treatise. The
question is whether , here in the feminine plural form , refers to
the human spirit or to some kind of external spirit. For example, after first
26 See J.H. Charlesworth, A Critical Comparison of the Dualism in 1qs iii, 13iv, 26 and
the Dualism Contained in the Gospel of John, in John and the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed.
J.H. Charlesworth; col; New York 1991), 76106 (originally published in nts 15 [19681969]:
389418); J.J. Collins, Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls (London 1997), 4344; Frey,
Different Patterns, 289295; J. Duhaime, Dualism, edss 1:215220, esp. 215217; Garca
Martnez, Iranian Influences, 44; U. Bianchi and Y. Stoyanov, Dualism, er2 4:25042517.
27 I follow the structural division of Lange, Weisheit und Prdestination, 141143. Cf. J. Licht,
An Analysis of the Treatise on the Two Spirits in dsd, in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls
(ed. C. Rabin and Y. Yadin; ScrHier 4; Jerusalem 1958), 88100; J. Duhaime, Cohrence
structurelle et tensions internes dans l Instruction sur les deux esprits (1qs iii 13iv 26),
in Wisdom and Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (ed.
F. Garca Martnez; betl 168; Leuven 2003), 103131.
28 For this understanding of , see Popovi, Reading the Human Body, 180n29.
29 See Newsom, The Self, 8687. See also O. Betz, Offenbarung und Schriftforschung in der
Qumransekte (Tbingen 1960), 145.
arguing for a metaphysical sense of here and of only two kinds of spirits,30
Wernberg-Mller changed his mind and suggested that the human spirit was
being referred to and its variety of spiritual states.31 May, however, favoured a
cosmological sense and contended that this statement in 1qs iii, 14 was set in a
context concerned with the two spirits of truth and of deceit and the Prince of
Lights and the Angel of Darkness.32 Unfortunately, there is no simple indication
by means of the gender or number to determine whether the human spirit or
an external spirit, such as an angel or demon, is meant in 1qs iii, 14.33
Should the use of in 1qs iii, 14 be understood in light of iii, 18 and
iii, 25 as a reference to the two spirits of light and darkness created by God
and set before humankind? Or should its meaning be elucidated within the
immediate context of the heading? The suffix attached to seems best
taken as referring back to the sons of man in 1qs iii, 13. The object of teaching
of the maskil is to instruct the sons of light about the nature of the sons of man,
the content of which is further explicated in 1qs iii, 1415.34 The
in 1qs iii, 14 then refer to the variety of human spirits.35 Not just to some of
them, but to all of them. Typically, the Two Spirits Treatise here claims to be
exhaustive, by the use of ;it claims to be about all the types of spirits; it is
addressed to all the sons of light and purports to teach about all the sons of
man and all the types of their spirits.36 Furthermore, recalling the creational
language of Gen 1, the use of in 1qs iii, 14 suggests not only two types of
spirits but many.37 Indeed, against the background of the creation narrative in
30 Wernberg-Mller, Manual of Discipline, 67n43.

31 Wernberg-Mller, Reconsideration of the Two Spirits, 419420.
32 H.G. May, Cosmological Reference in the Qumran Doctrine of the Two Spirits and in Old
Testament Imagery, jbl 82 (1963): 114, esp. 2.
33 In his research into the meaning of in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Sekki concluded that
as human spirit has a consistently feminine gender, whereas as demon or angel has a
consistently masculine gender. However, Sekki also lists numerous examples where
in the feminine plural form is used to refer to angels and demons. See A.E. Sekki, The
Meaning of Rua at Qumran (sblds 110; Atlanta 1989), 99, 145, 145147, 155163. See also
the Aramaic examples in 1q20 xx, 1620, 26, 28; 4q197 4 i, 13; 4q560 1 ii, 56. Cf. Puech,
LEsprit Saint, 286n10.
34 The closest parallel to in 1qs iii, 14 is in 1qs ii, 20 where refers to the
order in which the priests enter according to their spirits. Cf. Sekki, Meaning of Rua, 195.
35 See also Sekki, Meaning of Rua, 194195.
36 Cf., e.g., Newsom, The Self, 81.
37 cd iv, 1517 refers to three types of righteousness in relation to three traps of Belial, but
the restriction is explicitly signalled by the use of the numeral. Other instances of used
in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls are silent about the exact number of kinds.
68 popovi
Genesis the totality of all the types of human spirits referred to in the Two Spirits
Treatise is readily understandable. Be that as it may, at this point in the text the
variety of human spirits in no way hints at a dualistic anthropology.
However, if the subject is human spirit, what exactly is it? The Two Spirits
Treatise does not explain this here; it does not explicate what the signs ()
of all the kinds of spirits are, nor whether these signs, whatever they are, also
apply to other occurrences of the word in the Two Spirits Treatise. These
signs may consist of the different forms of human conduct as listed in the
virtues and vices discussed in the third section (1qs iv, 214). According to
the fourth section of the Two Spirits Treatise (1qs iv, 1523), people are judged
to belong to either the division of the spirit of light or to that of the spirit of
darkness, according to the path they walk and the deeds they do. The deeds,
however, are also mentioned in the heading, but as a separate element from the
types of spirits. This may or may not lead us to decide against understanding
the signs as referring to deeds and behaviour.38
Did the presumed audience of the Two Spirits Treatise understand the hu-
man spirit in light of scriptural exemplars? In the Hebrew Bible can denote,
among other things, the inner self of humans, an element of life that is depen-
dent on God and which is in this respect synonymous to . Somewhat par-
allel to the heart (, ), can also refer to the seat of what we would call
psychological activity, and in the construct chain it can refer to moral disposi-
tions or states of mind, which is interesting in light of the catalogue of virtues
and vices in 1qs iv, 214.39
It is clear that by the time of the compositions found in the Qumran manu-
scripts, the meaning of had undergone semantic development and expand-
ed to include different concepts of reference, including spirit, demon, and
angel. For example, with regard to the human spirit, Fabry notes that although
there is continuity in the Qumran corpus regarding the sense of in relation
to earlier traditions in the Hebrew Bible, die Verwendung von ra als Beze-
ichnung fr das geistige Personzentrum des Menschen, in dem die ethisch rel-
evanten Entscheidungen getroffen werden, zurck [tritt].40 And Sekki argues
that the semantic range of the occurrences of as humanitys spirit seem to
reflect biblical categories but with a more negative emphasis and with a ten-
dency to describe man as not only having a spirit but also as being one.41 It
38 See also the discussion in Popovi, Reading the Human Body, 189.
39 See, e.g., S. Tengstrm, ra, ThWAT 7:386418.
40 H.-J. Fabry, ra, ThWAT 7:419425, esp. 419.
41 Sekki, Meaning of Rua, 95.
seems, however, that it is not always possible to make clear and neat distinc-
tions between the different connotations of .
The first occurrence of in the Two Spirits Treatise then is a reference to
the human spirit, but at the same time it is possibly ambiguous. The human
spirit should not be understood as a secluded entity in itselfthe isolated core
of the human selfbut as an element of human nature that is open to and
influenced by other spirits. The boundary between the human spirit and these
other spirits, in terms of their ontological status and their effects on human
beings, was not fixed, but permeable.
The distinction between either psychological dispositions of the human
spirit or external spirits might not be as clear-cut as we wish it to be. Our
framing of external and internal spirits has an artificiality to it, perhaps nec-
essary for our own understanding, to be sure, but possibly less apt to under-
stand ancient frames of thought. Even the Hebrew Bible acknowledges the
Einwirkung uerer Krfte, sei es von Seiten der gttlichen ra, sei es von
Seiten bser Geister. In addition, the texts often do not make a clear distinc-
tion between dem, was man als uerung der eigenen Lebenskraft betrachtete
und was als von auen berkommend gedacht wurde.42 Psalm 51 is a fascinat-
ing example of this and a text that is immediately relevant for understanding
early Jewish texts about the interplay between external and internal spir-
its.43
3.2 1qs iii, 1518: Humanity and Two Spirits

Following the heading there is an introductory key passage expressing the texts
deterministic worldview:
From the God of knowledge comes all there is and there shall be. Before
they existed he determined all their plans and when they come into exis-
tence at their ordained time they will fulfil all their work in accordance
with his glorious plan and without alteration. In his hand are the laws of
all things and he supports them in all their affairs. He created man to rule
the world and placed before him two spirits to walk by them until the
moment of his visitation.
1qs iii, 1518
42 Tengstrm, ThWAT 7:410411.

43 See D. Flusser, Qumrn and Jewish Apotropaic Prayers,iej 16 (1966): 194205; Tigchelaar,
Evil Inclination; Klein, Right Spirit.
70 popovi
The God of knowledge is presented as the ontological basis of everything and

everyone. Everything happens in accordance with Gods plan. Before human
beings come into being, their deeds are fixed. Similar ideas are expressed in
other texts from Qumran.44 This passage demonstrates that the form of dualism
that appears in the Two Spirits Treatise is moderate. The two spirits come from
God and are not on the same ontological level. According to the theology of the
Two Spirits Treatise, it is the God of knowledge who constitutes all existence.
Regarding humanity and spirits we again find reminiscences of creation
language from Genesis: God created man to rule the world (1qs iii, 1718).
Humanitys rule appears in a number of other Qumran texts. The use of
rather than from Gen 1:26, 28 in the Two Spirits Treatise and these other
texts from Qumran is perhaps due to Ps 8:7.45
3.2.1 Humanity
Collins suggests that here refers not to humanity, but to Adam, the original
human being created by God.46 Wold and Fletcher-Louis, however, favour the
more general understanding of humanity for .47 Fletcher-Louis is right to
say that elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, except perhaps for the contested
passage in 4QInstruction (4q417 1 i, 1318), when not referring to the son
of Seth is intended as a generic reference to humanity. With regard to
Collinss interpretation one might ask why the Two Spirits Treatise did not
simply use Adam ( )if that is what it meant; apart from the disputed passage
in Instruction there are no other uses of in the manner Collins proposes.
44 See 1qs xi, 1011, 1718; 1qha vii, 1528; ix, 79, 1920; cd ii, 210; 4q180 1, 2; 24 ii, 10;
4q215a 1 ii, 9; 4q402 4, 1215 + MasShirShabb 1, 16.
45 1q34bis 3 ii, 3; 4q381 1, 7 (this text alludes to both Gen 1:26, 28 and Gen 2:7); 4q423 2, 2 (this
alludes to Gen 13); cf. 4q504 8 recto i. See also Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 106.
46 J.J. Collins, In the Likeness of the Holy Ones: The Creation of Humankind in a Wisdom
Text from Qumran, in The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Tech-
nological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. D.W. Parry and E. Ulrich;
stdj 30; Leiden 1999), 609618, esp. 612; J.J. Collins, The Mysteries of God: Creation and
Eschatology in 4QInstruction and the Wisdom of Solomon, in Wisdom and Apocalypti-
cism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition (ed. F. Garca Martnez; betl 168;
Leuven 2003), 287305; repr. in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish
Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule (JSJSup 100; Leiden 2005), 159180, esp. 175176.
See also Goff, Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom, 96; M.J. Goff, Adam, the Angels and Eternal
Afterlife: Genesis 13 in the Wisdom of Solomon and 4QInstruction, in Studies in the Book
of Wisdom (ed. G.G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellr; JSJSup 142; Leiden 2010), 121, esp. 14.
47 Fletcher-Louis, All the Glory, 114; Wold, Women, Men and Angels, 139. Cf. also Rey, 4QIn-
struction, 297.
The Two Spirits Treatise does use Adam in 1qs iv, 23 when referring to all the
glory of Adam, although one might respond by saying that this part was added
later to the Two Spirits Treatise.
The Two Spirits Treatise also uses other phrases to refer to man or humanity:
in 1qs iii, 13; iv, 15, 26, in 1qs iv, 2, 16, 20, 24, and in 1qs iv, 20,
23. In col. 11 of 1qs, parallels or ( see xi, 6, 10, 15) in the general
sense of man or humanity. The use of in 1qs iii, 17 may simply be another
such reference to humanity, rather than more specifically to the original human
being created by God.
This interpretation would be strengthened by the end of the sentence, which
talks about the end of his visitation, something more applicable to humanity
in general than to the original human being. However, it is not readily apparent
whether the suffix attached to has humanity ( from iii, 17) or God
as its referent.48 There are not that many occurrences of with a suffix
in the Qumran corpus. However, in 4q286 7 ii, 4 ( )and in 4q417
1 i, 7 ( )clearly the plural suffixes do not have God as the referent,
although of course God is the agent of the visitation.49 These examples are not
conclusive, but they may suggest that in 1qs iii, 18, has humanity as its
object.
Humanity was not just created to rule the world. The Two Spirits Treatise
immediately continues by stating that God gave two spirits to man with which
to walk.
3.2.2 Two Spirits: External or Internal?

What are the two spirits in 1qs iii, 18? Taken with the characterization of the
two spirits in the following line as the spirits of truth and of iniquity, Wernberg-
Mller saw in 1qs iii, 18 an allusion to Gen 2:7 of iii, 18 paralleling
of Gen 2:7. Thus, God created man with two spirits. Furthermore, Wernberg-
Mller suggested that this distinction between two spirits in man should be
understood as two psychological dispositions and, moreover, that the Two
Spirits Treatise was the forerunner of the rabbinic distinction between the
evil and the good yetser, the difference only being one of terminology.50 This
is not the place to discuss rabbinic references to the yetser. Suffice it to say
that Rosen-Zvi has considerably nuanced the idea of the rabbinic distinction
48 Cf., e.g., Wernberg-Mller, Manual of Discipline, 70n57; Knibb, Qumran Community, 97.
49 In 4q417 2 i, 8 has a human being as referent (4q417 2 i, 7: or )and
God as the implied agent. The referent in 4q417 1 i, 7 is less clear. See also 4q416 1, 9.
50 Wernberg-Mller, Reconsideration of the Two Spirits, 422423.
72 popovi
between two yetsers, distinguishing both chronologically between earlier and

later developments and geographically between Palestinian and Babylonian
sources.51
This is the second time that the word is used in the Two Spirits Treatise,
but, it seems, in rather a different way from the first occurrence. In iii, 14 it
is a matter of all kinds of spirits, whereas in iii, 18 it is a question of only two
spirits.
Is the word used in the same sense in these two cases? It does not seem
so. It seems unlikely that all kinds of spirits can be reduced to only these two
spirits. Nevertheless, there may be overlap. The two spirits are given by God so
that man walks by them () , that is, behaves accordingly. Even if the
signs in 1qs iii, 14 do not refer to deeds and conduct, it is clear from 1qs iv, 15
16 that people are judged to belong to either the division of the spirit of light or
that of the spirit of darkness according to the path they walk ()
and the deeds they do, as mentioned above.52 According to 1qs iii, 2021, the
righteous people, under the authority of the Prince of Lights, walk in the paths
of light () , whereas the wicked people, under the authority of
the Angel of Darkness, walk in the paths of darkness () . Thus,
to walk by the two spirits, as 1qs iii, 18 puts it, means to behave according to
their ways; and the heading in iii, 1315 focuses on humanitys spirits, deeds,
and visitation.53
Are the two spirits in 1qs iii, 18 to be understood as psychological disposi-
tions of the human spirit or as external spirits? One might argue that the Two
Spirits Treatise here has in mind spirits external to the human framework. A
few lines later, in iii, 25, the text states that God created the spirits of light and
darkness. As created beings, they thus represent independent entities, distinct
from other created beings such as humankind (1qs iii, 17).
The phrase seems to recall Isa 63:11 (
) , except that in Isaiah it is clearly within him ( )and it concerns
Gods holy spirit.54 The construction in 1qs iii, 18 does not seem to refer
51 I. Rosen-Zvi, Two Rabbinic Inclinations?: Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma, jsj 39 (2008):

513539; I. Rosen-Zvi, Demonic Desires: Yetzer Hara and the Problem of Evil in Late Antiq-
uity (Philadelphia 2011); Tigchelaar, Evil Inclination.
52 Cf. also 1qs iv, 24 () .
53 Other parallels for this, outside the Two Spirits Treatise, are found, e.g., in 1qs ix, 12 and
cd xii, 2021, 23 where the maskil must walk by the regulations set out for him. The
Instruction text (4q416 2 iv, 7) says that the wife must walk by the will of her husband.
Regulations and the will of the husband are, of course, external elements.
54 See also Ezek 36:27 () , and cf. Ezek 11:19; 36:26; 37:14. And Job 34:14
so evidently to two spirits within man, and it is a matter of two spirits created by
God, not his own holy spirit. Rather, 1qs iii, 18 seems to say that the two spirits
were given for humankind to follow them.55 However, can such significance
be ascribed to the use of the construction ( see below)? Moreover, the text
does not make it clear whether these are external or internal spirits.
3.2.3 Barkhi Nafshi (4q434438) on Spirits, Humans, and the Body

Other texts from Qumran also demonstrate this ambivalence. For example, in
addition to Ps 51:1213,56 the Barkhi Nafshi text also evokes Isa 63:11: ] [
[( and the ho]ly [spirit] you have put in my heart; 4q436 1 ii, 1 //
4q435 2 i, 2; see also below on 4q444 [Incantation]). Here, following scriptural
exemplars, the text refers to Gods holy spirit. However, a few lines below, the
text says ( and you have given me a spirit of patience;
4q435 2 i, 45 // 4q436 1 ii, 23). How should this phrase be understood? The
construction refers to patience as a quality of character. In the Hebrew
Bible it is mostly used for God,57 but in the Qumran corpus it is used for both
God and humans.58
However, the addition of to is only found in Barkhi Nafshi.
Should we think of patience as a particular and distinct spirit, just as the holy
spirit? Or should we rather take it as a psychological disposition of the human
spirit? If the latter, what then is the significance of before ? Does
in 4q435 2 i, 45 // 4q436 1 ii, 23 have a different sense than in 4q436
1 ii, 1 // 4q435 2 i, 2, or is it redundant? In both cases the subject of the verbs
used is the same, namely God: God has put his holy spirit in the poets heart;
God has given him a spirit of patience. Thus, in both cases the spirits somehow
come from God.
What about the reference to ( a spirit of deceit; 4q435 2 i, 5) in the
same passage? What kind of spirit is this, and how does it relate to the holy spirit
and the spirit of patience? It is not clear whether this spirit also comes from
where God can take his spirit back () . Job 34:1415 refers to the gift
of the divine spirit and alludes to the creation narrative in Gen 23.
55 Cf. Charlesworth, Critical Comparison, 8384; Levison, Two Spirits, 179n32.
56 Cf. M. Weinfeld and D. Seely, Barkhi Nafshi, in Qumran Cave 4.xx: Poetical and Litur-
gical Texts, Part 2 (E. Chazon et al.; djd 29; Oxford 1999), 303; Tigchelaar, Evil Inclina-
tion,351n23.
57 Exod 34:6; Num 14:18; Jer 15:15; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3; Ps 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Neh 9:17 For
humans, see Prov 14:29; 15:18; 16:32.
58 See cd ii, 4; 1qha iv, 29; viii, 34; ix, 8; 4q299 9, 5; 4q300 3ab, 4; 4q382 104, 9; 4q420 1a
iib, 2 // 4q421 1a iib, 14; 4q461 4, 3; 4q471 2, 3; 4q511 52+1; 4q511 108, 1; 4q525 21, 8.
74 popovi
God, but it is said that God destroyed the spirit of deceit and gave the poet a
broken heart instead.59 And when, in 4q438 4 ii, 5, God is said to have removed
the spirit of destruction ( ) from him, he is said to have clothed the
poet with the spirit of salvation () , implying that this spirit also comes
from God. In addition, the poet can also refer to his own spirit as ( my
spirit),60 describing it as fainting away before him in his distress and referring
to Gods revivification ( )of it (4q437 2 i, 8, 13).61
The Barkhi Nafshi text uses body imagery ( , , ,
)as well as references to the inside (, , ) of the poet to
conceptualize the poets self. References to different qualities of character and
different spirits are an integral part of his conceptualization of the self. The
construction in 4q435 2 i, 45 // 4q436 1 ii, 23 is similar to in
1qs iii, 18. Both use , whereas 4q436 1 ii, 1 // 4q435 2 i, 2, following Isa
63:11, has . In Barkhi Nafshi this does not seem to be of any significance
with respect to whether the different uses of have to be understood as
within or for man. However, 4q436 1 ii, 1 // 4q435 2 i, 2 speaks of the holy
spirit put into the heart ( )of the poet. This suggests that God somehow
places the spirit within the human self.
The Barkhi Nafshi text uses a range of language to refer to the spirit, not all of
which can easily be explained away as metaphorical or poetical. Rather, there
is an interplay between different kinds of spirits that seem both distinct from
and dependent on God and human beings. These spirits are both external
and internal to the human self, which can be referred to by and also
by . Moreover, they seem to represent a distinct category from angels.62 In
4q434 1 i, Gods angel ( )encamps around the community with which
the poet identifies. It is possible that at times a spirit is seen as a distinct and
external entity that affects the human self and at other times is less easily
distinguished as a character trait expressing the human self. In other words,
the Barkhi Nafshi text does not clearly distinguish between, on the one hand,
spirits as distinct and external entities that affect the human self and, on the
other hand, character traits expressing the human self.63
59 4q436 1 ii, 4. For this reconstruction and other possibilities see Weinfeld and Seely, Barkhi
Nafshi, 304.
60 Cf. also 4q437 1 i, 1011 ([ their spirits]).
61 Cf. also 1qha xvi, 37.
62 See also E. Eshel and D.C. Harlow, Demons and Exorcism, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of
Early Judaism (ed. J.J. Collins and D.C. Harlow; Grand Rapids, Mich., 2010), 531533, esp. 531.
63 The manuscript is too damaged to determine whether a distinction is made between a
man or a spirit in 4q438 4 ii, 3.
3.2.4 Two Spirits, But Not in Humans

Returning to the Two Spirits Treatise, the two spirits in 1qs iii, 18 should be
understood as distinct, created beings that affect the behaviour and character
of human beings. They were given to man so that he walks in their paths. The
text is not clear about how the human self and these two spirits interact. There
is no reference here to the inside as in Barkhi Nafshi (this changes from 1qs iv,
20 onwards). Thus, there is no clear basis to talk of a dualistic anthropology
here, either in terms of two different types of human beings (in the sense of
a double creation) or in terms of the internal disposition of man consisting of
two opposing elements.
3.3 1qs iii, 18iv, 1: Two Spirits, Two Angelic Beings, Hosts of Spirits, and
the Sons of Light
In the second section, matters become more complex, and some of this has
already been referred to in the discussion above. The text first identifies the two
spirits in ethical terms as the spirits of truth and iniquity, and then connects
them with light and darkness in various ways, including in cosmological terms.
In 1qs iii, 25, the two spirits of light and darkness are said to have been created
by God.
3.3.1 Spirits of Truth and Iniquity from Light and Darkness

What does the ethical characterization imply for the way in which
should be understood here? The sense of here may be assumed to
be basically the same as in the case of the two spirits earlier. No other text
from Qumran has a similar reference to spirits of truth and iniquity together,
although the opposition between truth and iniquity as such is attested else-
where in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but not often. Only in the final section of the
Two Spirits Treatise (iv, 23) is there a reference to the spirits of truth and iniq-
uity ( ) in the masculine plural form, not in the feminine plural as
in iii, 18 (see below). In any case, it is too crude a methodological assumption
that the gender and number of signal its exact sense (see also the note on
cd xii, 2 below).
To be sure, there are individual references to a spirit or spirits of truth and of
iniquity. For example, 4q177 1213 i, 5 (Catenaa) refers to in a context
in which Belial figures as an evil adversary and reference is also made to the
angel of Gods truth () . Is the latter to be distinguished from the spirit
of truth mentioned a few lines above? Should a distinction be made between
angels and spirits, as possibly in Barkhi Nafshi? The Two Spirits Treatise also
refers to the angel of Gods truth as, along with God, assisting the sons of light
(iii, 2425). The text is not explicit as to whether this reference is synonymous
76 popovi
with the spirit of truth and to the Prince of Lights.64 1qha xxv, 8 refers to
the probable destruction of the spirits of iniquity () . These spirits
of iniquity parallel the spirits of wickedness ( ) in 1qha xxv, 6. In
both cases is in the feminine plural form. The reference to spirits of truth
( ) in 1qm xiii, 10 presents a strong parallel, as the text also mentions
the Prince of Light () with light in the singular, not in the plural
as in 1qs iii, 20 () 65under whose authority the spirits of truth lie.
The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice and Incantation (4q444) also mention spirits
of truth and other spirits of knowledge, understanding, and righteousness (see
below).66
Of particular interest are the references in the Two Spirits Treatise itself. The
catalogue of virtues and vices refers once to a spirit of iniquity (iv, 9).67 In
the context of the Two Spirits Treatise, the sense of in iv, 9 is determined
by iii, 2526 and iv, 2, which refer to the creation of the spirits of light and
darkness and their paths, and also describe their paths in the world, which
follow in the catalogue. In iv, 2022 reference is made to a spirit of iniquity
and a spirit of truth in the context of colourful and difficult language that is far
from easy to understand. The text seems to become very concrete, but it hardly
elucidates how the spirit of iniquity and truth relate to the human self. It is said
that God can destroy all spirit of iniquity from the innermost parts of mans
flesh. He can sprinkle over man the spirit of truth like water for purification.
This action is effective against a spirit of impurity. All this purification activity
involves a holy spirit. How exactly these activities must be imagined is difficult
to determine. Is the language metaphorical (see further below)? Scholars have
pointed to various scriptural exemplars, but these hardly shed light on the exact
sense of here. What is clear is that the spirits of truth and iniquity have
opposite relationships with the human self. The former purifies and is thus
good, whereas the latter is to be destroyed and is thus bad.
Returning to the second section of the Two Spirits Treatise, after identifying
the two spirits as the spirits of truth and iniquity the text adds light and dark-
ness terminology that strengthens the dualistic opposition between these two
spirits: From the spring of light comes the nature of truth, and from the source
of darkness comes the nature of iniquity (1qs iii, 19). The opposition between
64 See also Gods truth ( )in iv, 20.

65 But see also cd v, 18.
66 1qha vi, 36 refers to the spirit of knowledge and might perhaps also refer to the spirit of
truth.
67 For previous discussions, see Sekki, Meaning of Rua, 204205.
light and darkness seems not to be intended as merely metaphorical.68 The

text makes an ontological statement in that the nature of truth and of iniq-
uity originates from them. Newsom, who suggests that the Two Spirits Treatise
understands itself as a pre-text to Gen 1, argues that where formerly the state-
ment in Gen 1:45 about Gods division of light from darkness disclosed only
Gods organization of the created world, now it alludes as well to an antecedent
spiritual reality that informs the structures of creation.69
3.3.2 Prince of Lights, Angel of Darkness, and Hosts of Spirits under

Their Authority
The text proceeds to draw a cosmic perspective, reinforcing the dualism of the
categories of truth and iniquity. People are divided into two groups, each falling
under the rule of an angelic leader: And in the hand of the Prince of Lights is
dominion over all the sons of justice who walk on paths of light. And in the hand
of the Angel of Darkness is total dominion over the sons of iniquity who walk on
paths of darkness (1qs iii, 2021). The reference to the Prince of Lights and the
Angel of Darkness signals the process of personification of abstract qualities.70
Knibb suggests that the Prince of Lights was identified with Michael and the
Angel of Darkness with Belial.71 Dimant agrees on the identification with Belial,
but suggests that the Prince of Lights was identical with the angel of Gods
truth.72 As already mentioned above, the Two Spirits Treatise is not clear about
whether the spirit of truth, the Prince of Lights, and the angel of Gods truth are
synonymous, not to mention the spirit of light (1qs iii, 25). It is fair to assume
that the spirits of light and darkness created by God (iii, 25) are synonymous to
the two spirits given to humankind, the spirits of truth and iniquity (iii, 1819).
Thus, the qualifications truth, light, iniquity, and darkness are parallel and, we
may assume, the spirits qualified in this manner are the same.
However, that still leaves open the issue of whether the Prince of Lights and
the Angel of Darkness are also identical with the two spirits. God created ()
humankind (1qs iii, 17) and he created ( )the spirits of light and darkness
68 Cf. Knibb, Qumran Community, 97.

69 Newsom, The Self, 86.
70 Cf. D. Dimant, Between Qumran Sectarian and Non-Sectarian Texts: The Case of Belial
and Mastema, in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Contemporary Culture: Proceedings of the Inter-
national Conference Held at the Israel Museum, Jerusalem ( July 68, 2008) (ed. A.D. Roit-
man, L.H. Schiffman, and S. Tzoref; stdj 93; Leiden 2010), 235256, esp. 238239, 245.
71 Knibb, Qumran Community, 40, 97. Cf. Wernberg-Mller, Manual of Discipline, 71n60 for
the possible identification of Uriel as the Prince of Lights.
72 Dimant, Belial and Mastema, 241242, 244.
78 popovi
(1qs iii, 25). The spirits of light and darkness are just as much a part of Gods
creation as is humankind. Echoing Isa 45:7, the Works of God text states he
created darkness and light for himself (4q392 1, 4). Although not explicitly
stated in the Two Spirits Treatise, it is reasonable to assume that the Prince of
Lights and the Angel of Darkness are also Gods creatures. 1qm xiii, 1011 is
more clear on this: And you have made Belial. While it is possible that the
Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness are identical with the two spirits,73
it seems unnecessary to assume that these are all different epithets for just two
figures. Why could there not be multiple good and evil protagonists at a certain
stage in the development of such figures, as reflected in different texts?74 The
Two Spirits Treatise is not as clear on this as we might wish it to be. Should we
distinguish between angels and spirits? Should we assume that the Prince of
Lights is set above the spirit of truth/light and that the Angel of Darkness is set
above the spirit of iniquity/darkness, in other words, that there is a hierarchical
difference? Perhaps.
What is clear is that the Angel of Darkness has a host of spirits under his
authority, and it seems a reasonable inference from this that the Prince of Lights
also has spirits under his authority.75 The Two Spirits Treatise explicitly refers
to spirits under the authority of the Angel of Darkness (1qs iii, 24).76 All the
spirits from the lot of the Angel of Darkness cause the sons of light to fall. A
passage from the War Scroll resembles the Two Spirits Treatise in various ways
(1qm xiii, 1012).77 Most importantly for our purposes, the spirits of truth are
said to be under the authority of the Prince of Light () ,
while for Belial, being associated with darkness, the spirits of his lot78 behave
according to the rules of darkness () .79
The War Scroll and other texts thus provide additional evidence for the notion
that the Angel of Darkness and the Prince of Light(s) have a host of spirits under
their authority.
73 Cf. Knibb, Qumran Community, 97.

74 Cf. Dimant, Belial and Mastema, on the distinction between Belial and Mastema.
75 See 11q13 ii, 8. Cf. Shaked, Qumran and Iran, 437.
76 The suffix on refers to in iii, 21.
77 E.g., the Prince of Light is to assist the us of the text (), while in 1qs iii, 2425 God
and the angel of his truth assist ( )all the sons of light.
78 See also 1qm xiii, 2, 4; 4q177 14, 10; cd xii, 2 // 4q271 5 i, 18; 11q13 ii, 12, 13.
79 Illustrating nicely how clear-cut category distinctions do not always work, the text refers
to the spirits of Belials lot as angels of destruction. Note also that 1qm xiii, 14 asks
rhetorically which angel or prince ( ) is like God. The dualism in the Scrolls is
not absolute.
3.3.3 Humans, Angels, and Spirits

What about humans amidst all these spirits and angelic beings? Humankind
is not mentioned specifically as one entity ( or ) , but divided into
two distinct groups: it is clear that the sons of justice ( ) and the
sons of iniquity ( ) refer to human beings.80 These groups of people are
under the authority ( )of the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness
respectively.
Other texts provide parallels. The Damascus Document refers to the spirits
of Belial81 who rule over ( ) a person (cd xii, 12 // 4q271 5 i, 18). 1qm iv,
2 refers to all the men of Belials lot. 4q174 12 i, 89 (Florilegium) mentions
the sons of Belial, who execute his plan to make the sons of light stumble so
that they become trapped by Belial due to their guilty error () .82
In 4q177 1011, 4, 7 (Catenaa) it may be the men of Belial83 who make the sons
of light stumble (), and 4q177 1213 i, 11 mentions Belial and all the
men of his lot.
The Aramaic Visions of Amram, discussed below, also illustrates the notion
that humans fall under the authority of either of two angelic beings. At the
same time, Visions of Amram demonstrates that the personification of these
angelic beings was not limited to two distinct figures that were identical across
the spectrum of early Jewish texts and traditions.84
The Berakhota text mentions the punishment of the spirits in the lot of
Belial, referring to demonic spirits (4q286 7 ii, 4), and a few lines further
Berakhota (4q286 7 ii, 6) also mentions all the sons of Belial, referring to
wicked humans. In this text then we have another fascinating example of how
the conceptualization of evil human and demonic adversaries is interlocked.
The Two Spirits Treatise, the War Scroll, Florilegium, Catenaa, Berakhota, and
Visions of Amram thus see the dualistic division between two groups inter-
80 This is also clear from 1qs iii, 13, 24, 25 ( ;) 1qs iii, 22 ( ;) 1qs iv, 5, 6 (
).
81 Note , instead of as in other instances.
82 The terminological correspondence with 1qs iii, 22 ( ) as to the effect of
Belials action is also suggestive for the identification of the Angel of Darkness with Belial.
83 The phrase does not occur in the Hebrew Bible and seems
therefore not part of the quoted text in line 3. But then again, the beginning of the phrase
( ) also does not occur in the Hebrew Bible. Is a nonbiblical text quoted in
4q177 1011, 3?
84 Cf. Belial and Mastema. Belial and Mastema share certain characteristics, but also differ
from each other in the early stages of development of the traditions concerning them. See
Dimant, Belial and Mastema.
80 popovi
locked at different levelscosmological, anthropological, and ethical. Both

humans and spirits are under the authority of angelic beings such as the Prince
of Light(s) and the Angel of Darkness/Belial, and their character and behaviour
are framed in ethical terms.
3.3.4 Sons of Justice, Sons of Light, Spirits, Angels, and God

The Two Spirits Treatise says three things about how one group of people relates
to the angelic beings and spirits.
First, according to iii, 2123, the sons of justice err because of the Angel of
Darkness. Their sins, iniquities, guilt, and rebellious acts fall under his author-
ity, which is later further qualified as under the authority of his enmity. The
Two Spirits Treatise confesses not to know exactly how this works and why the
sons of justice err. (Is authority over the two different groups of people [iii,
2021] not consistently demarcated?) It remains one of the mysteries of God.
Second, according to iii, 24, the spirits of the Angel of Darkness cause the
sons of light85 to stumble ().86 How exactly these spirits cause them
to stumble is not clear, but it probably entails something like not properly
observing Gods laws. From 1qha iv, 3436 it seems evident that stumbling
over the words of Gods will equals sinning against God. The poet then asks
for strength against certain spirits to be able to walk in all that God loves. In the
lacuna at the beginning of line 36, ( wickedness) has been reconstructed,
so the reading may have been spirits of wickedness. Possibly it is these spirits
of wickedness who are responsible for making the poet stumble.
Third, according to 1qs iii, 2425, God and the angel of his truth help
the sons of light.87 According to 1qha xxvi, 15 // 4q427 7 i, 1920, those who
stumble can be put on the right track again,88 the attaining of knowledge being
paramount in this.
How should we understand the spirits in 1qs iii, 24? Are these spirits distinct
entities, or are they concrete manifestations of the Angel of Darkness and, by
inference, of the Prince of Lights? Do they refer to the different spirits that are
mentioned in the Two Spirits Treatise (iv, 3, 4, 10: , , ) and
in other texts, such as the spirit of deceit in Barkhi Nafshi or the various spirits
85 The sons of light equal the sons of justice. Interestingly, in a text which scholars refer to as
the hallmark of Qumran dualism the sons of light are referred to twice, while the sons of
darkness are not mentioned at all.
86 Note that according to 4q174 12 i, 89 (Florilegium) it is the sons of Belial who cause the
sons of light to stumble (, ).
87 See also 1qm xiii, 10; xvii, 6; 4q177 1213 i, 7.
88 See also 1qha xvi, 37; xxvi, 29 // 4q427 7 ii, 10.
in the Catalogue of Spiritsa (4q230)?89 The are from the lot of the Angel of
Darkness. Does this imply separate spirit entities, just as men from the lot of
Belial would imply distinct people, or not?
The activity of the spirits and of the Angel of Darkness are manifest in the
sins, iniquities, guilt, rebellious acts, and stumbling of the sons of justice/light.
The Damascus Document lists a law (cd xii, 23 // 4q271 5 i, 1819), awkwardly
set in the context of Sabbath laws, according to which someone ruled by the
spirits of Belial and who speaks apostasy should be judged according to the law
of those who communicate with ghosts and spirits.90 Apparently, the workings
of someone ruled by the spirits of Belial were concretely visible in the persons
actions, such as speaking apostasy.91 Interestingly, such a person is not just
ruled by one spirit, but by many. However, the Damascus Document does not
make clear what exactly these spirits are and how exactly they relate to people.
The verb to rule ( )is too vague in this respect.
3.3.5 Not Just Two, But Many Spirits

The wording at the end of section two strengthens the link between the ethical
and the cosmic level of dualism:
He created the spirits of light and darkness, and established on them every
deed, [o]n their [path]s every labour.92 God has loved one of them for all
89 On 4q230, see E.J.C. Tigchelaar, These Are the Names of the Spirits of : A Preliminary
Edition of 4QCatalogue of Spirits (4q230) and New Manuscript Evidence for the Two
Spirits Treatise (4q257 and 1q29a), RevQ 21 (2004): 529547; E.J.C. Tigchelaar, Catalogue
of Spirits, Liturgical Manuscript with Angelological Content, Incantation?: Reflections
on the Character of a Fragment from Qumran (4q230 1), with Appendix: Edition of the
Fragments of iaa #114, in A Kind of Magic: Understanding Magic in the New Testament
and Its Religious Environment (ed. M. Labahn and B.J. Lietaert Peerbolte; lnts 306; London
2007), 133146.
90 cd xii, 3 refers to Deut 18:914. Cf. also 11q19 lx, 1621. See Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic,
83.
91 For a discussion of demonic possession in early Judaism and Christianity, see, e.g., E. So-
rensen, Possession and Exorcism in the New Testament and Early Christianity (wunt 2/157;
Tbingen 2002); Eshel and Harlow, Demons and Exorcism, 532533.
92 Along with W.H. Brownlee, trans. and notes, The Dead Sea Manual of Discipline (BASOR-
Sup 1012; New Haven 1951), 15n41, I assume a dittography here. See Stegemann, Zu
Textbestand und Grundgedanken, 101103, for another suggestion based on the idea of
the theme of divine judgement being central in this text. But in the following sentence
the deeds and paths of the two spirits are referred to again, suggesting that no other ele-
ment figures prominently here.
82 popovi
eternal [a]ges and with all his deeds he is pleased forever; the other he
has abhorred very much93 and all his paths he has hated forever.94
1qs iii, 25iv, 1
Again, as in iii, 18, it is made clear that both spirits come from God. 1qha xviii,
10, for example, also makes this point clear by describing God as Prince of gods,
King of the glorious ones, Lord of every spirit, and Ruler of every creature.
In the second section of the Two Spirits Treatise we have seen two spirits,
two angelic beings, and hosts of spirits, all of which are not always clearly to be
distinguished from one another. Although one can argue for a relative form of
dualism in the text, there is no basis for assuming a dualistic anthropology in
this part of the Two Spirits Treatise. It is not a matter of two opposing spirits as
fundamental principles within the human framework or within the human self.
Rather, many spirits seem to be involved, and it is difficult to determine exactly
how they work and whether it is internally, externally, or both. This perspective
is what makes the first reference in the Two Spirits Treatise to in the texts
heading possibly ambiguous (see above).
3.4 1qs iv, 214: Spirits, Virtues, and Vices

The third section is a list consisting of two parts in which the text enumerates
the paths of the two spirits in the world and their characteristics. The localiza-
tion of their activities in the world perhaps suggests a distinction between the
manifestation of these spirits in the heavenly and the earthly realms.95
Those who follow the first path will receive everlasting rewards, but those
who walk on the other path will know eternal punishments. One might say that
the third section of the Two Spirits Treatise translates the heavenly opposition
of the second section into an earthly parallel. The dualism between the two
spirits has its ethical realization in human conduct. The list of virtues and
vices makes clear what the eschatological consequences of such conduct are for
humankind.96 While this section does not invoke imagery of light and darkness,
a dualism between the spirits is expressed in ethical terms.
The catalogue of virtues and vices is directly connected with the two spirits.
The spirit of truth is not referred to explicitly, but the reference simply to
93 Cf. Stegemann, Zu Textbestand und Grundgedanken, 104.

94 Cf. 1qha vi, 36.
95 In light of this, 1qha xxvi, 29 // 4q427 7 ii, 10 might be of interest, as it refers to those who
stumble on earth ( ) in a context that plays with references to earth ( )and
the heavens (, ) .
96 Cf. Lange, Weisheit und Prdestination, 157158.
in iv, 6 should be taken as such. The reference is actually to the counsels (or
foundations) of the spirit for the sons of truth in the world (
).97 Furthermore, similar to iii, 18, which states that humankind is to walk
by ( ) the two spirits, iv, 6 addresses all those who walk by the spirit
() . The referent of is in that same line. This reference in the
singular thus denotes the spirit of truth/light, and the counsels (or foundations)
of this spirit may refer to the preceding list of virtues. As to the other spirit, in
iv, 9 the spirit of iniquity ( ) is explicitly mentioned (cf. also iv, 20).
In addition, the catalogue also refers to distinct spirits three times. This is
perhaps not unexpected in light of the previous section, although one might
also have expected to read a catalogue of spirits (1qs iii, 14, 24; cf. 4q230 1, 4
[)] , especially if character qualities also find expression in terms
of spiritual entities (see the discussion above concerning Barkhi Nafshi, and
also below).98
3.4.1 Distinct Spirits or Manifestations of Human Character Traits?

The catalogue lists two spirits under the path of the spirit of light and one
spirit under the path of the spirit of darkness. Similar to the discussion earlier
concerning a spirit of patience in the Barkhi Nafshi text, should we think of
the spirit of humility ( ) in 1qs iv, 3, the spirit of knowledge (
)in iv, 4, and the spirit of fornication ( ) in iv, 10 as particular and
distinct spirits? Or should we rather think of them as psychological dispositions
of the human spirit, more like character traits? Or is this antithesis inapt to
understand the sense of in relation to the human self?
3.4.2 A Spirit of Humility

First, 1qs iv, 3 refers to a spirit of humility () . In the Hebrew Bible the
few occurrences of are a reference to humility as a quality of character.99
This is also the case in the Qumran corpus.100 The addition of to is not
found in the Hebrew Bible, only in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The construction
occurs only in two other compositions: cd xiii, 18 // 4q266 9 iii, 7 and
1qs iii, 8 // 4q255 2, 2. These seem to support an understanding of in
1qs iv, 3 as a character trait, but it is not clear then why is used and not just
.
97 See also 1qha v, 14.

98 Interestingly, negative qualities also find expression in terms of body imagery in 1qs iv, 11.
99 Zeph 2:3; Prov 15:33; 18:12; 22:4.
100 See 1qs ii, 24; v, 3, 25; ix, 22 // 4q285 viii, 7; xi, 1; 1qha iv, 34; 4q286 1 ii, 8; 4q298 34 ii, 8;
4q436 1 ii, 2; 4q525 2 ii+3, 6; 10, 4; 14 ii, 20.
84 popovi
3.4.3 A Spirit of Knowledge

Second, 1qs iv, 4 refers to a spirit of knowledge () . In the Hebrew Bible
it occurs in Isa 11:2 in a longer list of spirits. Part of this list is picked up, in a
slightly modified form, in 1QSb v, 25 in a passage that is part of a praising of
the Prince ( )of the congregation. There are some other references to
in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice refers to spirits
of knowledge and understanding (4q405 17, 3) and to spirits of knowledge,
truth and righteousness (4q405 19, 4). In the context of the Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice it is likely that these spirits should be understood as distinct beings.
In 4q444 (Incantation), there is a reference to : it says
( a spirit of knowledge and understanding, truth and righteousness;
4q444 14+5, 3). How should we understand this? Is it one spirit with all four
qualities? Or should we understand the phrase as a spirit of knowledge, a
spirit of understanding, a spirit of , etc., referring to four distinct spirits.
Conceptually, it was possible to think that God gave more spirits to individual
human beings. 1qha iv, 29 speaks of the spirits that God has given the poet.
Unlike the examples from the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice is in the singular
form in 4q444.101 Does this mean we have to understand it as one spirit, similar
to the reference to ( a spirit of impurity; 4q444 14 + 5, 8)? Not
necessarily.
The spirit of knowledge in 1qs iv, 4 should probably be understood as a
distinct spirit that affects the human character, possibly by residing within a
part of the body that is seen as representative of the human self.
3.4.4 Incantation (4q444) and the Two Spirits Treatise

The Incantation text is important for our purposes in various respects.102 Firstly,
the text gives further insight into the relationship between the human self or
framework and spirits. If the reconstruction is accepted, the Incantation text
parallels the Barkhi Nafshi text (4q436 1 ii, 1 // 4q435 2 i, 2; see the discussion
above) when it says in 4q444 14+5, 3 that God put the spirit of knowledge, etc.
within the speakers heart () . This is preceded in the same line by a
reference to ( in the innermost parts of mans flesh), which presents
the possibility of an intriguing localization (blood vessels?)in addition to
that of the heartof a spirit or spirits in humans. Also, the reference to mans
101 In other instances, the Incantation text refers to spirits in the plural form: ( spirits
of controversy; 4q444 14 + 5, 2), ( spirits of wickedness; 4q444 14+5, 4), and
( spirits of truth; 4q444 6, 4).
102 See also E. Chazon, Prayers, in Qumran Cave 4.xx: Poetical and Liturgical Texts, Part 2
(E. Chazon et al.; djd 29; Oxford 1999), 367378.
flesh in 4q444 14+5, 3 presents a parallel to in 1qs iv, 2021 (see

below). A third localization is provided in 4q444 14 + 5, 2: ( structure,
framework).103
Secondly, in 4q444 14+5, 2 the text refers to spirits (they) who became
spirits of controversy within the speakers self: ( and
they became spirits of controversy in my [bodily] structure). This presents an
intriguing parallel to 1qs iv, 23: ( until now
the spirits of truth and iniquity strive in mans heart; see below).
Thirdly, changing from first-person to second-person speech, the text ex-
horts that the keeping of Gods laws strengthens oneself in the fight against the
spirits of wickedness (4q444 14+5, 4): .104
The Two Spirits Treatise does not actually refer to Gods will, his laws, or the
Law. However, as discussed above, the sons of justice/light do err and stumble
due to the Angel of Darkness and the spirits of his lot. This results in the sins,
iniquities, guilt, and rebellious acts of the sons of justice/light. One might infer
from 1qs iii, 2124, and also from iii, 26iv, 1, that erring and stumbling is
equivalent to not properly observing Gods will or his laws (see also below on
cd ii, 1418).105
Finally, the Incantation text represents important evidence for the process
of personification of spirits. In 4q444 14+5, 8, bastards are mentioned in
connection with a spirit of impurity () . It seems that these
( bastards) are not to be identified in the usual manner, such as when
they appear together with the Ammonites and the Moabites. Rather, it seems
that refer to a type of spirit, an evil type. For example, in 4q510 1, 5
(Songs of the Sage) occur in a list of evil spirits which includes
Lilith.106 Thus, in 4q444, ( a spirit of impurity) may attest to the
notion of impurity personified as a spirit. Whether this also holds for all other
occurrences of in Incantation is not certain. In the same text, may be
used in different ways, but it is nonetheless suggestive that the boundaries
between personified spirits and human character traits are blurry.
103 Cf. 1qha xv, 7, 12; xxii, 28; 4q299 6 i, 13; 4q511 111, 8 (?).
104 4q444 14+5, 2 possibly has another reference to .
105 According to cd iii, 23, Abraham is counted as Gods friend for observing his command-
ments ( ) and not choosing the will of his own spirit () . A few
lines earlier, in cd ii, 17, reference is made to those who erred and stumbled (see further
below).
106 See also 1qha xxiv, 26; 4q511 2 ii, 3; 4q511 35, 7; 4q511 4849+51, 3 (and also impurity
[)].
86 popovi
3.4.5 A Spirit of Fornication

Returning to the Two Spirits Treatise, the third reference in the catalogue of
virtues and vices is in 1qs iv, 10 to a spirit of fornication. A does not
occur elsewhere in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but does. In cd iv, 17 it is one
of the traps of Belial. In the Hebrew Bible the root refers to various forms
of illicit sexual conduct and in a metaphorical sense to the worship of other
gods.107 In the Dead Sea Scrolls the sense of illicit sexual conduct seems to
predominate.108 However, in many cases it is not so clear whether it has sexual
or idolatrous connotations. It seems that the sense of as the worship of
other gods was modified, being directed not so much at other gods as such
early Jewish texts are not preoccupied with thisbut at the incorrect way of
worshipping God, in the sense of not following his ways. It was not a matter
of God or other gods. The Damascus Document illustrates this nicely, making
a contrast between following Gods ways or having plans based on a guilty
inclination and adulteress eyes (see below). What light does this shed on the
sense of a spirit of fornication?
3.4.6 Spirits, Character Traits, and the Body in Barkhi Nafshi

(4q434438), the Damascus Document, Communal Confession
(4q393), and the Two Spirits Treatise
The Barkhi Nafshi text may again be of interest. In the passage discussed earlier,
brief reference was made to the body imagery used by the poet. One of these
is ( adulterousness of the eyes; 4q436 1 ii, 1 // 4q435 2 i, 2), which
is removed by God after putting the holy spirit in the poets heart, such that
his heart can gaze upon Gods ways.109 Apparently, adulterousness of the eyes
should not be associated with the eyes per se, but as a quality of the heart. We
have observed that the text does not always clearly distinguish between spirits
as distinct and external entities that affect the human self and character traits
expressing the human self.
How are a spirit of fornication and adulterousness of eyes related to each
other? Should in 1qs iv, 10 be understood as synonymous with ,
or as a distinct entity behind peoples ? Is the removal of from
the heart parallel to the removal of evil spirits, also from the heart or from the
innermost parts of man (cf. 1qs iv, 2021)?
107 See S. Erlandsson, znh, ThWAT 2:612619.

108 The figurative sense is attested in mainly so-called Rewritten Bible texts: 4q368 2, 78;
11q19 ii, 1315; and possibly cd xix, 17.
109 Cf., e.g., 1qs iii, 3, 7; xi, 3, 56, 19.
Another reference in the Dead Sea Scrolls to , together with a

( guilty inclination),110 is found in cd ii, 1417 // 4q270 1 i, 1 () .111
In this passage the intended audience is told to listen so that their eyes are
opened and they see and understand Gods deeds in order to choose what
God pleases and walk perfectly on all his paths. It is said that they should
not follow plans based on a guilty inclination and adulteress eyes, because
many have erred ()112 and brave heroes have stumbled ()113 because
of them. The text then starts its historical overview with the Watchers, who
were infamous also because of their sexual transgressions, and about whom
the Damascus Document says that they fell because of the stubbornness of their
hearts () . This passage in the Damascus Document illustrates the
shift in the meaning of from worship of other gods to the incorrect worship
of God and the violation of his rules.
Although stubbornness of heart is referred to elsewhere in the Dead Sea
Scrolls, and also in the Rule of the Community, it is only in the Communal
Confession text (4q393 3, 3, 5) that it is further explicated as stubbornness of a
persons evil heart () . Furthermore, using language from Ps 51,114
the speakers in Communal Confession ask God to create115 a new spirit (
)within them and to establish within them ( )a faithful inclination
(( ) 4q393 1 ii, 56). The faithful inclination contrasts with the guilty
or evil inclination; the text explicitly asks God to hide his face from their sins
and wipe out their iniquities. However, what is of interest for our purposes is the
creational language combined with the localization of a new spirit within man.
It is not a question of two spirits, or a dualistic anthropology, but clearly the
human self can be renewed by God creating a new spirit within man. Whether
this implies the removal of the old spirit (cf. 1qs iv, 2021) or whether it is rather
a matter of renewal of that same spirit is not clear.
Thus, the spirit of fornication in 1qs iv, 10 may be part of a discourse
together with adulterousness of the eyes and other expressions of body imag-
ery such as stubbornness of heart or stiffness of neck (see, e.g., 1qs iv, 11)
in which the distinction between spirits as distinct entities, human character
110 See also 4q286 7 ii, 78 // 4q287 6, 7. Cf. 4q280 2, 2.

111 4q287 8, 13 is too fragmentary.
112 Cf. 1qs iii, 21 ().
113 Cf. 1qs iii, 24 ().
114 See D. Falk, Works of God and Communal Confession, in Qumran Cave 4.xx: Poetical and
Liturgical Texts, Part 2 (E. Chazon et al.; djd 29; Oxford 1999), 5253; Klein, Right Spirit,
185, 188.
115 Cf. 1qs iii, 18, 25.
88 popovi
traits, different inclinations, and their relationship to the human self is often
not clear-cut but in fact rather blurry.
3.4.7 Angels of Destruction

As to the relationship between men and spirits or angels, the catalogue of
virtues and vices adds yet another perspective to the two spirits, the Prince
of Lights, the Angel of Darkness, and a host of spirits in their lot: angels of
destruction () . It is possible that these are a separate class of spirits
in the lot of the Angel of Darkness (1qs iii, 24).
From 4q510 1, 5 (Songs of the Sage) it is clear that there were different types
of evil spirits, including all the spirits of the angels of destruction (
) . These were probably all imagined as belonging to the lot of the
Angel of Darkness or Belial.116 We observed above that men also belong to
the lots of the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness. It is interesting
that those who walk in the path of the spirit of darkness await an abundance
of affliction at the hands of the angels of destruction (1qs iv, 12).117 Rather
than a dualistic anthropology, this scenario suggests distinct spirits, external
to human beings.
3.5 1qs iv, 1523 and iv, 2326: Dualistic Anthropology?

Unlike the previous sections of the Two Spirits Treatise, the fourth (1qs iv, 15
23) and fifth (1qs iv, 2326) sections contain intriguing passages that seem to
hint at a dualistic anthropology, especially 1qs iv, 23.118
Scholars have assumed that the Two Spirits Treatise demonstrates a notion
according to which the two spirits exist within human beings in different pro-
portions. The share of the two spirits in the world, presumably the numerical
strength of their divisions, is equal (1qs iv, 16, 25), but each individual human
being has a greater or smaller share of either one of the two spirits that fight
within mans heart (1qs iv, 16, 23).119 This would, scholars suggest, add a psy-
116 Cf. 1qm xiii, 12.

117 But not only by them. In 1qs iv, 12 there is also mention of the wrath of Gods vengeances
() , a phrase that does not appear elsewhere. For other references to angels
of destruction, see cd ii, 57 and perhaps 4q473 2, 7.
118 In the final section, in 1qs iv, 26, there is also one more reference to peoples own spirit:
. This is the only clear use of for the human spirit in the Two Spirits Treatise. 1qs iii,
14 and iv, 6 are ambiguous.
119 Dupont-Sommer, Linstruction sur les deux esprits, 2829; J. Danilou, Un source de
la spiritualit chrtienne dans les manuscrits de la mer Morte: La doctrine des deux
esprits, dv 25 (1953): 127136, esp. 128; Michaud, Un mythe zervanite, 146. For other
chological dimension to the notion of dualism in the Two Spirits Treatise. The
result of this conflict within peoples hearts is that they either walk in wisdom
or in folly. The implication seems to be that both spirits exist within human
beings, but that people act according to one or the other, depending on the
outcome of the struggle.
Before discussing the possibility of a dualistic anthropology in 1qs iv, 23,
another enigmatic passage in the fourth section merits some attention because
of its different references to spirits and their relationship to the human self.
3.5.1 Spirits in Mans Innermost Parts

The passage 1qs iv, 2023 is not easy to understand. Different references to
spirits and purification rites are used to describe how God, with his truth, will
exact judgement at the appointed time.120 The conclusion is that all the glory
of Adam shall belong to those whom God has chosen. Strikingly, what is lacking
is a reference to the spirit of these chosen ones. At the very least, the Two
Spirits Treatise does not put it in such unequivocal terms as the Communal
Confession text, in which the confessors ask God to create a new spirit within
them (4q393 1 ii, 56; see above).
1qs iv, 2021 vividly describes how God will destroy all spirit of iniquity from
the innermost parts of mans flesh ( ) at the time of judgement. Is this
language metaphorical or does it imply a notion of spirits dwelling internally
in human beings? Other Qumran texts121 also localize the presence or activity
of spirits in the innermost parts of man, if that is the correct interpretation of
.122
The reference to mans flesh ( ) in 4q444 14 + 5, 3 (Incantation) has
already been referred to above. Considering other references in 4q444 (heart
[ ]and structure [)], as well as because of its combination with
(flesh), it seems evident that this refers to a localization within the human
body.
Reference has also been made to 1qha iv, 3436. 1qha iv, 37 speaks about
their authority in the poets innermost parts () , the referent
of their possibly being spirits of wickedness from lines 3536.123 The use of
explanations, Wernberg-Mller, Manual of Discipline, 84; Licht, Analysis of the Treatise,

91n13.
120 See Klein, Right Spirit, 182 for parallels with 1qs iii, 69.
121 1q36 14, 2 has ], but the manuscript is too fragmentary.
122 See Wernberg-Mller, Manual of Discipline, 86n71; E. Qimron, The Hebrew of the Dead Sea
Scrolls (hss 29; Atlanta 1986), 115.
123 The passage is fragmentary and therefore difficult to understand. Following the reference
90 popovi
the word is intriguing in light of the previous discussion above on the

authority of the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness, and also because
it is a key issue in the Visions of Amram text (see below). This passage from the
Hodayot seems to suggest that the rule of these spirits was localized in mans
innermost parts.
From 1qha xiii, 30 // 4q429 2, 12 it seems that pain and agony in the inner-
most parts can cause a mans spirit to stumble (), and in 1qha xiii, 3738
the poet says that his bread has changed into strife ( )and his drink into
contention () . He says that they have entered his bones and caused
his spirit to stumble: . Rather than taking this as purely
metaphorical language, it may be understood in more real terms. In 4q444
14+5, 2 spirits of controversy ( ) within the speakers bodily structure
( )are referred to, possibly paralleling the bones in 1qha xiii, 37.
Similar to 1qs iv, 2021, 4q511 2829, 34 (Songs of the Sage) refers to the
iniquity in the innermost parts of my flesh ( ) and also to
a foundation of dust () ,124 suggesting that indeed should
be understood in bodily terms. Iniquity is said to reside there even more. We
have seen earlier (1qs iv, 9) that is one of the two spirits whose paths
the catalogue of virtues and vices in the Two Spirit Treatise describes, and that
the distinction between separate spirits and human dispositions is often not
clearly made. That spirits were thought to reside in the human body also seems
clear from 4q511 4849+51, 3, which is very fragmentary, but refers to bastards
(), the verb ( subdue),125 and ( impurity), followed by
( because in the innermost parts of ).
These other passages suggest that the statement in 1qs iv, 2021 that God
will destroy all spirit of iniquity from the innermost parts of mans flesh is
not just figurative but also refers to a reality in which the human self, innate
qualities, and the personification of these qualities in terms of distinct spir-
its are intricately related to each other, being an integral part of the cosmic
order.
3.5.2 Spirits in Mans Heart

The passage in the Two Spirits Treatise that seems to contain the texts best
hint at a dualistic anthropology is 1qs iv, 23: until now the spirits of truth and
to their authority over his innermost parts, the poet gives as a reason that he is a fleshly
spirit () . For the term , see 1qha v, 30; 4q416 1, 12; 4q417 1 i, 17;
4q418 81+81a, 2; 4q423 8, 1. See also the literature referred to in n. 24 above.
124 Cf. 4q299 6 i, 13 () .
125 According to 4q511 35, 7, all spirits of the bastards are subdued by Gods strength and fear.
iniquity strive in mans heart. The text has made clear earlier that humanity
is divided into two groups according to the two spirits, but it did not present
the inner person as the battleground of the two spirits. What does this mean?
Does it imply a notion of two spirits inhibiting mans heart, or does it refer to
two psychological dispositions? What does it mean to say that two spirits strive
within mans heart? Should the heart be understood somehow as the essence
of a human being or rather as the centre of human deeds and the path on
which they walk? Is it possible to make a clear distinction between these two
possibilities?
There are no other texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls in which the heart is
specifically described as the location of strife between two (or more) spirits,
but there are parallels to different locations in the human body, including the
heart, into which spirits are put, or reside, or onto which their activities are
registered. 4q444 (Incantation) refers to spirits of controversy ( ) within
the speakers bodily structure ( )and 1qha xiii, 37 locates strife ()
and contention ( ) in the poets bones (). Furthermore, the
Incantation text seems to use the heart (, ), the innermost parts of mans
flesh () , and structure, framework ( )interchangeably126or,
if there are nuances, these are at least difficult for us to detect: both the heart
and the structure can be locations of spirits.127 We have also discussed 4q436 1
ii, 1 // 4q435 2 i, 2, which speaks of the holy spirit put into the heart of the poet.
These texts, together with 1qs iv, 2021, 23, are clearer on the relationship of
spirits to the human body and the human self than 1qs iii, 1718.
Should the statement in 1qs iv, 23 be understood as a statement of a dualistic
anthropology? I am not so sure. While 1qs iv, 23 speaks of two spirits within
the heart of man, as we have seen, other texts also refer to activities of spirits
within mans heart (or use other terms to denote the human self). These
texts are not dualistic, especially since sometimes many spirits are referred
to.128 This suggests that these spirits are not part of mans created framework.
The Two Spirits Treatise is not really clear that the two spirits represent two
opposing principles that ground reality and constitute human nature. The
Two Spirits Treatise is clear that both humankind (1qs iii, 17) and the two
spirits of light/truth and darkness/iniquity (1qs iii, 25) were created by God.
However, what is less clear is that these are the only two spirits, or that all
other spirits, such as those mentioned in the catalogue of virtues and vices
126 The first two of these also appear in the Two Spirits Treatise.
127 Cf. 4q538 12, 2, 4 for the possibility of an evil spirit in the hearts of Josephs brothers.
128 See, e.g., 1qha iv, 29, 4q444 (Incantation), or the Songs of the Sage discussed earlier.
92 popovi
(see above), can be reduced to these two. One might say that these other
spirits belong to the lot of the two spirits, but this only begs the question:
Are these other spirits manifestations of the power of the two spirits, within
which they materialize, or should they be seen as distinct entities of their
own? The Two Spirits Treatise is not clear on this. It is therefore difficult to
argue that according to the Two Spirits Treatise only two spirits, as opposing
principles, constitute human nature. This in turn should lead us to be careful
and approach the interpretation of the Two Spirits Treatise as an early Jewish
statement of a dualistic anthropology not without reservations. The Two Spirits
Treatise cannot be taken as a straightforward statement about human nature
consisting of two opposing spirits.
4 The Visions of Amram, the Two Spirits Treatise, and Iranian Notions
In the Aramaic Visions of Amram text (4q543549)129 there is a fascinating

scene where Amram has a vision in which two figures are judging ( )him
and having a great dispute ( ) about him, although the text does not
explain exactly what the dispute is about.130 When asked by Amram how
they can have authority over him, they both answer that they rule over all of
humanity.131 They then ask Amram to make a choice: And they said to me,
Which of us do you seek to be ruled by?132 The text then proceeds with a vivid
description of both figures. One possibly has the appearance of a serpent, his
clothing multicoloured and very dark, whereas the other figure has a pleasant
appearance. In another passage, where only one of the figures is speaking to
Amram, he explains to him that the other figure is called Melkhi Resha, that
all his deeds are darkness and that he rules over all darkness.133 The figure who
129 For recent discussions of this composition, see, e.g., A.B. Perrin, Another Look at Dual-
ism in 4QVisions of Amram, Henoch 36 (2014): 107118; B.A. Jurgens, Reassessing the
Dream-Vision of Amram (4q543547), jsp (2014): 342; A.D. Gross, Visions of Amram, in
Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture (ed. L.H. Feldman, J.L. Kugel,
and L.H. Schiffman; Lincoln/Philadelphia: University of Nebraska Press/The Jewish Pub-
lication Society, 2013), 15071510; R.R. Duke, The Social Location of the Visions of Amram
(4q543547) (New York: Peter Lang, 2012); L. Goldman, Dualism in the Visions of Amram,
RevQ 24 (2010): 421432.
130 4q544 1, 1011.
131 4q544 1, 12 // 4q543 59, 2 // 4q547 12, 1112.
132 4q544 1, 12 // 4q543 59, 34 // 4q547 12, 1213.
133 4q544 2, 1215.
addresses Amram says that he is ruler over all light.134 One of his three names
is probably Melkhi Tsedeq.135
Like the Two Spirits Treatise, the Visions of Amram text presents angelic or
demonic beings disputing about human beings. Unlike the Two Spirits Treatise,
Visions of Amram presents Amram with a choice between the two angelic fig-
ures, between light and darkness, righteousness and wickedness. They parallel
the Prince of Lights and the Angel of Darkness from the Two Spirits Treatise,
who have divided authority ( )over two groups of people between them,
although the Angel of Darkness and the spirits from his lot still exert influence
over the people under the authority of the Prince of Lights. The Aramaic words
for dispute or strife ( and )in Visions of Amram parallel the Hebrew word
( )from the Two Spirits Treatise (1qs iv, 23). The Visions of Amram text does
not explicitly state what the dispute between the two angels is about. However,
from the rest of the text it seems that they are arguing about who has authority
over Amram.
Should we think of this scene in Visions of Amram as a parallel to 1qs iv, 23?
The statement in 1qs iv, 23 that two spirits strive in mans heart may have been
understood in terms of a competition between these spirits over who would
have authority over a human being. The striking difference is that Amram is
able to provide a vivid description of the two angelic beings. He can see them
and he can also talk with them, asking questions and hearing their answers. Of
course, all this happens in a visionary dream, where human sensory perception
may be extraordinary. Nonetheless, the contrast with the Two Spirits Treatise is
evident. The references in the Two Spirits Treatise remain much more vague
and abstract.
A further striking feature of Visions of Amram is of course that Amram has
a choice over which figure to have as his ruler. In the Two Spirits Treatise the
situation seems more or less settled by the texts deterministic perspective:
God has predetermined everyones path. At the same time, the text refers to
this struggle between the two spirits within the heart of man. As de Jong notes
there is a structural dilemma within the 1qs instruction on the two spirits,
which can most economically be solved by allowing for a combination of two
different patterns of belief: the recognition, demanded by biblical tradition,
that God is one, and is thus responsible for everything, and the (perhaps
intuitive) notion that the world is currently going through a struggle dominated
by two spiritual beings, representing good and evil.136
134 4q544 2, 1216.

135 4q544 3, 2. See A. Steudel, Melchizedek, edss 1:535537, esp. 535.
136 De Jong, Iranian Connections, 493.
94 popovi
However, the issue of choice in Visions of Amram is interesting in light of

Iranian traditions and with regard to the matter of outside influences and the
transmission of cultural learning to Jewish Palestine. De Jong notes that in
Zoroastrianism it is the choice everyone has made that determines his/her
afterlife and eventual fate at the end of time. There is no sense of predesti-
nation in this regard.137 In this light the pattern presented in Visions of Amram
of an angelic and a demonic figure arguing over a human being and the human
being having a choice in this shows more of a systemic resemblance to Zoroas-
trianism than does the Two Spirits Treatise. It has been suggested that Aramaic
served as a medium for the transmission of learning from the east to Pales-
tine in the west.138 The pattern of dualistic thought, together with the element
of choice in Visions of Amram as well as the texts Aramaic language may sug-
gest that these specific elements originated within an Iranian context and were
subsequently transmitted, via Aramaic channels, westwards to Jewish Pales-
tine.139
With regard to anthropology, pneumatology, and demonology, what the
Visions of Amram text reminds us of is that human beings were not necessarily
137 De Jong, Iranian Connections, 493.

138 See, e.g., R. Leicht, Astrologumena judaica: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der astrologis-
chen Literatur der Juden (tsmj 21; Tbingen 2006), 3738; J. Ben-Dov, Head of All Years:
Astronomy and Calendars at Qumran in Their Ancient Context (stdj 78; Leiden 2008),
259266; J. Ben-Dov, Scientific Writings in Aramaic and Hebrew at Qumran: Translation
and Concealment, in Aramaica qumranica: Proceedings of the Conference on the Aramaic
Texts from Qumran in Aix-en-Provence 30 June2 July, 2008 (ed. K. Berthelot and D. Stkl
Ben Ezra; stdj 94; Leiden 2010), 379399; M. Popovi, The Emergence of Aramaic and
Hebrew Scholarly Texts: Transmission and Translation of Alien Wisdom, in The Dead Sea
Scrolls: Transmission of Traditions and Production of Texts (ed. S. Metso, H. Najman, and
E. Schuller; stdj 92; Leiden 2010), 81114, esp. 100106; M. Popovi, Networks of Schol-
ars: The Transmission of Astronomical and Astrological Learning between Babylonians,
Greeks and Jews, in Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Tem-
ple Literature (ed. J. Ben-Dov and S.L. Sanders; New York: New York University Press, 2014),
151191.
139 The oldest manuscripts of Visions of Amram date to the second half of the second century
bce, but the composition may date to the third century bce, according to . Puech,
Qumrn grotte 4.xxii: Textes aramens, premire partie, 4q529549 (djd 31; Oxford 2001),
285. For considerations about possible periods and contexts of transmission of Iranian
ideas and notions, see de Jong, Iranian Connections, 485487, 496. However, these
considerations are in need of further research. For late antique contexts and scenarios,
see, e.g., S. Secunda, Talmudic Text and Iranian Context: On the Development of Two
Talmudic Narratives, ajsr 33 (2009): 4569; S. Secunda, Reading the Bavli in Iran, jqr
100 (2010): 310342.
thought of as having been created with two spirits inhabiting man, suggesting a
form of dualistic anthropology. Visions of Amram illustrates the notion of exter-
nal spirits that sought to have authority over human beings and to influence
them during their lifetime. We have seen above that the issue of the authority
of angels, spirits, and demons over human beings was important in the various
texts. As far as we can tell, Visions of Amram does not locate the strife of the
angelic beings somehow within the human self. However, from 1qha iv, 37 and
4q444 14+5, 2 one may infer that the authority of spirits and their strife could
also be thought of as internalized within the human structure. The difference is
that in the case of the Visions of Amram the angels or spirits do not belong to the
creational framework of man, but represent separate, independent creational
entities. Although the Two Spirits Treatise is not as concrete in its descriptions
as Visions of Amram, it also has passages that suggest viewing the spirits as dis-
tinct from humans, while all having been created by God (1qs iii, 17, 25; see the
discussion above).
5 Concluding Remarks
The above discussion has demonstrated that early Jewish texts on the relation-
ship between humans and spirits do not attest to one but to various perspec-
tives on the matter.
Thus, the Barkhi Nafshi text suggests a somewhat different perspective than
Visions of Amram. The end of the first column and the beginning of the second
column of 4q436 have been reconstructed as follows by the editors of the text,
Weinfeld and Seely: The evil inclination [you] have driven with rebukes [from
my innermost part] [and the spirit of ho]liness you have set in my heart.140
As Tigchelaar has recently emphasized, the mention of evil inclination
occurs in a context that refers to the removal of adulterousness of the eyes,
the sending away of the stiffness of neck, the removal of wrathful anger, and
the carrying away of haughtiness of heart and arrogance of eyes. The evil incli-
nation may belong to the same category of the following vices, especially since
the combination of thoughts of a guilty inclination and adulterous eyes is also
found in cd ii 16.141
He observes from a phenomenological perspective that in our texts there is
not always a clear distinction between virtues and vices, and spirits as person-
140 Weinfeld and Seely, Barkhi Nafshi, 299.

141 Tigchelaar, Evil Inclination, 351.
96 popovi
ifications of those virtues and vices.142 This is not only the case in the Barkhi
Nafshi text, but also in the so-called Plea for Deliverance from the Cave 11 Psalms
Scroll (11q5 xix).143 It is not entirely clear whether we are dealing with external
or internal forces, but at the same time they seem also to have gained a sub-
stance of their own, independent of the human self.
A number of magical texts or texts with magical elements have also been
discussed that refer to spirits taking possession of body parts and influencing
human behaviour. Some of these are explicitly addressed to the maskil, such
as 4q510511 (Songs of the Sage), as is the Two Spirits Treatise, and they share
certain concepts and language. In fact, concomitant with the notion of external
spirits possessing human beings comes a worldview in which these external
dangers can and must be rebuked.144
As the Two Spirits Treatise is addressed to the sons of light, they may have
understood its teaching as explaining to them their position over against those
who were not sons of light and why it was important to strengthen themselves
against attacks, harassment, and temptation from the dark side. The emphasis
on the sons of justice/light in the second section of the text reveals an impor-
tant element of the knowledge that the Two Spirits Treatise is interested to
disseminate. The construction of this knowledge reveals something of the texts
worldview and may also, more specifically, inform us about one of the manners
in which the Two Spirits Treatise was read and understood. The text is appar-
ently not interested in whether the sons of iniquity/darkness might also do
good things because of the Prince of Lights. This should not surprise us. The Two
Spirits Treatise speaks to the sons of light (1qs iii, 13) and therefore addresses
that which is of interest to them.145
The determinism that seems almost absolute in the Two Spirits Treatise is put
into a different perspective in other texts from Qumran. The text in 1qha iv, 34
37 has already been discussed. This passage from the Hodayot asks for strength
against spirits (of wickedness) to be able to walk in all that God loves. The
Incantation text exhorts us to keep Gods laws and thus to strengthen oneself in
the fight against the spirits of wickedness (4q444 14 + 5, 4). Texts such as these
suggest that the understanding of 1qs iii, 2124 may have been that God and
the angel of his truth could be sought to strengthen the sons of justice/light so

144 On exorcism in the Second Temple period, see, e.g., Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic, 88114.
145 Cf. 1qm xiii, 9. See also H. Lichtenberger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qum-
rangemeinde (sunt 15; Gttingen 1980), 129.
as not to be influenced by the Angel of Darkness and his spirits and to avert
their evil influence.
Furthermore, it is clear from a recent re-edition of 4q468i by Tigchelaar
that this composition is not directed against outsiders who sin but that the
speakers themselves are the recalcitrant sinners (line 2: our neck is hard;
line 3: the evil inclination of our heart). This text presents the first case where
the evil inclination of ones heart is not attributed to sinful others, but is part
of a confession of ones own human nature.146 Although there is no basis to
regard this composition as sectarian, this self-understood confession of sinful
human nature ties in nicely with the knowledge expressed in the Two Spirits
Treatise that the sons of light can sin. In the Communal Confession text (4q393
1 ii) the speakers also talk of our sins and attribute to themselves stiffness of
neck. Although the speakers in Communal Confession do not explicitly locate
an evil inclination within themselves, they do ask God to wipe out all their sins,
to create a new spirit, and to establish a faithful inclination within them (see
the discussion above). These texts thus acknowledge the existence of human
failings even in the chosen ones and thus demonstrate the preoccupation with
understanding the ways of the right and wrong paths as in the catalogue of
virtues and vices in the Two Spirits Treatise.
Thus, to conclude, in the Two Spirits Treatise the notion of takes on
different meanings which are sometimes difficult to distinguish. In light of the
entire corpus of Qumran texts now being available, the impression is that the
different levelsanthropological, ethical, and cosmologicalcan intersect
and in such a way that it is not always evident to us (nor perhaps to those
who read them at the time) how we should distinguish between virtuous and
corrupt behaviour and between spirits as personifications of those virtues and
vices. Spirits were thought of as distinct beings and at the same time as innate
character traits of the human self. Sometimes texts distinguish more or less
clearly between them, but more often they do not.
Moreover, the dualism found in most Dead Sea Scrolls is not anthropological
but manifested in opposing spiritual beings.147 With regard to the Two Spirits
Treatise, on the one hand the other texts that have been discussed throw into
sharper relief the lack of a clear, unequivocal statement of dualistic anthropol-
ogy in the Two Spirits Treatise. Humankinds framework was not created out of
two opposing spiritual elements. Although the Two Spirits Treatise does refer
to two opposing groups of human beings, this opposition is not strictly dualis-

147 See also Tigchelaar, Evil Inclination, 353.
98 popovi
tic, as the Angel of Darkness also exerts influence over the sons of light.148 The
texts concern is thus not for a strict dualism at the level of different groups of
human beings. On the other hand, the other Qumran texts support the impres-
sion that notions of cosmological and ethical dualism in the Two Spirits Treatise
are intricately connected and that these also exert their influence at an anthro-
pological level, expressed in human behaviour. However, this is not a dualistic
anthropology.149
148 This aspect seems to be ignored by de Jong, Iranian Connections, 493, as the realms of
both spirits are not completely distinct.
149 I am most grateful to Eibert Tigchelaar for his many valuable comments and suggestions.
This article appears in a slightly revised form in Sibyls, Scriptures, and Scrolls: John Collins
at Seventy (ed. J. Baden, H. Najman, and E. Tigchelaar; Leiden: Brill, 2016).
From Cosmogony to Psychology: Philos
Interpretation of Gen 2:7 in De opificio mundi,
Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin and Legum
allegoriae
Beatrice Wyss
1 Introduction

, .1
And the Lord God made man from the dust of the earth, breathing into
him the breath of life, and man became a living soul.
Gen 2:7
Philo treats the first chapters of Genesis on three occasions: once in De opificio
mundi, once in Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin and once in Legum alle-
goriae. Gen 2:7 is thus mentioned in one work of each of the three exegetical
corpora.2 In many other treatises, Philo incorporates exegeses of Gen 2:7 into
interpretations of other topically or structurally similar biblical texts.3 I will not
deal with these here as Tobin has already done a good job in identifying and
1 A. Rahlfs, ed., Septuaginta: Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta lxx interpretes (9th ed.;
Stuttgart 2006). The translators of the Septuagint used the term (for nefesh hayyah)
to denominate the living being rather than the soul, see M. Alexandre, Le commencement du
livre Gense iv: La version grecque de la Septante et sa rception (Paris 1988), 147, with many
supporting passages. Later readers of the Septuagint such as Philo himself understood
here and elsewhere as a statement about the soul (Alexandre, Commencement, 162).
This paper profited from the discussion at the tbn meeting in Groningen, 910 September
2010. I am very grateful to Gabriela Ryser who took great pains to improve the English of this
paper.
2 Traditionally, Philos exegetical oeuvre is divided into three main groups, see e.g., S. Sandmel,
Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (Oxford 1979), 2981.
3 De confusione linguarum; De fuga et inventione; De mutatione nominum; De plantatione; De
somniis; Quis rerum divinarum heres sit; Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat; De specialibus
legibus; De virtutibus. On this topic, see T. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of
Interpretation (cbqms 14; Washington 1983), esp. 2324, 31.

100 wyss
comparing them, noting differences and similarities and links with trends in
Greek philosophy. Nor will I tackle the question of a possible development in
the different interpretations of Genesis with which Tobin deals, or answer the
question of what Philo meant by .4 As a philologist I will only approach
Philos use of the term in the context of his interpretation of Gen 2:7.
This paper will examine the question of whether the context of each exegetical
corpus determines the interpretation of Gen 2:7, noting similarities and dissim-
ilarities and attempting to determine the reasons for the latter. In relation to the
origin of the similarities, the answer seems simple: from the Jewish tradition of
exegesis.
2 De opificio mundi5
As the title indicates, in De opificio mundi, Philo provides an interpretation of

Gen 12, which exhibits patterns of Platonic philosophy and arithmology.6 In
Opif. 129, Philo begins with the account of Gen 2, using allegory to elucidate the
story of the Fall and the expulsion from paradise.
4 On this topic, see H. Leisegang, Die vorchristlichen Anschauungen und Lehren vom
und der mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis (vol. 1.1 of Der heilige Geist: Das Wesen und Werden der
mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen; ed. H. Leisegang;
Leipzig 1919; repr., Darmstadt 1967). Some preconceptions (such as the brightness of the
Greek against the darkness of the Orient) are outdated, but the main part of the book, the
interpretation of Philos use of , is still worth reading. See also G.H. van Kooten, Pauls
Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient
Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (wunt 232; Tbingen 2008), 6268, 275
282.
5 On the exegetical corpus, the exposition of the law, to which De opificio mundi belongs, see
Sandmel, Introduction, 4776; P. Borgen, Philo of Alexandria: An Exegete for His Time (Leiden
1997), 4679; D.T. Runia, introd., trans. and comm., Philo of Alexandria: On the Creation of the
Cosmos according to Moses (pacs 1; Leiden 2001), 58; Borgen, Exegete, 46, calls it a Rewritten
Bible. Concerning De opificio mundi proper, see Runia, Creation. On Opif. 134147, see Runia,
Creation, 321347. The importance of Plato, especially of the Timaeus, is demonstrated by
the same author (D.T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato [Leiden 1986],
334340).Philos opinion about the temporality or non-temporality of creation varies: in
explaining Gen 2:7 he assumes that creation is a temporal event by declaring Adam the first
man, the progenitor of humankind (Opif. 136); in explaining Gen 1, he rejects the temporality
of creation (Opif. 13, 26).
6 Opif. 4752 on the tetras; Opif. 62 on the pentas; Opif. 1314 on the hexas; Opif. 89127 on the
hebdomas.
from cosmogony to psychology 101
Let us now turn to Philos interpretation of Gen 2:7 (Opif. 134). After quoting
Gen 2:7 (omitting the last three words [became a living soul]),
Philo states that there is a vast difference between it and an earlier passage,
Gen 1:2627 ( ). This difference serves as a
structuring principle throughout Opif. 134135, where Philo works with a series
of opposites:7
Gen 2:7 Gen 1:2627
Formed Came into existence after the image of God

Object of sense-perception Object of thought

Consisting of body and soul Incorporeal

Partaking already of such or such quality Idea or type or seal

Man or woman Neither male nor female

8
By nature mortal By nature incorruptible

The man of sense-perception is a composite being ( ), con-

sisting of an earthly body and a soul into which the divine is breathed
( ). Concerning the body, Philo writes -

7 See Runia, Creation, 321329; Van Kooten, Pauls Anthropology, 275278.

8 This is a mistake, see Gen 1:27 ( ). Philo uses it correctly in Opif.
76: , -
. And when Moses had called the genus man, quite admirably did he distinguish its
species, adding that it had been created male and female. (I use the translation of Colson
and Whitaker.)
102 wyss
. Who is this (craftsman) and is he identical to God, that is,

is he a function of God,9 or does the term designate a being other than God?10
The notion of a god kneading clay and forming a human figure (well known
in Greek mythology, e.g., Prometheus) seems to be fundamentally opposed to
Philos concept of God, yet in Opif. 137 Philo makes it clear that it is God who
took the clay.11 Man stands on the border between mortality and immortality
( ): mortal with respect to
the visible part ( ) and immortal with respect
to the invisible part ( ). Every composite being
inevitably decomposes, making death inherent to the system. This division
aims at preserving the immortality, if not of the whole being, then at least of
the soul, even though Philo makes no mention of a potential afterlife in this
regard. He merely states the immortality of the soul, which is intellectually
inconsistent with the reality of death. The appears in this reading as
a component of the soul. Concerning the relationship between and
or whether there is a relationship between them at all, Philo says noth-
ing. Whereas Opif. 134 knows no congruence between Gen 1:2627 and Gen 2:7,
Opif. 139 interprets mans mind as an image of Gods .12 Philo answers the
question of why the Pentateuch tells the story of the creation of man twice by
pointing to the different state or category of the created men.13
Because Philo is implicitly alluding to his exegesis of Gen 1:2627, a quick
glance at this exegesis seems necessary (Opif. 6976). Philo cites Gen 1:26
and emphasizes that the resemblance of the created being to God lies in the
mind () and not in the body:
(for neither is God in human form, nor is the human
body God-like; Opif. 69). In the following lines, Philo compares mans mind
to Gods (6971). After asking and answering the question of why a
plurality of creators was necessary for the creation of such a humble being as
man when God was able to create heaven, earth and all kinds of plants and
animals without help (Opif. 7275), Philo ends the exegesis of this verse with
the interpretation of the words (Opif. 76). These terms, he
9 Runia, Creation, 326.

10 This is the view of J. Fossum, Gen 1,26 and 2,7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism,
jsj 16 (1985): 202239, esp. 207.
11 ,
Secondly, God is not likely
to have taken the clay from any part of the earth that might offer, or to have chosen as
rapidly as possible to mould this figure in the shape of a man
12 See below.
13 Tobin, Creation, 108134; Runia, Creation, 322.
suggests, make it clear that it was not a single human being that was created,
but the genus of mankind ( ; Opif. 76).
What, then, was created in Gen 1:2627? The of man, a without
body (Opif. 69) or the genus of mankind (Opif. 76)? Philos response remains
vague; in fact, he does not ask the question of what was created with respect to
Gen 1:26. However, he does place great emphasis on criticizing a reading of this
verse in an anthropomorphic way and makes a rhetorical effort to compare the
to Gods (Opif. 6971), with an allusion to the Phaedrus (the winged
mind [ ]; cf. Plato, Phaedr. 246d249d) and to the Symposium
( ; cf. Plato, Symp. 211c).14 Philo places further emphasis on the
mixed nature of man which leads to a disposition for both morally good and
bad behaviour, and which is determined in the act of the creation of man. The
genus of mankind is found to be created by both God and his assistants, and
it is argued that because God creates nothing evil, He created the part of the
soul which disposes man to morally good behaviour, whereas the assistants
created that part that causes morally bad behaviour (for a Greek mind, pleasure
[] and emotions [], for a Jewish mind, evil inclinations).15 In the
formation of the genus of man the possibility of misbehaviour is anticipated
(indeed, even the first man will do wrongGod knew this in advance). Philo
does not mention the idea of man. (Was this because he was aware that he
would contradict his own statement in Opif. 16 that the ideas were created on
day one?) Instead, he speaks of the genus man ( ). Obviously,
Philo sees the humanity of man realized in the , meaning that the genus of
mankind is endowed with mind, and by this we can harmonize the statement
in Opif. 69 with that in Opif. 76.16
14 Plato speaks of the ascension of the soul. Philo, who assumes that the soul consists
of mortal and immortal parts, consequently speaks of the ascension of the immortal
part (). The ascension of the soul or of the mind and the view from above were
known since Plato (Phaedr. 247c). In the first and second centuries ce this topos enjoyed
great popularity (e.g., Pseudo-Aristotle, De mundo 1 391a12; Clement of Alexandria, Strom.
5.138.23; Lucian, Icar. 56); see also Runia, Creation, 229230: a passage of Maximus of
Tyre (Dialexeis 11.910) shows the greatest resemblance to this passage.
15 The Jewish background of the plural of Gen 1:26 is elucidated by Fossum, Gen 1,26 and
2,7, 202239; on Philo, see esp. 203208, but see also Runia, Creation, 236244.
16 Runia argues against the interpretation that the idea of humankind was created in Gen
1:26, while in Gen 2:7 the first man was created (Runia, Creation, 323), stating that in Gen
1:26 the ideal human person, that is, the intellect of man, was created. Indeed, Philo men-
tions the in Opif. 69. Because Philo also mentions the genus of humankind (Opif. 76,
134), I would suggest that Philo points to the difference between the genus humankind
and the single human being; the distinguishing mark of the genus of humankind is the
104 wyss
Unfortunately, the recourse to the exegesis of Gen 1:2627 does not yield a
better understanding of Philos intention. On the contrary, it shows that Philo,
in treating Gen 2:7 (Opif. 134145), apparently forgot certain statements he had
made earlier (Opif. 6976) and considered that the being created in Gen 1:26
was neither male nor female, whereas earlier he had stressed that God created
the genus of humankind as male and female. In Gen 2:7 there is no mention
of mind (), only of and , by which Philo seems to suggest that
the being created in Gen 1:26 was the idea of humankind.17 In both instances
Philo speaks of the , which seems to be the lowest common denominator
of both. The difference between the being created in Gen 1:26 and the one made
in Gen 2:7 does not concern their ontological status but the category.
After these two paragraphs (134135), Philo interrupts the exegesis of Gen
2 to insert an essay on the excellence of the first man (136147). This essay is
also structured by opposites, with statements about the excellence of the body
and soul of the first man alternating with statements about the decline of the
following generations. The first man, progenitor of all men, was the human
being with the most perfect body (136138). Philo adds three arguments to
elucidate this point: the first man really was the only truly beautiful and good
(136), the matter of his body consisted of the best matter of the whole earth
(137),18 and the Creator created him according to the best proportions (138).
However, his descendants did not share in his excellence and in time their
quality steadily diminished (140141). Furthermore, the first man was the only
cosmopolitan (142144).19 Gods reason () acted as a model of the human
soul and man was made a likeness and imitation of the Word when the divine
. In both interpretations there is a problem, namely how the noetic man (Opif. 134)
is correlated to the idea of humankind (Runia, Creation, 323). Yet, Philo solves these prob-
lems in his interpretation of Gen 2:7 in Legum allegoriae, which I will discuss later.
17 The idea of humankind is not explicitly mentioned by Plato, but is easily deduced from
Tim. 39e40a; the concept was current in Middle Platonism. See Alcinous, Epitome doc-
trinae platonicae sive 12.1; Arius, Physica frg. 1 (in the edition of H. Diels, Arii
Didymi epitomes fragmenta physica, in Doxographi graeci [ed. H. Diels; Berlin 1879; repr.,
Berlin 1965], 447); Numenius (second cent. ce) frg. 20 (in the edition by . des Places, ed.
and trans., Numnius: Fragments [Paris 1974]); Runia, Timaeus of Plato, 335n5. A parallel
in the Corpus hermeticum is mentioned by J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: 80 b. c. to a. d.
220 (London 1977), 176, 390392. On the entire topic, see also Tobin, Creation, 112125.
18 Cf. the Sib. Or. 3.2426: here the first man is said to be moulded out of matter from
all four corners of the earth; the same idea is mentioned by the rabbis (Alexandre,
Commencement, 237).
19 This is a stoic concept and it was popular in the first cent. ce, see Runia, Creation 339340
with further references.
breath was breathed into his face (139).20 Thus, the mind of every human being
is akin to Gods reason (), having come into being as a copy or fragment
or ray of that blessed nature (146).21
This aspect is new because until now we have been led to think of the
two creatures created in Gen 1:2627 and Gen 2:7 as two different beings.
This changes as Philo adopts the Jewish reading which sees in the a
specific quality of man (139),22 whereby causes the godlikeness of man.
In other words, Gen 1:2627 and Gen 2:7 are combined: the godlikeness of
man, which is abstractly stated in Gen 1:2627, is seen as realized in the
that man receives in Gen 2:7.23 Certainly Philo separates the man created in
Gen 1:2627 from the one moulded in Gen 2:7 in his interpretations of Gen 2:7
proper (Opif. 134135; qg 1.4; Leg. 1.3132), but in the following paragraphs (Opif.
139; Leg. 1.3342 and implicitly in qg 1.5) he brings both together. Obviously
Philo attaches great importance to the difference between the idea or genus of
humankind in Gen 1:2627 and the real man of Gen 2:7, well appropriated to
a Platonic reading of Genesis. However, as soon as he has finished explaining
Gen 2:7, he adopts the Jewish reading, which sees the godlikeness of human
mind realized by the , taking place in the human mind.
One point we should take into account is that in the exegesis of Gen 2:7
in De opificio mundi there is no question of an allegoresis of soul and mind.
Allegoresis of the creation account starts with the account of paradise, the
woman and the serpent (beginning with Opif. 153).
20 This seems to be an allusion to the Middle Platonic ideal () of (see Runia,

Creation, 345 and Van Kooten, Pauls Anthropology, ca. 2 The Image of God and Being
made like God in Graeco-Roman Paganism, 92219).
21 Van Kooten (Pauls Anthropology, 6465, 277282) stresses the semantic proximity of
and in Philos work: the part of the human soul into which God breathed the
divine breath is the (caveat Runia, Creation, 324).
22 Wis 15:11 is the earliest instance of a pneumatological reading of Gen 2:7. The exact date
of composition is unknown, some date it back to the first cent. bce, such as H. Poirier,
Pour une histoire de la lecture pneumatologique de Gn 2,7: Quelques jalons jusqu
Irne de Lyon, REAug 40 (1994): 2, others to the first cent. ce, as does J. Dochhorn in
a paper presented on 26 July 2010 in Reinhausen, Gttingen. Josephus, a.j. 1.34. Paulus,
e.g., 1Cor 15:4547 (see Poirier, Histoire, 5; Van Kooten, Pauls Anthropology, 298312).
Pseudo-Phocylides, Sententiae 105108. All authors see man as composed of ,
and . See further K. Greschat, Apelles und Hermogenes: Zwei theologische Lehrer des
zweiten Jahrhunderts (VCSup 48; Leiden 2000), 245256, esp. 246n63. A non-dualistic view
is found in 4Ezra 2:4. Nevertheless, Philo usually uses the tripartition of man common to
Greek philosophy since Plato: , and (Van Kooten, Pauls Anthropology, 280
281).
23 Greschat, Apelles und Hermogenes, 246.
106 wyss
3 Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1.4524
The Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin is preserved only as a fragment in

Greek; however, there is a complete Armenian translation. As in De opificio
mundi and Legum allegoriae, Philo states an ontological difference between the
man created in Gen 1:2627 and the one moulded out of clay
in Gen 2:7. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin 1.4 is structured dichotomously:
Moulded man Man made in accordance with (Gods) form

Sense-perceptible man Intelligible and incorporeal
A likeness of the intelligible type A likeness of the archetype, a copy of the
original seal
Firstly, we have here a tripartite gradation of (1) God, (2) and (3) the being
made in Gen 1:2627 (as Opif. 69, 139; Leg. 1.37).25 There is quite a big difference,
both literally and ontologically, between the three, and finally, the real existing
man. Secondly, there is a reference to the potter (the man who was moulded
as if by a potter, as in Opif. 135 and Leg. 1.31). The potter moulded the sense-
perceptible part of real man out of clay, as in the Promethean myth (Philo does
not tell us whether he is identical to God or to an angel). Incorporated in the
exegesis is a description of Gods : the Logos of God, the first principle, the
archetypal idea, the pre-measurer of all things. As in De opificio mundi, Philo
stresses the composite nature of man as a conglomeration of a perishable body
and a non-perishable, immortal soul. The consequence of this, the mortality of
the body and the immortality of the soul, is not explicitly mentioned.
This interpretation of Gen 2:7 fits well with the Jewish division of the realm
of God (incorporeal, invisible and imperishable) from the realm of man (cor-
poreal, sense-perceptible and perishable). It is not necessary to impute a Pla-
tonic dichotomy of the realm of mind and the ideas and the realm of sense-
perception and sense-perceptible things. Perhaps due to the brevity of Philos
explanation here, with no reference to the subjects of Greek moral philosophy
(and perhaps also due to the lack of the Greek wording), it seems to me to be
the most Jewish exegesis of Gen 2:7 in Philos oeuvre.
After explaining Gen 2:7, Philo asks why God breathed into the face of man
(qg 1.5), as he does in Legum allegoriae (1.394126). He answers the question
24 On the exegetical corpus, see Sandmel, Introduction, 7981; and Borgen, Exegete, 80101,
who stresses the importance of the exegetical principle of question and answer for all
three exegetical corpora.
25 Cf. Tobin, Creation, 3655.
26 See below.
in both works in a similar way: firstly, God breathed into the face because it
is a part of the head, which leads the body. Philo illustrates this point using
the image of a statue: the body is like a pedestal, while the face, like a bust, is
firmly placed above it. Secondly, he argues that one feature of the living being
is sense-perception, which is located in the eyes, nose, ears and mouth, all part
of the face (the sense of touch, i.e., the hands, is missing, but four out of five
senses are indeed concentrated in the face, see also Opif. 139). Thirdly, he states
that man is not only given a soul, but a rational one, and reason is located, as
some philosophers and physicians say, in the head (see e.g., Alcinous, Epitome
doctrinae platonicae sive 23.1).
4 Legum allegoriae27
The Legum allegoriae is a work in three volumes which comprises a running

commentary on Gen 23. The treatment of Gen 1 is either missing from Legum
allegoriae or it was never written.28 Although 3:18 and 3:2023 are missing, this
need not concern us as the commentary on Gen 2:7 is complete. At the outset
Philo declares that he will not read Gen 2 as a statement about cosmology
but on a symbolic level as a statement about the constitution of the mind
(), symbolized by heaven, and of sense-perception (), symbolized
by earth. Of course this does not mean the sense-perception and mind of
an individual, but of their idea. In other words, the idea of mind and the
idea of sense-perception were created and symbolized by heaven and earth
respectively (Leg. 1.1 on Gen 2:1; see also Leg. 1.21 on Gen 2:45). From this
allegorical interpretation, it follows that Philo understands creation as non-
temporal, as not occurring in a temporal frame of reference (Leg. 1.2 on Gen
2:2 [It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days or in a
space of time at all]).
To provide a broader framework let me paraphrase Philos exegesis of Gen
2:46.29 Philo proceeds systematically, beginning with the principal issue, the
27 On the genus of the allegorical commentary, see Sandmel, Introduction, 7678; Borgen,
Exegete, 102139.
28 T. Tobin, The Beginning of Philos Legum allegoriae i, in The Studia Philonica Annual:
Studies in Hellenistic Judaism, Volume 12, 2000 (ed. D.T. Runia and G.E. Sterling; bjs 328;
Atlanta 2000), 2943. Tobin attempts to show that in a lost first part of Legum allegoriae
Philo also interpreted Gen 1:131 as an allegoresis of the soul.
29 Gen 2:4: These are the generations of the heaven and the earth when they were made.
Gen 2:5: In the day when the Lord God made earth and heaven there were no plants of
108 wyss
spheres of mind and sense-perception as such (on Gen 2:1). After the idea
of mind and the idea of sense-perception, God creates the intellectually-
perceptible itself, or the idea of the intelligible, by means of his (Leg.
1.22 [ , symbolized by the
shrubbery]), out of which the intelligible objects arise through participation
( ). Then sense-perception as the form or genus (
, symbolized by the herb) is established, out of which each
of the sense-perceptible objects develops ( ). The source
welling up from under the earth symbolizes the mind,30 and the face of the
land symbolizes sense-perception. Here, it is no longer the idea of mind and
the idea of sense-perception that are being referred to, but rather the mind and
sense-perception that work within each human being, although at this stage
there is no human being in which mind could be seen to be working. According
to Philo, in Gen 2:6 the interrelation of mind and sense-perception is described
generally, i. e. the mind is affected by sense-perception and sense-perception
is stimulated by the mind. After his comments on Gen 2:7, Philo then treats
the different virtues.31 He states that only after the mind and sense-perception
virtues are created32 and, finally, the emotions ().33
the field on the earth, and no grass had come up: for the Lord God had not sent rain on
the earth and there was no man to do work on the land.
30 Gen 2:6: But a mist went up from the earth, watering all the face of the land.
31 The garden in Gen 2:8 symbolizes either heavenly virtue (Leg. 1.45), Gods wisdom (Leg.
1.43, 64) or Gods reason (Leg. 1.65). The trees and the tree of knowledge in Gen 2:9
represent several particular virtues and the corresponding activities (Leg. 1.56): the tree of
life symbolizes virtue in general or the goodness from which all other virtues are deduced
(Leg. 1.59), the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the leading part of the soul (;
Leg. 1.6162). The river rising in paradise and dividing into four in Gen 2:1014 represents
goodness and the four main virtues of prudence, self-mastery, courage and justice (Leg.
1.6364). The first branch, named Pishon, stands for prudence (Leg. 1.66) and the gold
which is found in the land in which it flows symbolizes it (Leg. 1.67). Likewise, ruby refers
to the man who is prudent (Leg. 1.67) and emerald to the man who exercises prudence
(Leg. 1.67). The name of the second river, Gihon, refers to courage (Leg. 1.68) and the name
of the third river, Tigris, to self-mastery (Leg. 1.69).
32 According to Philo (Leg. 2.5), sense-perception () is introduced in Gen 2:18: And
the Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be by himself. I will make one like
himself as a help to him. Dillon (Middle Platonists, 175) points to an interesting parallel
in Callicratidas, who compares with the patriarch, with the wife and
with the son (Callicratidas, [in the edition by H. Thesleff, The
Pythagorean Texts of the Hellenistic Period (bo 1965), 103]).
33 The souls passions ( ) are indicated by the beasts of the fields in Gen 2:19, And
Particular attention is paid to pleasure (),34 which, as an emotion

(), is a function of the soul. As a result, in the exegesis of Gen 23, which
contains many short essays on morality and philosophy, Philo integrates a
systematic account of the soul that one almost ignores. However, by correlating
the relevant biblical verses and Philos interpretation (as I did), this hidden
essay on the soul becomes obvious.
Let us consider Philos allegory thus far (Gen 2:16). From the beginning
the account is stripped of all concreteness. Philo raises the account to a non-
temporal and abstract sphere, towards the intelligible realm or even higher.
In this abstract-intellectual sphere man appears. Let us see what Philo does
with the very concrete account of creation in Gen 2:7, which proceeds over the
course of eleven paragraphs (Leg. 1.3142), starting with the complete quote of
Gen 2:7. This is the third time Philo states that there is a difference between
man in Gen 1:2627 and man in Gen 2:7:
Heavenly man Earthly man

Being made after the image of

God

Without part or lot in corruptible Was compacted out of the matter scattered
and terrestrial substance here and there, which Moses calls clay

,
Not moulded but stamped with Moulded work of the Artificer, not his
the image of God offspring
, , ,

from the earth the Lord God made every beast of the field and every bird of the air (Leg.
2.9). Heaven and field symbolize the mind (; Leg. 2.10), beasts and birds the passions
(; Leg. 2.11). Earlier, on the 6th day (Gen 1:24), God created the ideas and genera of the
passions, whereas in Gen 2:19 he creates the single species of emotions (Leg. 2.12).
34 The snake, mentioned in Gen 3:1, symbolizes pleasure (), which couples mind with
sense-perception (Leg. 2.7172). An excursus on snakes then follows (Leg. 2.74108, the
end of book 2).
110 wyss
Philo argues that there are two kinds of man: a heavenly one ()
and an earthly one (). The heavenly man is created according to Gods
image ( ) and does not partake in perishable earthly substance.
The earthly man is said to be moulded out of scattered matter (
). The difference between the two is apparent in a linguistic detail: heav-
enly man is not moulded ( ) but stamped with Gods image
( ), while the earthly one is a figure moulded by a
craftsman ( ). In comparison with Philos exegesis of Gen
2:7 with which we are thus far familiar, it is striking that the difference between
Gen 1:2627 and Gen 2:7 is now (Leg. 1.31) between earthly and heavenly
and not sense-perceptible and intelligible as in De opificio mundi and Quaes-
tiones et solutiones in Genesin. This change in emphasis is due to a change in the
whole focus of the interpretation.
It is at this stage that Philo, so to speak, spills the beans:35 the earthly man
symbolizes the mind at the moment of being incorporated into the body and
before being wholly absorbed by it (
, ). If the mind were already in the
body, contact with the divine would be impossible, as we have to suppose that
the divine does not partake in corporeal things. Without divine breath the mind
would be led to ruin ( ,
), but by means of the divine breath
it is no longer merely moulded but becomes a soul ( ,
, ). The soul, then, is no longer lazy and imperfectly formed
( ) but becomes reasonable and actually living (
).
We remember that in Opif. 134 Philo omitted the last three words of Gen 2:7
( ), whereas in this text Philo specifies this point, paraphrasing
and quoting the whole of Gen 2:7 ( , ,
. ). Here
Philo interprets the inspiration by God as imparting the principle of life. The
bipartite nature of man, composed of a mortal body and an immortal soul
which by necessity causes his death, because every composite thing must fall
apartis not mentioned by Philo. This is with good reason, for it is not a human
being that is at stake but the mind.
At the same time, the linguistic details reveal that Philo uses the term life
in a particular sense: , and ,
. The manner in which Philo
35 Tobin, Creation, 135176. All quotations in this and the next paragraph are from Leg. 1.32.
uses the terms real life and actually alive (could one be alive but not actually
alive?) is perplexing. In fact, his explanation is based on an antique doctrine of
the soul which states that the soul is composed of different parts, the vegetative,
the affective, the cognitive and the intellectual. Philo draws a distinction here
between the non-reasonable part of the soul and the reasonable part. The
human being in Leg. 1.31 is already endowed with the unreasonable part of the
soul,36 that is, he possesses the vital functions and hence is a living being (but
one with a lazy and imperfectly formed soul), to whom Philo denies real
life. If we deduce the cause from the effect ( ), what is still missing
is reason, which God breathes into this being such that it becomes a soul
endowed with mind and actually alive. Philo uses this distinction between
life and actual life as a basis for an anthropology that he unfolds in many
passages of his work. The soul is, so to speak, endowed with a twofold principle
of lifeone aspect is the basis of the vegetative life and the other the basis of
intellectual activity, and hence, as Philo sees it, real life. Death is also twofold,
a view which was quite common in Middle Platonic circles (e.g., Plutarch, De
facie in orbe lunae 28, 942f943e). One is the death everybody commonly refers
to, that is, the separation of body and soul. However, there is also a second
or real death, the death of the soul (qg 1.16; Leg. 1.105106). Philo is perhaps
induced to take this position, which at first sight entails a quite complicated
distinction and gradation of the principle of life, by the exact wording of the
Septuagint ( ). At first reading this must seem to him a pleonasm:
the soul is always living, a non-living soul is an absurdity. Therefore, the phrase
must have a deeper sense because, as a general rule of exegesis,
Moses never puts in a superfluous word (Fug. 54). This, then, is the distinction
between vegetative life and real life.
As Philo tells us, the four questions that need to be asked when reading this
creation account are as follows (Leg. 1.33):
1. Why did God breathe into the earthly man, that is, into the mind concerned
with earthly interests, and not into the heavenly mind?
The answer to this question is given in Leg. 1.3435: God, who loves to give
( ), gives to everybody, even to the imperfect. He bestows
goodness on every soul, even if some are not capable of behaving in a good way
(Leg. 1.34). Moreover, the breath serves as a basis for justice: nobody can claim
that he is unjustly punished, for that it was through inexperience of good that
he failed in respect of it (Leg. 1.35).
36 See Leisegang, Vorchristliche Anschauungen, 8590, on what follows.

112 wyss
2. What is the precise meaning of he breathed into?

As an answer (Leg. 1.3638), Philo points out that (breathed into)
is synonymous with (inspired) and (besouled). Yet we
should not think of God as having a mouth or nostrils. God neither takes the
form of man ( ) nor belongs to any class or kind.37 Without
being breathed into, the soul would be without knowledge of God. Therefore,
by means of his power, which is symbolized by the breath (), God draws
the soul to his side (1.37). Mans mind would not dare to rise so high if God
had not previously raised the human mind ( ) as far as it
was possible for it to go, and if God had not impressed it with the powers that
are within the scope of its understanding (
; 1.38).
3. Why did God breathe into the face?

There are two possible answers to this question (1.3941; cf. qg 1.5), one of which
is scientifically based: sense-perception is located mainly in the face (nose,
eyes, ears and mouth) and hence, the face is the place of the soul. The morally
based interpretation is as follows: the mind is the leading part () of
the soul and the face or head the leading part of the body. God only breathes
into parts worthy of him, and the irrational parts of the soul are not worthy.
However, how were they inspired? Obviously, the irrational parts of the soul
were inspired by the mind, as the mind was inspired by Gods (1.40). Some
of the living beings came into existence through God directly ( ), others
only indirectly ( ): to the former belong the mind and paradise, to the
latter, the irrational parts of the soul (1.41).
4. Why is and not written, the latter being known since Gen 1:2 (
)?
The answer to this question (1.42) concerning the difference between and
is that signifies a gentle breeze, whereas means a strong
gust of air.38 was imparted to the mind that was created according to
the image of God and the idea ( )because
of this, the intelligible being can bear a stronger intellectual touchwhile the
earthly mind can bear only the gentle breeze (). This is the only instance
37 1.36; Tobin, Creation, 3655. Aristobulus had already argued against an anthropo-
morphic view (second cent. bce; f 2 and f 4 [in the edition by N. Walter, Fragmente
jdisch-hellenistischer Exegeten: Aristobulos, Demetrios, Aristeas, in Unterweisung in
lehrhafter Form (jshrz 3.2; ed. W.G. Kmmel et al.; Gtersloh 1980), 257279]).
38 See Tobin, Creation, 128129; Van Kooten, Pauls Anthropology, 65; Poirier, Histoire, 2.
where Philo deals with the exact wording of the Septuagint, reading in Gen
2:7 and not , while elsewhere he deals with Gen 2:7 as if it read
.
It is clear that in Legum allegoriae it is not the creation of the world and man
which are discussed, but the presentation of the soul and the intelligible envi-
ronment in which it is placed. Using the vividness of the description he found
in the Pentateuch, Philo turns his attention inwards, asking how the soul, its
functions and parts, which are all difficult to describe,39 could be illustrated
and filled with life. He sees his task as an exegete to interpret this vivid descrip-
tion correctly, claiming that it is an account of the inner psychic processes the
expert finds in the Torah, not a historical or cosmological account. Thus Legum
allegoriae is not to be considered as a graphic account of the creation of man
and world, but as a logically precise description of the abstract realm, of the
soul and its functions, especially the interaction of sense-perception, pleasure
(the passion par excellence) and mind. Genesis describes, in Philos view, the
souls struggle between the mind, sense-perception and pleasure, which both
disturbs and stimulates the mind. This is Philos Leitmotiv, and he will treat it
many times throughout his oeuvre.40 In the first three chapters of Genesis the
constant factors of Philos account of the struggle of the soul are known, while
later on in the allegorical commentary there are variations on the topic. The
allegoresis of the soul may not be Philos invention, but because of its wide
dissemination in his oeuvre it is without any doubt Philos firm conviction
that he ascertains the deeper meaning of the Pentateuch. See qg 1.8 on Gen
2:8:
Why does he place the moulded man in paradise, but not the man who
was made in his image? Some, believing paradise to be a garden have said
that since the moulded man is sense-perceptible, he therefore rightly goes
to a sense-perceptible place But I would say that paradise should be
thought a symbol of wisdom.
philo, qg 1.8
39 A good source for the topic I am alluding to is Aristotles De anima, a basic, methodically
sound work, but not very easy to understand. Accordingly, the commentaries on it were
already numerous in Antiquity (Alexander of Aphrodisias, John Philoponus, Simplicius,
Sophonius, Themistius). Alcinous provides a Middle Platonic view on the topic (Epitome
doctrinae platonicae sive ca. 2324; cf. 17.4 and ca. 32 on the passions).
40 See D.M. Hay, The Psychology of Faith in Hellenistic Judaism, anrw 20.2:881925,
esp. 896902, section 4, Mans Internal War.
114 wyss
Common featuresCommon to all three or to two treatments of Gen 2:7
Gen 2:7 qg Opif. Leg.1 Gen 1:2627 qg Opif. Leg.1
Moulded (, ) 1.4 134 31 Made in accordance with 1.4 134 32,

Gods form ( ) 42
Moulded as by a potter/craftsman 1.4 135 31 5, 6 1346 325
()
Formed out of dust and earth, out 1.4 1361 312 Incorporeal 1.4 134 31
of the best material of all1 = the
body/the earthly mind2
God breathed life into his face3 1.43 1354 324 A copy of the original 1.4 139,
= the spirit or God breathed a seal (= logos) 146
divine breath into it = immortality
of the invisible part4
A mixture of the corruptible and 1.4 134,
incorruptible / of body and soul 135,
146
By nature mortal (1.4) 134 By nature incorruptible 134 31
Sense-perceptible 1.4 134, Intelligible 1.4 134
135
Sense-perception is the principal 1.5 139 39 Face is the principal part 1.5 39
part of the animal species and of the body
sense-perception is in the face
5 Philos Interpretations of Gen 2:7 in Context
Why does Philo change the focus of interpretation of Gen 2:7 from De opi-
ficio mundi and Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin to Legum allegoriae? Of
course, the three works belong to three different exegetical genera. De opifi-
cio mundi belongs to the exposition of the law, where allegoresis is of minor
importance. Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin constitutes along with Quaes-
tiones et solutiones in Exodum an exegetical genus of its own, structured as a
series of questions and answers. The three books of Legum allegoriae are the
beginning of an extensive allegorical commentary. It seems as if Philo delib-
erately reworked and changed his own interpretation of Gen 13 for Legum
allegoriae when compared to De opificio mundi and Quaestiones et solutiones
in Genesin.
We have seen that De opificio mundi is a literal account of the creation,

containing many hortative topics of moral philosophy and many themes from
and allusions to Platos philosophy and arithmology.41 Whereas Platos Timaeus
is considered a retelling of the creation according to his philosophy, Gen 12 is
considered a retelling of the creation according to Moses philosophy (Opif. 25
[ , ]). Is De opificio mundi planned as a
rival product to the Timaeus?42 We know that the Timaeus played a leading
part in Middle Platonism.43 From Timaeus Locrus (first cent. bce) to Plutarchs
De animae procreatione in Timaeo (firstsecond cent. ce), from Eudorus (first
cent. bce) to Calvenus Taurus (second cent. ce), many writers are supposed to
have written a commentary on the Timaeus.44 We do not know for certain if the
commentaries deal with the whole work or only with some parts, but it is clear
that this text was intensely discussed in philosophically oriented circles. Philos
De opificio mundi is so deeply steeped in Platonic thought that this work also
belongs to the wider context of treatments of the Timaeus.45 It is an explicitly
Jewish treatment of this text.
In Legum allegoriae Philo not only left the controversial field of cosmology
behind, he also opened a new field for his exegesis of the Pentateuch: he
transformed the Pentateuchs narrative into a description of the soul. This topic
too was very popular during Philos lifetime.46 One should mention the Cebetis
tabula (first cent. ce), a representation of the souls education as a picture.
In addition, Plutarch interprets the sirens in the Odyssey as part of the soul
(Quaest. conv. 9; Mor. 706d). This allegoresis was possibly known to Philo (qg
3.3).47 Furthermore, in De antro nympharum (on Od. 13.109112), Porphyry cites
allegorical interpretations of this passage of the Odyssey by Numenius several
times (frg. 3033).48 In Jewish tradition, the author of the Letter of Aristeas used
41 Runia, Timaeus of Plato; Runia, Creation.

42 Runia does not go so far as to assume this. On Philos use of the Timaeus, see Runia,
Timaeus of Plato, 365552.
43 Runia, Timaeus of Plato, esp. 485497.
44 Eudorus could have commented on the Timaeus (Dillon, Middle Platonists, 116, 207 [Runia,
Timaeus of Plato, 499n136, n138 is doubtful about this]). On Calvenus Taurus, see John
Philoponus, De aeternitate mundi 520.4 (in the edition by H. Rabe, Johannes Philoponus:
De aeternitate mundi contra Proclum [2nd ed.; Hildesheim 1984]) and Dillon, Middle
Platonists, 237240, esp. 240.
45 Runia, Timaeus of Plato, 497505.
46 Tobin (Creation, 150154) presumes a Platonic allegoresis of the Odyssey as a model of
Philos allegoresis of the soul.
47 Tobin, Creation, 152.
48 In the edition by des Places, Numnius.
116 wyss
the allegory of the soul to interpret some special laws (128171) and a small
glimpse of an allegoresis of the soul in the broader context of an arithmological
account of the hebdomas is given by Aristobulus (f 5.15).49
In Legum allegoriae Philo, no longer taking creation in general and the
creation of man in particular as his starting point but the constitution of the
soul, avoids the main exegetical problems posed by the creation account of
Gen 2.50 He manages not only to bypass the Stoic connotations of ,51
interpreting Gen 2:7 as mind before being incorporated into the body and
therefore dwelling in the intelligible sphere, rather than the realm of sense-
perceptionin the intelligible sphere there is no room for the Stoic conception
of a materialistic . Philo also cleverly sidesteps the exegetical problems
associated with the cultivation of paradise, the making of woman from the rib
of Adam and the role played by the snake. It is my belief that Philo was not
satisfied with the traditional interpretations of Genesis. Certainly he did not
reject them outright, as the similarities of the three interpretations of Gen 2:7
show, but he modified the overall pattern of interpretation.
49 In the edition by Walter, Fragmente jdisch-hellenistischer Exegeten.

50 My view implies, that Philo wrote Opif. and qg before Leg. But this is not sure. One could
imagine that he began with psychology in Leg. and continued with cosmology in Opif. and
qg. However, it seems to me more plausible, that Philo began to explain Genesis in a more
literal manner as in Opif. and qg and advanced to a hermeneutically more elaborate stage
in Leg. Tobin (Creation, 143144) presumes that Philo interpreted Gen 2:17 allegorically
to correlate the account of the creation of man with that of the Fall, which had already
been interpreted allegorically. As my table shows, there are some exegetical patterns that
are used by Philo in all three treatments of Gen 2:7.
51 P. Steinmetz, Die Stoa bis zum Beginn der Kaiserzeit im Allgemeinen: Zenon von Kition,
Kleanthes von Assos, Chrysipp von Soloi, in Die hellenistische Philosophie (by M. Erler et
al.; ed. H. Flashar; vol. 4 of Grundriss der Geschichte der Philosophie: Die Philosophie der
Antike; ed. F. Ueberweg; 2 vols.; Basel 1994), 2:495705. For as a key term of Stoic
physics, see pp. 534541, 570574, 603608, esp. 606608. For as a key term in Stoic
psychology, see pp. 608, 686690. Source texts on the Stoa are available in A.A. Long and
D.N. Sedley, eds., The Hellenistic Philosophers i, Translations of the Principal Sources with
Philosophical Commentary (Cambridge 1987), 319323.
On Anthropology and Honor in the Testament of
Job
Robert A. Kugler
1 Introduction
In 2004 Richard Rohrbaugh and I argued that the prominence of women in the
Testament of Job served the works larger purpose of commending to its audi-
ence dependence on ascribed honor from God rather than on honor acquired
through their own effort. Two women in particular, Sitidos and the maidser-
vant, epitomized the futility of relying on acquired honor when circumstances
did not allow one to accumulate it. And though the works date and prove-
nance remain somewhat contested, we suggested the context that provoked the
authors narrative argument was the transition from Ptolemaic to Roman rule
in Egypt: under the Ptolemies Jews had the capacity to acquire considerable
honor, but no more under the Romans, and if they were to find any honorific
sustenance for remaining true to their Jewish identity, it would have to be of
the ascribed kind, and that from God.1
1 R. Kugler and R. Rohrbaugh, On Women and Honor in the Testament of Job, jsp 14 (2004):
4362. For other scholarship of the last half century and more on the Testament of Job, see,
among others: J.J. Collins, Structure and Meaning in the Testament of Job, sbl Seminar
Papers, 1974 (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass., 1974), 1:3552; M. Delcor, Le Testament de Job, la prire
de Nabonide et les traditions targoumiques, in Bibel und Qumran: Beitrge zu Erforschung
der Beziehungen zwischen Bibel- und Qumranwissenschaft (ed. S. Wagner; Berlin 1968), 5774;
S. Garrett, The Weaker Sex in the Testament of Job, jbl 112 (1993): 5570; P. Gray, Points and
Lines: Thematic Parallelism in the Letter of James and the Testament of Job, nts 50 (2004):
406424; W. Gruen, Seeking a Context for the Testament of Job, jsp 18 (2009): 163179; C. Haas,
Jobs Perseverance in the Testament of Job, in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. M.A. Knibb
and P.W. van der Horst; sntsms 66; Cambridge 1989), 117154; P.W. van der Horst, Images
of Women in the Testament of Job, in Studies on the Testament of Job (ed. M.A. Knibb and
P.W. van der Horst; sntsms 66; Cambridge 1989), 93116; I. Jacobs, Literary Motifs in the
Testament of Job, jjs 21 (1970): 110; H.C. Kee, Satan, Magic and Salvation in the Testament
of Job, sbl Seminar Papers, 1974 (2 vols.; Cambridge, Mass., 1974), 1:5376; B. Kierkegaard,
Satan in the Testament of Job: A Literary Analysis, in Of Scribes and Sages: Early Jewish
Interpretation and Transmission of Scripture (ed. C.A. Evans; 2 vols.; London 2004), 2:419;
N. Klancher, The Male Soul in Drag: Women-As-Job in the Testament of Job, jsp 19 (2010):
225245; M.C. Legaspi, Jobs Wives in the Testament of Job: A Note on the Synthesis of Two

118 kugler
In this essay I add a significant dimension to this argument: the testaments

distinction between acquired and ascribed honor also depends heavily on a
contrast between a kind of anthropological monism held by most characters
in the story and Jobs dualistic anthropology. Furthermore, Jobs understanding
of the intrinsic duality of the human being is the key to his concomitant
appreciation of the dualistic cosmology that everyone else in the narrative
accepts, but fails to fully value. While especially Jobs fellow kings and Sitidos
languish in a unitary anthropology that compels them to hang their identity
on the accouterments of honor acquired in the earthly realm, Job grasps the
two-part nature of the human being that makes possible ascribed honors
sustaining power in the here-and-now by trusting in a heavenly future. We see
the narratives case for this perspective in a series of passages including T. Job
20:13; 26:16; 3538; 4650.
2 Testament of Job 20:13: The First Episode
A summary of the testament up to 20:13 sets the scene for the first episode in
the works elaboration and defense of a dualistic anthropology. Jobs deathbed
speech to his children born from a second marriage (to Dinah, daughter of
Jacob), the testament begins with Job explaining that he suffered earlier in life
because he destroyed a local temple to save his neighbours from unwittingly
worshipping Satan. As a consequence Satan gained charge over his fate, but an
Traditions, jbl 127 (2008): 7179; R. Lesses, Amulets and Angels: Visionary Experiences in the
Testament of Job and the Hekhalot Literature, in Heavenly Tablets: Interpretation, Identity and
Tradition in Ancient Judaism (ed. L.R. LiDonnici and A. Lieber; JSJSup 119; Leiden 2007), 5074;
P. Machinist, Jobs Daughters and Their Inheritance in the Testament of Job and Its Biblical
Congeners, in The Echoes of Many Texts: Reflections on Jewish and Christian Traditions: Essays
in Honor of Lou H. Silberman (ed. W.G. Dever and J.E. Wright; bjs 313; Atlanta 1997), 6780;
M. Philonenko, Le Testament de Job et les Thrapeutes, Sem 8 (1958): 4153; D. Rahnenfhrer,
Das Testament des Hiob und das Neue Testament, znw 62 (1971): 6893; B. Schaller, Das
Testament Hiobs und die Septuaginta-bersetzung des Buches Hiobs, Bib 61 (1980): 377
406; B. Schaller, Zur Komposition und Konzeption des Testaments Hiobs, in Studies on the
Testament of Job (ed. M.A. Knibb and P.W. van der Horst; sntsms 66; Cambridge 1989), 46
92; R. Spittler, Testament of Job: A New Translation and Introduction, in Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha i, Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments (ed. J.H. Charlesworth; New York
1983), 829868; R. Spittler, The Testament of Job: A History of Research, in Studies on the
Testament of Job (ed. M.A. Knibb and P.W. van der Horst; sntsms 66; Cambridge 1989), 732;
H.M. Wahl, Elihu, Frevler oder Frommer?: Die Auslegung des Hiobbuches (Hi 3237) durch
ein Pseudepigraphon (TestHi 4143), jsj 25 (1994): 117.
on anthropology and honor in the testament of job 119
angel from God promised Job a throne in heaven, a name of renown, twice all he
lost back, and participation in the resurrection if he obediently endured Satans
onslaught (chs. 15). Before attacking Job, Satan visited his home disguised
as a beggar to mockingly take advantage of Jobs generosity. Although Jobs
maidservant failed to recognize Satan, Job knew the visitors identity even
without seeing him and instructed the servant to send Satan away empty-
handed, a command she disobeyed in order to protect her masters acquired
honor (chs. 68). Chapters 915 describe Jobs enormous wealth and generosity
as a measure of his acquired honor and concomitant losses to Satan while chs.
1619 narrate the destruction of his fortune and his children. Throughout his
losses Job remains steadfast, not complaining to anyone about his drastically
changed circumstances.
In view of Jobs patient suffering, Satan is frustrated: in 20:12 it is said that for
all of his effort he was not able to provoke Jobs contempt (presumably for God;
); so he asked God for Jobs body to plague
it ( ). In response
to this Job expresses most clearly his dualistic self-understanding: And then
the Lord gave me into his hands, to use my body as he wished, but he did not
give him power over my soul (20:3 [

]). There is little doubt regarding Jobs meaning in this. He understands
his being to be divisible into two distinct parts, body () and soul ().
On his view, they are so separable from one another as to permit the deep
affliction of one part to not impact the other part. The assertion of a dualistic
anthropology could hardly be clearer.2
2 It is important to note that the language used in the text for the non-bodily part of the human
being is not consistent, one of the lexical inconsistencies that feeds some of the interest in
sorting out sources in the testament (: 3:5; 20:3; 26:2; 35:4; 52:2, 5, 10; : 12:1; 15:9;
17:1; 23:11; 24:6, 8; 25:10; 35:4; 36:23, 6; 38:1, 3; 43:11, 15; 47:8; 48:2; 49:1; 50:2); on the idea that
more than one author was at work in creating the testament, see Schaller, Zur Komposition
und Konzeption, passim; and most recently, Kierkegaard, Satan in the Testament of Job,
passim. However, as some note, the changeable terms for that aspect of the human being
may simply be another indication that the text is to be assigned to Egypt, where language
for the seat of emotion and thought could vary, such as it does in this text (see, e.g., Gruen,
Seeking a Context, 166). It is also plausible, though, that the writer simply varied uses as a
matter of style, a possible explanation for lexical variety in ancient texts we often dismiss too
easily.
120 kugler
3 Testament of Job 26:16: The Second Episode
Testament of Job 20:425:10 tells the story of how Job, his body under Satans
control, is afflicted with plagues and withdraws in patient suffering to a dung
heap outside of his city. From there he sees his wife lose all honor and status,
being reduced to menial labor to earn barely enough to feed Job and herself.
Finally she goes so far as to sell the hair of her head for a few morsels of bread
to Satan who is disguised as a breadseller in the citys marketplace. Having
endured this deepest shame, she journeys to Job to report her complete fall
from glory and urge him, as her counterpart in the canonical book of Job does,
to say something against God and die (25:10; cf. Job 2:9).
Jobs response to Sitidos appeal in 26:16 nuances his dualistic anthropology
and puts it into action. Emphasizing on the one hand the bodily suffering he has
endured, he replies to her: Look! I have seventeen plague-filled years [behind
me], submitting to the worms in my body (26:1 [
]). And yet, says
Job, My soul has not been weighed down by my pains (26:2 [
]). The clear separation between his body and his
soul that Job announced in 20:13 is now made graphically clear: Satan could
do whatever he wanted to afflict Jobs physical being, but his soul remained
untouched. Furthermore, we learn from this passage that there is an intimate
connection between Jobs two-part self-understanding and his special virtue
endurancefor we hear Job urge Sitidos in 26:5 to be patient along with him
().3 It is difficult to say for sure that the text argues that the
bipartite self is what makes endurance possible, but that conclusion is hard
to avoid from this passage: Jobs argument here implies that the bipartite self
is the natural state of the human being; one only has to become aware of it
to enjoy its benefits such as he was able to as he endured his bodily suffering
without being weighed down in heart or soul. The further consequence for him
of his self-awareness was that he could remain secure in his identity as Gods
possession by relying on the honor ascribed to him by God in place of the honor
he had acquired through the use of his wealth.
3 Just as the language for the part of the self that is not body varies in the testament, so also
does the language for patience and endurance. See (1:5), , (4:10;
27:4), and , (11:10; 26:5; 27:7; 28:5; 35:4). This adds some force to the
notion that the lexical variability here has more to do with stylistic choices than Egyptian
influence or multiple sources.
4 Testament of Job 3538: The Third Episode
Following the second episode just rehearsed, in ch. 27 Job relates his face-to-
face meeting with Satan and Satans defeat in the ensuing agonistic encounter.
Only then do Jobs fellow kings, Baldad, Eliphaz, Sophar, and Elihu, appear
to lament his losses. After a slow, staged approach owing to the stench Job
gave off from his years of sitting on the dung heap (chs. 2831), Elihu makes a
lamenting plea to know if the man they confront, though now bereft of all the
accouterments of acquired honor, is the Job of great material wealth they once
knew (ch. 32). Job replies by saying that he is that person, but that they hardly
need mourn for him because his enduring kingdom is in heaven and far exceeds
anything earthly, not to mention their own terrestrial realms (ch. 33). Taking
Jobs response as an affront, Eliphaz condemns him and makes to leave him to
his suffering. Baldads insistence that they remain a little longer to explore the
clarity of Jobs mind then introduces the third episode.
The exchange between Job and Baldad that dominates chs. 3538 explicitly
contrasts for the first time Jobs dualistic anthropology and the unitary anthro-
pology of the other characters in the narrative, and it highlights how the former
type is superior when it comes to appreciating the corresponding value for the
human of the two-part cosmos and to finding in that the honor necessary to
sustain ones identity in this world.
In 35:45 Baldad starkly reveals his and his fellow kings monism. He tells
Eliphaz that they ought to be patient with Job () so they might
figure out what his condition is: Perhaps his heart is in confusion, perhaps he
recalls his former wealth/happiness and he is insane relative to his soul? (
, -
, ).4 Baldad unequivocally links Jobs stability of heart
and the sanity of his soul with his bodily wellbeing, and underlines the uni-
tary nature of his anthropology by continuing: Who wouldnt be very panicked
when he encounters bodily afflictions? ( -
). Baldad reasons as one who embraces a monistic anthropology:
afflicted in body, one could only be assumed to fall into confusion of heart and
soul since they are all of a piece.
4 Another indicator of the authors cleverness is assigning to Baldad the admonition that
he and his colleagues be patient. The difference between what he and Job mean by the
use of the same term () can hardly be more stark: for the kings it is the ordi-
nary sort entailed in not being angry with another person for arrogant, stupid, or offensive
behaviour; for Job it is the elevated sort that involves enduring human suffering without com-
plaint.
122 kugler
Next, in chs. 3638 Job and Baldad engage in a dialogue that finally brings
the two anthropologies into direct contrast. First, in 36:23 Baldad asks Job if
his heart () is sound and Job answers with the dualists response: his heart
is not involved with earthly things since the earth and those who dwell in it are
unstable, but my heart is involved with heavenly things for there is no upheaval
in heaven (
). Baldads reply to Job adds the last element to the portrait of the
common cosmology and clashing anthropologies shared among the characters
that the narrative puts forth in this section: We know the earth is unstable
() but as for heaven we hear that it remains stable ()
(36:45).5 Having acknowledged the duality of the cosmos, Baldad dismisses it
as immaterial to the discussion at hand, by embarking on a line of questioning
to determine if Job is in a stable condition, questioning that acknowledges no
possibility that Jobs heart or soul might stand apart from the suffering of his
body. They, Baldad says, want only to determine if Job is in stable condition
( ). And indeed, although the questions
focus first on the divine logic of his suffering in the fashion of the dialogues
in the canonical book of Job, they quickly shift to the material world, as if to
say that if Job can show a clear understanding regarding the physical cosmos,
he must share in its stability. But to the challenge that he explain the reason
the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and does so time and again, Job
responds in exasperation at the dimwittedness of his interlocutor, challenging
Baldad to provide an answer to his own question: why do food and water go
into the body by the same opening but escape it from two different openings
(38:3)? Baldad can provide no answer (38:4), and so Job dismisses him with
a dualists rebuke: If you do not understand the function of the body, how
will you understand the heavenly matters? (
).
Lastly, Sophar intervenes to unwittingly confirm Jobs judgment. He urges
Job to calm down because they are not investigating the things beyond us, but
[only] wish to know if you are in a stable condition within yourself (38:6 [
-
]). To emphasize that they view the human being, and Job in particular, in a
monistic fashion, he adds that they even brought their kingdoms physicians
who deal with the bodyto heal him (38:7). Closing the passage and affirming
5 See Gray, Points and Lines, 418, who rightly observes that, Baldad shows no surprise or
incomprehension at all when Job repeats his dualistic convictions about heaven and earth
in 36.3.
once again his own contrasting dualistic anthropology, Job rejects the offer of
medical care, saying: My healing and my treatment are from the Lord who cre-
ated even the physicians (38:8 [
]).
5 Testament of Job 4650: The Fourth Episode
The narrative between the episode just reviewed and the next one to concern
us requires a brief summary. Jobs wife, Sitidos reappears to lament her dead
children and her continuing deterioration. She also requests that the kings
order their soldiers to dig out the remains of her children from the building that
Satan caused to fall upon them and kill them so she might see to their proper
burial and the fruit of her womb might be honored at least that much (39:110).
Job intervenes and tells the soldiers not to mount a search for the childrens
remains and orders that he be raised up to look to the east. There he points
out his children crowned with glory in the heavens (39:1140:3). Seeing this,
Sitidos is satisfied and returns to her resting place among the livestock of the
man who had become her master in her destitute condition. There she dies and
is mourned by the beasts she dwelt with, as well as by the poor who were fed
from the tables of her husband in his days of earthly glory (40:414).6 Next Elihu
speaks against Job and God rewards Jobs patience by restoring to him twofold
of all that he lost. God forgives the kings, save Elihu for their mistaken reading
of Jobs condition, and Job recovers. Having completed his story, Job distributes
all of his material wealth as an inheritance to his sons, but none of it to his
daughters (41:146:2a). This triggers the exchange that constitutes the fourth
episode which illustrates the competing anthropologies in the testament.
Chapters 4647 lay the groundwork for the episodes main point, that grasp-
ing ones dualistic nature and its advantages for appreciating the dualism of the
cosmos is a gift from God to the people of Israel. It does this in stages, begin-
ning with a scene that proves the daughters to be oblivious to their duality at
6 One might read in Sitidos satisfied response at seeing her children in heavenly glory her
own enlightenment to the dualistic nature of the human being, but there is no language
in the text to indicate that to be true (unlike the situation as it pertains to Jobs daughters
by Dinah; see below). Moreover, her sighting of her children only requires that she accept a
dualistic cosmology, which all other characters in the narrative do, and in any case, not being
an Israelite by blood (Dinahs daughters) or a convert who has proved her loyalty to the God
of Israel (Job) the narrative seems to require that she be immune to such self awareness; for
further on this, see below, and Kugler and Rohrbaugh, On Women and Honor, 6162.
124 kugler
first and that permits Job to explain that the inheritance he gives them is Gods
gift of insight into their own (dual) nature. Jobs daughters, Hemera, Kassia,
Amaltheias-keras, object to their fathers failure to grant them any goods that
might sustain their bodies, Job promises them an inheritance better than any-
thing their brothers received, and at his command Hemera goes and retrieves a
box with cords in it. He commands them to place the cords around their breasts
(46:28). Seeing the cords, Kassia complains again that these offer no suste-
nance: she voices the concerns of someone who does not yet grasp the duality
of her human nature, someone who like the kings in discussion with Job see
human fulfillment only in terms of what feeds the body (47:1). Jobs response,
though, reveals the unique character of the cords. He explains that they are
what God gave him when God commanded him to gird up his loins to hear a
reply to his indictment of God, and that the cords brought to him complete
relief of his bodily ailment, but even more, release from the sorrows of my
heart (47:210 [ ]; cf. Job 38:3). He then urges
his daughters to bind themselves with the cords quickly so that they are able
to see those who are coming for my departure, so that you may marvel at the
creatures of God (47:11). So not only do the cords grant physical healingthat
is a given, it seemsthey also make the human person aware of her dual nature
and able in turn to see the reality (and significance) of the dual cosmos.7
The next step in this episode entails the daughters girding themselves with
the cords as commanded by their father and experiencing changed hearts
they become irreconcilably aware of their dual, not monistic, nature. The
language describing the change gradually makes the point that the womens
self-understanding is radically altered. Hemera is first. When she wraps herself
in the cord she received another heart so that she no longer thought about
earthly things (48:2 [ ]), and
chants verses in the language of the angels, a hymn to God like the ones sung
by angels (48:34). Kassias transformation is more precisely defined: she had
her heart changed so that she was no longer anxious about worldly things
(49:1 [ ]); and
she received the dialect of the archons, with the consequence being that if
one wants to know the creation of the heavens the Hymns of Kassia are
the place to go. Finally, when Amaltheias-keras takes on her cord the text
reports that her heart also was changed by withdrawing from worldly things
7 See Lesses, Amulets and Angels, passim, for a thoughtful treatment of the relationship
between the use of amulets in later Hekhalot literature and the Greek magical papyri and the
cords in T. Job 4850. Lesses argues to place the testament in the stream of visionary literature
that goes from 1Enoch to the later works of Jewish mysticism.
(50:1 [ ]), and that she

spoke in the dialect of the cherubim, glorifying God, the master of virtues,
by showing their splendor. Thus the text explains that if one wants to know
the poetic rhythm of the paternal splendor it is necessary only to look to
the Prayers of Amaltheias-keras (50:23). As we have seen, the progression of
reports of the daughters donning the cords narrows and intensifies the focus on
the changeability of the daughters hearts with the result being their embrace of
a dualistic anthropology and a concomitant closer affiliation with the heavenly
realm and its realia:8 God bestows upon them their fresh self-understanding
and with it comes their shared appreciation with their father of the value of a
dualistic anthropology, a self-understanding that permits them to trust in the
honor ascribed to them by God as sustenance in their Jewish identity.9
6 Concluding Remarks
The evidence seems clear: the testaments distinction between acquired and
ascribed honor that Rohrbaugh and I delineated in 2004 depends heavily on a
contrast between a kind of anthropological monism held by most characters in
the story and Jobs dualistic anthropology. Further, Jobs understanding of the
intrinsic duality of the human being is the key to his appreciation of the dualis-
tic cosmology that everyone else in the narrative accepts, but fails to value fully.
Indeed, the concluding episode in the testament puts an exclamation point on
its commitment to a dualistic anthropology, and the reward that comes to those
who embrace it and its bearing on satisfaction with ascribed honor. Jobs soul is
carried to heaven by the heavenly one while his body remains to be buried, and
only he and his daughtersthe only characters in the narrative fully aware of
their dual naturediscern his passage between the two parts of the cosmos,
and the honor it ascribes to him for having persevered in loyalty to God (52:1
11).
8 Van der Horst, Images of Women, 105, says that their changed hearts amount to a transmis-
sion of the organ from earth to heaven, but that is to overlook the nuance in the text: the
daughters simply now recognize the dualistic anthropology that is natural to them, as does
Job, and they are able to live peaceably in the earthly realm in anticipation of the heavenly
one; an appreciation of ones own dualistic anthropology empowers one to appreciate the
true value of the commonly acknowledged cosmic dualism.
9 In our article Rohrbaugh and I argue that this privilege is given to the daughters precisely
because they are descendants of Israel. God ascribes honor to the faithful of Israel; see n. 6
above.
126 kugler
Does this add anything to our general understanding of the testament,

especially relative to the contested question of its date and provenance? While
it hardly settles the matter regarding the generative context for the work, that
we see in this further evidence of its chief concern to privilege ascribed honor
over acquired honor and to do so around themes of sudden loss of status, honor,
and privilege surely points in the direction of the second half of the first century
ce when Egyptian Jews were adjusting to the diminished opportunities Roman
rule offered them. Few other contexts posited for the Testament of Job fit such
interests as well as that one.10
10 Least of all just after the disaster that befell the Jewish community in Egypt in 115117ce,
as suggested most recently by Gruen, Seeking a Context, passim. A narrative argument
for perseverance buoyed by reliance on ascribed honor directed to what was by 117ce a
practically non-existent community that had no status at all seems pointless at best, and
cruel at worst.
Christ As Creator: Pauls Eschatological Reading of
Gen 2:7 in 1Cor 15:45
Reinhard Feldmeier
Introduction
As we shall see in this contribution, in Pauls reading of Gen 2:7, Christ is iden-
tified with Gods own live-giving spirit. First, I will argue that this close associ-
ation of Christ and God is no exception in Pauls theology and Christology. In
section one, I will show that this already happened in the famous pre-Pauline
hymn which Paul included in his letter to the Philippians, and in which Christ
is given the name of Lord, i.e. he is invested with Gods own Name, Yhwh. And
in section two, I shall continue by arguing that Christs participation in Gods
power as ruler of the whole world also extends to his participation in Gods
creation at the beginning. Subsequently, in section three, I will then introduce
issues pertaining to 1Cor 15, in which Paul develops his reading of Gen 2:7. His
actual understanding, then, of Gen 2:7 is the topic of section four and five.
1 The Renaming of the Divine in the New Testament: God As Father,

Jesus As Lord
The famous hymn in Pauls Letter to the Philippians describes how Christ Jesus
did not regard his equality to God as something to be exploited but humbled
himself, taking the form of a slave and became obedient to the point of death,
even death on a cross (Phil 2:68). In turn God also highly exalted him and
gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus
every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every
tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
(Phil 2:911).
There is a remarkable renaming of the divine, and this in a hymn, that is
considered by most exegetes as a pre-Pauline tradition.1 In other words, only a
1 Cf. E. Lohmeyer, Kyrios Jesus: Eine Untersuchung zu Phil. 2,511 (Heidelberg 1928; repr., Darm-
stadt 1962), 410; most exegetes did follow Lohmeyer cf. U.B. Mller, Der Brief des Paulus an
die Philipper (2nd ed.; thknt 11.1; Leipzig 2002), 9295; N. Walter, E. Reinmuth, and P. Lampe,

128 feldmeier
few years after his death on the cross the Galilean craftsman Jesus of Nazareth
is not only called Christ, that is, Messiah, but also praised by his believers as
Kyrios. Kyrios is the common translation in the Septuagint of the proper name
of the God of Israel, of the Tetragram Yhwh. When the hymn states that the
name Kyrios given to Jesus is the name that is above every name it clearly
indicates that God gives Jesus nothing less than his own name. Interestingly,
that does not diminish Gods glory. On the contrary, the hymn closes with the
phrase that this all happens to the glory of God the Father. It also puts forward
Gods new name, that is, Father.
This last phrase may not seem unusual at first sight since we are used to
invoking God as Father, but speaking of God as Father is quite uncommon for
the Old Testament. The statistics show that Gods proper name Yhwh is used
almost 7,000 times and the appellative Elohim about 2,800 times, whereas the
metaphor Father is used for God only fifteen times.
The Old Testament seems deliberately to avoid calling God Father in con-
trast to the surrounding cultures (Mesopotamia as well as Ugarit and Egypt).
In the New Testament, however, the human being Jesus of Nazareth is called
Kyrios,2 whereas God is called Father.
This has enormous consequences for the way God is conceived in the New
Testament.3 But let me come back to the topic of the present sections, which
is not theology in the strict sense but Christology, or more precisely Christs
having been given the name that is above every name.
2 Christs sessio ad dexteram and Its Consequences
The statement that Jesus is given the name above every name is followed
by the conclusion so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in
heaven and on earth and under the earth. This indicates that Christs renaming
with Gods name also implies that he is now participating in Gods power as
ruler of the whole world. One might even say Jesus now shares with his Father
divine omnipotence. This is the meaning of Christs exaltation to the right
trans. and comm., Die Briefe an die Philipper, Thessalonicher und an Philemon (ntd 8.2; Gt-
tingen 1998), 5658.
2 Cf. O. Hofius, Der Christushymnus Philipper 2,611: Untersuchungen zu Gestalt und Aussage
eines urchristlichen Psalms (wunt 17; Tbingen 1976), 4155.
3 Cf. R. Feldmeier and H. Spieckermann, Der Gott der Lebendigen: Eine biblische Gotteslehre
(tobith 1; Tbingen 2011); published in English: The God of the Living: A Biblical Theology
(translated by Mark E. Biddle; Waco, tx: Baylor University Press, 2011).
christ as creator 129
hand of God, the so-called sessio ad dexteram, that can be found in many New
Testament writings (from the Synoptic Gospels to Revelation).4 Confessing
Christ as Son of God at the right hand of God means that Christ is part of the
divine world and that heas Sonbelongs to God the Father. Through this
relation he himself can be called God, especially in the Gospel of John (John
1:1, 18; 20:28), but also in Hebrews (Heb 1:8).
As a result of his exaltation Jesus Christ is acting as God acts in the Old
Testament. One example is the Final Judgment. There are still some texts in
the New Testament where the day of doom is associated with God, but in many
texts it is Jesus who is the judge (recall the most famous scene in Matt 25:31
46 where the Son of Man coming in his glory separates the people gathered
before him like a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats according to
their behaviour towards one of the least with whom he identifies himself). In
the New Testament the judge can palpably be either God or his son, and there
does not always seem to be a strict differentiation between the judgment of
the Son and the judgment of the Father, as can be seen in Paul where God
(cf. Rom 14:10) or Jesus Christ (2Cor 5:10) can sit on the judgment seat. (In
passing, I might add that this transfer of the Final Judgment to Jesus in the New
Testament is reflected in the Creed where it is attributed to Christ and therefore
listed in the second article.)
Christ as Kyrios, however, is not only the Omega but also the Alpha of the
world, i.e., he is also confessed as one who took part in the act of creation
(often in implicit or explicit collaboration with his fatherChrists so-called
Schpfungsmittlerschaft). This can be seen in forms of the Creed where Christ
is confessed as the one through whom everything exists (like God out of whom
everything exists; cf. 1Cor 8:6). There are also texts that call Christ explicitly
the one through whom all things came into being. In Col 1:1517, for example,
a pupil of Paul writes:
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation, for in him
all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible,
whether thrones or dominions, or rulers or powersall things have been
created through him and for him.
Col 1:1517
4 Cf. Mark 12:36 (par. Matt 22:4344; Luke 20:4243); Mark 14:62 (par. Matt 26:64; Luke 22:69);
Acts 2:33; 5:31; Rom 8:34; 1 Cor 15:25; Eph 1:2022; Phil 2:911; Col 3:1; 1Pet 3:22; Heb 1:3; 8:1; 10:12;
12:2; Rev 5:6, 13.
130 feldmeier
Almost the same is said in Johns Prologue about the divine Logos who
then became flesh and lived among us (John 1:14): All things came into being
through him, and without him not one thing came into being (John 1:3). In Johns
Prologue Jesus as Logos is identified with the divine word of the creation: Then
God said: Let there be light, and there was light (Gen 1:3), or as Ps 33:9 says:
For he spoke, and it came to be; he commanded, and it stood firm.
This connection of creation and Christology can already be found in Pauls
letters. For him it becomes a decisive argument when he defends his belief in
resurrection in 1Cor 15.
3 First Corinthians 15: The Corinthians Denial of Resurrection and

Pauls Response to It
In 1Cor 15 Paul has to deal with the topic of the resurrection of the dead
because this was denied by the Corinthians, as can be seen from his ques-
tion in 1Cor 15:12: How can some of you say there is no resurrection of the
dead? It is not absolutely clear what is meant by this phrase. From 1 Cor
15:29 (the baptism on behalf of the dead) it seems that the Corinthians did
not deny altogether an existence after death. It seems rather unlikely that the
whole community of Corinth became Christians thanks to Pauls preaching
without believing in something like a world hereafter. It looks as if it was the
idea of a corporeal resurrection that did not make sense to the Corinthians
and thus was denied. At least, this seems to be the problem behind Pauls
diatribe in 1Cor 15:35: How are the dead raised? With what body do they
come?
The apostle insists on the corporeal resurrection ( occurs in 1 Cor 15:35
44 no less than nine times). For him the Christian message deals not only with
the salvation of souls (and the rest of the creation is nothing but waste) but with
the liberation of creation. This may be seen in Rom 8:1822. Only a corporeal
resurrection guarantees a real redemption, a renewal of creation as a whole. In
1Cor 15 Paul calls Christ the last Adam, thus making it clear that the topic of
resurrection is linked with that of creation.
Pauls argumentation in 1Cor 15 consists of two sections. In the first section
he shows that the fact of the resurrection cannot be separated from the Chris-
tian kerygma because the denial of resurrection would destroy Christian belief
and hope altogether: If for this life only we have hoped in Christ we are of all
people most to be pitied (1Cor 15:19). In the second part of his argumentation
Paul tries to answer the question How are the dead raised? which isas noted
aboveprobably the decisive question for the Corinthians. In this section Paul
deals with Christ as Creator and it is this section that I largely concentrate on
in the following passage.
Before I do that, however, I want to draw attention to a verb that is crucial
for Pauls argumentation here, the verb .
4 As an Expression of Gods Creating and Recreating

Activity
The verb is creation language. In the creation story it is Gods breath

that gives life to the first human being made out of dust. Therefore in the Old
Testament Gods activity can be described as life-giving. In the lxx it occurs
as translation of the Hiphil or Piel of mostly with God as subject. Only
God can give death or life (2Kgs [4Kgdms] 5:7). You have revived me again
( ) from the depths of the earth, the man or woman in Ps 71:20
[lxx 70:20] confesses, and in Neh 9:6 Ezra praises God:
You are the Lord, you alone; you have made heaven, the heaven of heav-
ens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the sea and all that
is in them. To all of them you give life ( ; cf. lxx 2 Esd
19:6), and the host of heaven worships you.
Neh 9:6
As creator God also becomes the reason for the eschatological hope in early
Judaism. As the giver of life to everything, as , God is
addressed in Joseph and Aseneth ( Jos. Asen. 8:9; 12:1; cf. lxx 2 Esd 19:6), and in
the same book he is also confessed as ( Jos. Asen. 20:7),
as the one who gives life to the dead. This seems to have become a liturgi-
cal phrase; it is used in Hebrew four times in the second benediction of the
Shemoneh Esre where God is invoked as the mehayyeh metim, as the one who
makest the dead alive.
Paul clearly takes over this Jewish tradition when he says in Rom 4:17 that
Abraham believed in the God: who gives life to the dead (
) and calls into existence the things that do not exist. Again, the imme-
diate connection of protology and eschatology should be noted, the foun-
dation of the hope of resurrection in the belief in God as creator. We have
a striking parallel to that in 2Macc 7, the story of the seven brothers who
became martyrs under Antiochus iv Epiphanes, where the mother comforts
and exhorts her last son with the eschatological hope based on the creatio ex
nihilo:
132 feldmeier
I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything
that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things
that existed. And in the same way the human race came into being. Do
not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so
that in Gods mercy I may get you back again along with your brother.
2Macc 7:2829
For the mother of the seven brothers, as well as for Pauls Abraham, that God
created this world out of nothing is a reason to believe that he is also able to
bring to life again those who were annihilated by death. Therefore, in the end
there is the hope that death (which is not part of the creation, as the Wisdom
of Solomon explicitly states, but came through the envy of the devil [Wis 2:24]
oras Paul saysis a result of the fall of the first Adam)is itself annihilated.
5 The Last Adam As the Life-Giving Spirit: Christ As Creator
This annihilation of death in an act of reconquest of the fallen creation by

Christ is described in 1Cor 15:2328. In the introductory verses, i.e., 1 Cor 15:21
22, Paul uses for the first time in this chapter the word : For since
death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also
come through a human being, for as all die in Adam, so all will be made
alive () in Christ. Christ is here profiled as the counterpart, the
antithesis, to Adam, the first human being created by God. Whereas Adams
fall destroyed life and brought death to creation Christ brings life by destroying
death, as the following verses show, where the reconquest of the creation
culminates in v. 26: The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
In the second half of this chapter Paul picks up again the verb
now explicitly referring to its duality as the language of creation and of new
creation. Pauls first answer to the question of how the dead are raised and with
which body they come refers to the natural process of growth:
Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And as for what
you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps
of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen,
and to each kind of seed its own body.
1Cor 15:3638
The way in which Paul refers to the process of growth herethat a bare seed
first dies before the new plant comes out of itis something that can also be
read in Plutarchs writings (Ex commentariis in Hesiodum 84 [Mor.]). One could

say Pauls argumentation according to the scientific standards of his time is
up to date. When, however, he puts this into words, What you sow does not
come to life unless it dies, he reformulates this (so to speak scientific) insight
of his time from the perspective of his theology of the cross. To die is now the
necessary condition for a new life, which is given by God, as is again made clear
from the word . The quoted English translation come to life is not
very clear, because in the Greek text is a so-called passivum divinum,
a passive form referring to Gods activity. This is a Jewish way to avoid naming
God directly that occurs quite often in the New Testament.5 In the quoted verse
as in the following verses it refers to Gods ongoing creative activity, as can be
clearly seen from Pauls explanation in v. 38, where God as giver of the new body
is explicitly named (But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind
of seed its own body). What we would call a natural process is interpreted by
Paul as showing that creation presents a God who is constantly transforming
dead seed into a new form of life.
In passing I note that Paul (like the whole New Testament) avoids speaking
of nature because the Greek word like its Latin equivalent natura implies
themore or less self-containedreproduction of life that is not compatible
with the biblical thought of Gods ongoing creativity. For Paul, therefore, what
is happening every day in the physical world, the transformation of death into
life by the life-giving Creator, is exactly what he says is going to happen at the
resurrection of the dead:
So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what

is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonour, it is raised in glory. It is
sown in weakness, it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body, it is
raised a spiritual body.
1Cor 15:4244
This happens through Christ, who as the last Adam is contrasted with the first
Adam:
Thus it is written: The first man, Adam, became a living being, the last
Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but
the physical, and then the spiritual. The first man was made from earth, a
5 Cf. J. Jeremias, Die Verkndigung Jesu (vol. 1 of Neutestamentliche Theologie; ed. J. Jeremias;
2nd ed.; Gtersloh 1973), 2024.
134 feldmeier
man of dust: the second man is from heaven. As was the man of dust, so
are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those
who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we
will also bear the image of the man of heaven.
1Cor 15:4549
In this reference to the biblical creation story (or better: to both creation
stories) Paul is probably using here an exegesis of Alexandrian Judaism where
the two creations of man in Gen 1 and 2 are interpreted as the creation of
two different men.6 The first creation is for Philo, in the tradition of Platonic
philosophy, the divine idea of Adam (Opif. 69), whereas the second creation
reported in Gen 2:7 shows very clearly that there is a vast difference between
the man thus formed and the man that came into existence earlier after the
image of God (Opif. 134). The individual man created in Gen 2:7
is a composite made up of earthly substance and divine breath: for it says

that the body was made through the Artificer taking clay and moulding
out of it in a human form, but that the soul was originated from nothing
created whatever, but from the Father and Ruler of all: for that which he
breathed in was nothing else than a divine breath ( ).
Opif. 135
For Philo it is this divine breath or spirit by which the invisible part of human
beings takes part in the divine immortality (; Opif. 135).
Paul could have come in contact with that exegesis through Apollos, an edu-
cated Alexandrian Jew, mighty in the scriptures, as Luke describes him in Acts
18:24, and whom according to Acts 19:1 Paul met in Corinth and mentions sev-
eral times in this First Letter to the Corinthians. Probably influenced by that
kind of exegesis7 Paul distinguishes two Adams, and he combines double cre-
ation with the thought that it is the divine breath that gives immortality to
human beings. Pauls argumentation, however, is not protological but escha-
tological: the first Adam is the one that is doomed to death whereas Christ is
the last Adam. Thus he is the antithesis of the first Adam because the first one
6 For a description of Phils interpretation of Gen 12, see the essay of Beatrice Wyss, From
Cosmogony to Psychology, in this volume.
7 Especially in First Corinthians there are also similarities between Philos and Pauls anthropol-
ogy: cf. G.H. van Kooten, Pauls Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to God,
and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity (wunt 232;
Tbingen 2008), 274275.
was only a living being whereas Christ is identified with Gods own live-giving
spirit, now in an eschatological sense as bringer of an everlasting life beyond
death. In 2Cor 5:17 Paul states explicitly that the new existence in Christ is
new creation.
This new creation (cf. also Gal 6:1415) has enormous consequences. In
the described act of eschatological transformation through resurrection of the
dead all the qualities in religions that characterize the divine sphere in con-
trast to the human sphereimmortality, glory, and powerare here no longer
used for God but for those who were transformed into the image of the man of
heaven (v. 49). Therefore, like Christ, the man of heaven, those who are trans-
formed into his image take part in what one might call Gods own essence.8
Although the first Adam caused death because he did not resist the tempta-
tion of the snake to become like God and therefore disobeyed Gods command,
now mankind is redeemed by Christ, who did not regard his equality to God
as something to be exploited but humbled himself, taking the form of a slave
and became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:6
8). As the Kyrios he became Gods live-giving spirit, transforming those who are
doomed to die into a new imago dei, the celestial existence of those who bear
the image of the man of heaven. The final renewal of creation by the last Adam
will be exactly that.
Pauls dualism is not an anthropological one in the sense that it exists within
the human being, between body and soul or sensuality and reason or whatever.
Paul does not distinguish different parts within a human being. It is what one
could perhaps call a dualism of relationship. Whether one exists in Christ or
not has enormous consequences for the human being: who is living in Christ
is destined to be transformed by the last Adam to an everlasting existence
and will bear the image of the heavenly man whereas those who do not, only
bear the image of the earthly man and will therefore die like the first Adam.
Particularly when it comes to ethics Paul uses the antagonism of spirit and flesh
or more precisely the antagonism between living according to the spirit and
living according to the flesh.
8 In the present time this is already true of Gods holiness and justice. Therefore one might
consider whether according to Second Corinthians there is a gradual transformation into
Gods image, Christ starting already now (cf. van Kooten, Pauls Anthropology, 305).
Anthropological Views in Nag Hammadi: The
Bipartite and Tripartite Conceptions of Human
Being
1 Introduction
Gnostics are often credited by modern scholarship to have held very diverging
opinions both on the soul and the soul-body relationship. Expressions such
as bewildering variety or great divergence are frequently used, not always
without disdain, to describe the anthropological views we find in Gnostic texts.1
Admittedly, behind this modern approach one still hears echoes of the old anti-
heretical claim that while truth is singular, falsehood has many forms.2 Based
on the Greek distinction between aletheia and doxa, which allots soundness to
unity and disorder to difference, the argument has an obvious rhetorical force.
So much so that it was also used by pagans against Christians with a view to
ridiculing Christian views on the soul,3 even though in paganism one finds the
same variety of conceptions. As a matter of fact, ancient views on the soul were
so divergent that we possess several doxographical summaries that intended
to bring some order to this varied whole: Aristotle, Cicero, Aetius, Tertullian,
Plotinus, Iamblichus, and Nemesius all provide overviews of the numerous
opinions on the soul held in their time.4
1 See, e.g., A.H.B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism
(Edinburgh 1996), 168.
2 Irenaeus, Haer. 1.911; 22; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 7.108.12. On the issue in the context
of anti-heretical literature and more precisely on Irenaeus strategies against his adversaries,
see K.L. King, What Is Gnosticism? (Cambridge 2003), 2054.
3 Celsus (apud Origen, Cels. 8.49) ridiculed this variety of denominations. As an example of
this diversity, see, e.g., the heresiologists interpretation of the nature of the Gnostic divine
spark ( ; scintilla animae), namely the portion of the intelligible light in
man. Whereas in some testimonies it is interpreted as a reference to the soul or to the
(spirit; see Irenaeus, Haer. 1.13.3; Satornil apud Epiphanius, Pan. 37.4.13; Clement
of Alexandria, Exc. 1.3; 3.1, who identifies it in 53.5 as [rational soul]),
according to others this spark is clearly identified with the (intellect; see Hippolytus,
Haer. 5.19.1317; 10.11.710, esp. 10.11.10, where the is explicitly explained with ).
4 Aristotle, De an. 406a411b; Cicero, Tusc. 1.19 ff.; Aetius, De placitis reliquiae 4.23 (in the

anthropological views in nag hammadi 137
Indeed, there was diversity of opinion not only concerning the nature of
the soul, but also its character or condition and its position within the human
being. As to its nature, the soul was either deemed to be divine or simply mortal.
As regards its condition, in addition to the view of the soul as incorporeal
and not a substance held by Aristotelians, until the first century bce a rather
materialist view of the soul seems to have reigned, conceiving of it as either as
fire, breath, inflamed air, heart, brain, or blood.5 From the start of the Common
Era, however, one sees a wide acceptance of the Platonic conception of the soul
as an immaterial substance.6 As regards its relationship to the body, positions
were as varied as in both previous cases, and as an example of the complexities
surrounding the issue, it is sufficient to mention the variety of views one finds
in Plato.
As has been pointed out, the Corpus platonicum offers a wide range of views
on the soul-body relationship which are not necessarily from different periods
of Platos life.7 Dialogues from the so-called Socratic period provide up to three
different conceptions. While in Charmides Socrates defends a monistic view
of man, according to which soul and body form an indissoluble union as the
part and the whole,8 Alcibiades i presents a moderate kind of dualism, since
the body is seen as an instrument of the soul.9 The Gorgias in turn includes
the famous dualistic conception of Pythagorean origin according to which the
body is the grave of the soul.10 If we add to these opinions those expressed
edition of H. Diels, Doxographi graeci [Berlin 1879; repr., Berlin 1965], 386389); Tertullian,
An. 5; Plotinus, Enn. 4; Iamblichus, De anima (apud Stobaeus, Ecl. 1.362367); Nemesius,
De natura hominis 536537.
5 Cicero, Tusc. 1.1719.
6 Nemesius (De natura hominis 536537) distinguishes three groups: (1) the soul is a body
(Stoa); (2) the soul is incorporeal but not a substance (Aristotelians); (3) the soul is an
incorporeal substance (Platonism). See E.K.E. Emilsson, Platonic Soul-Body Dualism in
the Early Centuries of the Empire to Plotinus, anrw 36.7:53315362.
7 T.M. Robinson, The Defining Features of Mind-Body Dualism in the Writings of Plato, in
Psyche and Soma: Physicians and Metaphysicians on the Mind-Body Problem from Antiquity
to Enlightenment (ed. J.P. Wright and P. Potter; Oxford 2002), 3755. For a more detailed
discussion of the issue in the different Platonic dialogues, see T.M. Robinson, Platos
Psychology (2nd ed.; psv 8; Toronto 1995).
8 Plato, Charm. 156d11 ff.
9 Plato, Alc. i 130a13.
10 Plato, Gorg. 493a15. On the question whether this view should be seen as Pythagorean or
Orphic, see J. Mansfeld, Bad World and Demiurge: A Gnostic Motif from Parmenides and
Empedocles to Lucretius and Philo, in Studies in Later Greek Philosophy and Gnosticism
(J. Mansfeld; London 1989), xiv, 261314, esp. 291292.
138 roig lanzillotta
in later dialogues such as the Phaedo, the Respublica, or the Timaeus,11 we

may easily understand the ambiguous status the soul had in Late Antiquity.
Platos variety of views not only failed to help later Platonists to resolve their
doubts regarding the soul-body relationship, but frequently made this even
more complicated, as they seemed to provide scriptural support for many
opinions.
Consequently, we might safely affirm that when Gnostic texts present a
diversity of views regarding the soul, the body, and their relationship they
are simply reflecting the variety of opinions that were held in their respective
intellectual milieus. This means that their anthropological peculiarities should
be explained against the backdrop of the conceptual developments that were
taking place at the time. I would like to exemplify this by analysing the different
anthropological patterns that emerge from a reading of Nag Hammadi writings.
In opposition to the widespread opinion that the anthropology of this corpus
of texts is mostly tripartite, distinguishing three elements in mannamely,
intellect, soul, and body, a trichotomy which allegedly is behind the famous
tripartite division of humanity into pneumatikoi, psychikoi, and hylikoithere
is a group of texts reflecting rather a bipartite scheme discriminating between
soul and body only. Irrelevant though it may seem, this difference is seminal,
since it not only implies a different psychology, or theory of the soul, but also a
different cosmology, which in its turn also involves a dissimilar soteriology, or
theory concerning mans salvation from the constraints of the material world.
Do these tripartite and bipartite patterns reflect, on the one hand, the influ-
ence of the tripartition widespread in Platonic milieus and, on the other, its
adaptation to a more basic Christian bipartite opposition distinguishing spir-
itual and physical realities? Is perhaps the dichotomy in the latter case influ-
enced by the bipartite background to Gen 2:7? Must we suppose a genealogical
relationship between the tripartite and bipartite anthropological schemes? Or
does the divergence simply proceed from the dissimilar milieus in which the
texts arose?
With a view to providing some answers to all these questions, in the fol-
lowing pages I intend to offer an overview of both anthropological views and
provide some examples. My exposition follows a tripartite plan: 2 surveys the
bipartite anthropological scheme, 3 focuses on the more widespread tripar-
tite view of man found in some of the Nag Hammadi texts, and 4 provides
some conclusions.
11 Robinson, Defining Features, 4555.

2 Bipartite Anthropological Patterns in Nag Hammadi
As already advanced, the bipartite scheme distinguishes two aspects or ele-

ments of the human being, namely soul and body.12 This view has a very long
history in Greek thought and appears for the first time during the transition
from the archaic to the classical period. Even if, according to some scholars, it is
the result of internal conceptual developments in the Greek world,13 according
to others, the idea of a soul separable from the body comes into Greek culture
from the East, together with the idea of the transmigration of the soul.14 What
in the beginning was a simple dichotomy gradually evolves towards a hierar-
chy in which the soul occupies the higher position,15 but this only occurs after
some hesitation. Democritus provides testimony to a view in which the body
still seems to hold a higher status than the soul, since the latter is conceived
of as responsible for wrong choices and actions that may negatively influence
the bodys health.16 However, the soul very soon takes the highest rank in the
hierarchy, since it is then conceived of as the real self, and the higher seat
of intelligence, in contrast to the body which brings the individual closer to
lower animals. In the final stage of this evolution the acquires a divine or
quasi-divine nature and is consequently seen as the pre-existent and immortal
element in man, only temporarily descending to inhabit its dwelling-place, the
material and mortal body (Plato).
It is this point in the development that interests us, since thanks to the
influence of Platonism this conception gained wide acceptance in the imperial
period and became the natural view of man, especially in Greek and Roman
ethics. As a result, it tended to gain ground even in cultural environments with
12 L. Roig Lanzillotta, One Human Being, Three Early Christian Anthropologies: An Assess-
ment of Acta Andreaes Tenor on the Basis of Its Anthropological Views, vc 61 (2007):
414444, esp. 420424.
13 B. Snell, Die Entdeckung des Geistes: Studien zur Entstehung des europischen Denkens bei
den Griechen (6th ed.; Gttingen 1986), 5681; see also B. Snell, Bhme, Seele und Ich bei
Homer, Gn 7 (1931): 7885, esp. 82.
14 W. Burkert, Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (trans. E.L. Minar, Jr.; Cambridge,
Mass., 1972), 120165; W. Burkert, Towards Plato and Paul: The Inner Human Being, in
Ancient and Modern Perspectives on the Bible and Culture: Essays in Honor of Hans Dieter
Betz (ed. A.Y. Collins; Atlanta 1998), 5982. On the issue, see J.N. Bremmer, The Early Greek
Concept of the Soul (Princeton 1983).
15 As Robinson (Robinson, Defining Features, 37) rightly comments this already begins
with the advent of Orphism, but it only reahed wider sections of society through the
influence of Platonism, which incorporated Orphic lore.
16 Democritus b 159 dk.
a monistic view of man, such as in Judaism. In point of fact later writings of the
Old Testament, such as Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon show a bipartite
anthropology that distinguishes soul and body.17 In line with Wis 9:15, Philo of
Alexandria also presents a clearly negative view of the body, since its passions
inclines man to sin.18 He believes that the body is a heavy burden for the soul19
and widely echoes a bipartite concept of man.20
The testimony of the New Testament is equivocal: while the Synoptic Gos-
pels seem to remain faithful to Jewish monism, in the letters, both Pauline and
other, the situation is more complicated. Even if till very recently there the
epistles were placed in the conceptual world of Judaism and their anthropolog-
ical views interpreted as strictly monistic, the last years have seen new insights
that definitively changed our views on early Christian anthropology. As a mat-
ter of fact, Paul clearly shows a high degree of spiritualization of the human
being, which can be seen in the opposition between an and an
, namely an Inner Being as opposed to an external one,21 but
17 The bipartite view is clear in 2 Macc 3:1617; 7:37; 14:38; 15:30. Wis 8:1920 establishes a
close relationship between purity of the soul and that of the body and, more impor-
tantly, seems to echo a belief in the pre-existence of the soul; see J.M. Reese, Hellenistic
Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (AnBib 41; Rome 1970). Wis 2:2
4 describes the process of the death of both soul and body in diverse ways. According
to Wis 9:15 the perishable body clearly burdens the soul in a way comparable to Platos
Phaedo (81c20). Contra Neher (M. Neher, Wesen und Wirken der Weisheit in der Sapi-
entia salomonis [bzaw 333; Berlin 2004], 131133), who, following D. Georgi, Weisheit
Salomos, in Unterweisung in lehrhafter Form (jshrz 3.4; ed. W.G. Kmmel et al.; Gter-
sloh 1980) and O. Kaiser, Grundriss der Einleitung in die kanonischen und deuterokanonis-
chen Schriften des Alten Testaments iii, Die poetischen und weisheitlichen Werke (Gter-
sloh 1994), 118119, attributes these ideas not to the original text but to a later addi-
tion.
18 Philo is not always consistent, however, and sometimes retains the positive Jewish view of
the body; see E. Schweizer, Die hellenistische Komponente im neutestamentlichen sarx-
Begriff, znw 48 (1957): 237253, esp. 246250.
19 Philo, Gig. 31; Leg. 3.152; Det. 16.
20 Philo, Leg. 3.62; Cher. 128; Det. 19; Agr. 46, 152; cf. Abr. 96 etc. In Opif. 135 Philo affirms
that man is mortal but immortal . The bipartition is also
clear in his conception of the soul leaving the body after death (Plant. 147; Abr. 258; Somn.
1.31).
21 2Cor 4:16; cf. Rom 7:22. T.K. Heckel, Der Innere Mensch: Die paulinische Verarbeitung eines
platonischen Motivs (wunt 2/53; Tbingen 1993). On the issue, see Burkert, Towards Plato
and Paul; T.K. Heckel, Body and Soul in Saint Paul, in Psyche and Soma: Physicians and
Metaphysicians on the Mind-Body Problem from Antiquity to Enlightenment (ed. J.P. Wright
and P. Potter; Oxford 2002), 117131.
authors such as Betz did their best to present him as a monist.22 More recently,
however, van Kooten has convincingly shown that Pauls discourse should be
placed in the wider Greco-Roman context and his anthropology interpreted in
line with the widespread trichotomous pattern.23 In my view Irenaeus desper-
ate efforts in his Adversus haereses, to read 1Thess 5:23 in a monist way, seems
to provide external support for the view that even in Antiquity Paul was also
interpreted in a trichotomous way.24
Some Nag Hammadi texts include such a bipartite anthropological pattern;
they tend to oppose spiritual and physical realities, and contrast the inner and
true being with the external and material sensible one. A good example of
this bipartite view of man appears in the Sentences of Sextus (nhc xii,1). In
discussing who should rightly be called a philosopher, the text states that only
he who pays heed to the inner being is really wise: No man who looks down
upon the earth and upon tables is wise. (392) The philosopher who is an outer
body, he is not the one to whom it is fitting to pay respect, but (the) philosopher
according to the inner man.25
According to the dualistic view of these texts, the physical body is an odi-
ous accretion, something alien to mans real nature. The Letter of Peter to Philip
(nhc viii,2) echoes this widespread motif,26 since it asserts that due to the
imprisonment of the inner man, the Gnostics have to struggle against the
authorities in order to strip off what is corrupted and become illumi-
22 See also H.D. Betz, The Concept of the Inner Human Being ( ) in the
Anthropology of Paul, nts 46 (2000): 315341.
23 G.H. van Kooten, Pauls Anthropology in Context: The Image of God, Assimilation to
God, and Tripartite Man in Ancient Judaism, Ancient Philosophy and Early Christianity
(wunt 232; Tbingen 2008), 269312, esp. 298312. See now F. Bovon, The Souls Come
Back: Immortality and Resurrection in Early Christianity, htr 103 (2010): 387406, esp.
400401 (Paul).
24 Irenaeus, Haer. 5.6.1.
25 Sent. Sextus (nhc xii,1) 34.1620. Translated by F. Wisse, The Sentences of Sextus, in The
Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi Codices xi, xii, xiii (ed. C.W. Hedrick; nhs 28; Leiden
1990), 295327.
26 The motif is frequent in Nag Hammadi. See Dial. Sav. (nhc iii,5) 132.1112; 138.20139.2;
Ap. Jas. (nhc i,2) 14.3536; 2 Apoc. Jas. (nhc v,4) 56.714; Gos. Thom. (nhc ii,2) 37.4
6; Gos. Phil. (nhc ii,3) 66.1620; 75.2125; Trim. Prot. (nhc xiii,1) 49.2832; Acts Thom.
111; Corp. herm. 1.2426. It also appears in tripartite anthropologcal contexts (see below
n. 42). According to Dodds (E.R. Dodds, trans., introd., and comm., Proclus: The Elements of
Theology [2nd ed.; Oxford 1963], 307), the origin of this motif might be Orphic-Pythagorean
and refers to Empedocles (dk 31, b 126) and to Plato, Gorg. 523cff., where the body is
conceived of as a garment () that the soul takes off after death.
nators in the midst of mortal men.27 The bipartite anthropological concep-

tion behind this motif, however, is clearer in the Interpretation of Knowledge
(nhc xi,1), which describes the body as a net of flesh for the man within,28
as a temporary residence in which humanity was imprisoned by the rulers and
authorities, who, in Pauline fashion, seem to govern over the lower world of
matter:
he [i.e., the devil] brought us down, having bound us in nets of flesh.

Since the body is a temporary dwelling which the rulers and authorities
have as an abode, the man within, after being imprisoned in the fabrica-
tion, fell into suffering. And having compelled him to serve them, they
constrained him to serve the energies.
Interp. Know. [nhc xi,1] 6.263729
The same conception can be found in the Hermetic treatise Asclepius,30 of

which the Nag Hammadi codices also include a fragmentary translation. The
Asclepius explicitly states that only man has a double nature, namely one which
is simple and divine, which is called essential (), and another material
one () which is formed out of the four elements.31 In spite of the positive
view of the latter due to Stoic influence,32 the Asclepius nevertheless stresses
the higher quality of mans essential part by describing it as divine, eternal,
and substantial33 and by asserting that it is through this part that man ascends
27 Ep. Pet. Phil. (nhc viii,2) 137.69. Translated by F. Wisse, The Letter of Peter to Philip, in
The Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi Codex viii (ed. J.H. Sieber; nhs 31; Leiden 1991),
227251. See M.W. Meyer, The Letter of Peter to Philip: Text, Translation and Commentary
(sblds 53; Chico, Calif., 1981), 135139 for a commentary of this section.
28 Interp. Know. (nhc xi,1) 6.3035. For a similar but more general opposition, see Gos. Phil.
(nhc ii,3) 123; 82.3083.9.
29 English translation according to J.D. Turner, The Interpretation of Knowledge, in The
Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi Codices xi, xii, xiii (ed. C.W. Hedrick; nhs 28; Leiden
1990), 2188. See also U.K. Plisch, ed., trans., and comm., Die Auslegung der Erkenntnis
(Nag-Hammadi-Codex xi,1) (tugal 142; Berlin 1996), 9799.
30 See A.D. Nock, ed., and A.-J. Festugire, trans., Corpus hermeticum ii, Traits xiiixviii;
Asclpius (2nd ed.; Bud; Paris 1960), 256401.
31 Mans duality in Asclepius 7 (304.26 nf ii); 8 (305.15306.2 nf ii); 11 (309.56 nf ii); 22
(324.18 nf ii).
32 S. Gersh, Middle Platonism and Neoplatonism: The Latin Tradition (2 vols.; pms 23; Notre
Dame 1986), 1:379 ff.
33 divine: Asclepius 10 (309.3 nf ii); 22 (324.18 nf ii); 22 (323.25 nf ii). eternal: Asclepius
8 (306.4 nf ii).
to heaven.34 With regards to the Coptic version of the Asclepius, even if it has
been to a certain extent adapted by the translator, the changes do not affect
its basic anthropology and we find the same bipartition of soul and body. The
Coptic Asclepius also refers to the separation of the soul from the body and
the ascension of the former to the region in the middle of the air between
the earth and heaven, where it is judged by demons. Only after the positive
result will the demon give the soul its free-pass to the celestial region.35 We see,
consequently, that the bipartite scheme governs not only the anthropology of
the text, but also its cosmology and soteriology, since the archons or demons
are not placed in any specific region, but on the dividing line between heaven
and earth.
However, the most obvious example of a bipartite anthropology in the Nag
Hammadi collection I know of is the Exegesis of the Soul (nhc ii,6).36 Even
if originally divine, the soul seems to have lost its nature due to its fall into
materiality. The Exegesis of the Soul states that the soul used to be virginal and
androgynous,37 but lost both conditions as a result of the incarnation in a body.
The souls interaction with the sensible world is described in such dark hues
that it is equated to prostitution and violation:38 when she [i.e., the soul]
34 Asclepius 10 (308.23309.1 nf ii).

35 Asclepius (nhc vi,8) 76.2237. Translated by J. Brashler, P.A. Dirkse, and D.M. Parrott,
Asclepius, in The Coptic Gnostic Library: Revised Indices for Nag Hammadi Codices v,25
and vi with Papyrus Berolinensis 8502,1 and 4 (ed. D.M. Parrott; nhs 11; Leiden 1977), 395
451.
36 The Exegesis of the Soul (nhc ii,6) was edited and translated by B. Layton and W.C. Robin-
son, The Expository Treatise on the Soul, in The Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi
Codex ii,27, Together with xiii,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and p.oxy. 1, 654, 655: With Contribu-
tions by Many Scholars (ed. B. Layton; 2 vols.; nhs 2021; Leiden 1989), 2:135169. See also
H. Bethge, Die Exegese ber die Seele eingeleitet und bersetzt vom Berliner Arbeit-
skreis fr koptisch-gnostische Schriften, tlz 101 (1976): 93104; J.M. Sevrin, Lexgse de
lme: (nh ii,6) (bcnht 9; Qubec 1983); M. Scopello, introd., trans., and comm., Lexgse
de lme: Nag Hammadi Codex ii, 6 (nhs 25; Leiden 1985). See now C. Kulawik, Die Erzh-
lung ber die Seele: (Nag-Hammadi-Codex ii,6) (tugal 155; Berlin 2006).
37 A similar conception can be found in Auth. Teach. (nhc vi,3) 25.69, which describes the
souls contact with the world and the subsequent appearance of desires as a contamina-
tion of mans virginity: For if a thought of lust enters into a virgin man, he has already
become contaminated.
38 See L. Roig Lanzillotta, Earthly Existence as Violence in Two Nag Hammadi Treatises:
Authoritative Teaching (nhc vi,3) and Exegesis on the Soul (nhc ii,6), in Loren Stucken-
bruck, Michael Becker, Matthias Hoffmann (eds), Religiously Motivated Violence (Leiden:
Brill). Forthcoming.
fell down into a body and came to this life, then she fell into the hands of many
robbers. And the wanton creatures passed her from one to another Some
made use of her [by force], while others did so by seducing her with a gift.39
Due to the loss of its original androgynous condition and the subsequent
lack of a rational faculty (its male part), the soul appears to be trapped in the
bonds of nature. Behind this conception we see the background of the partition
of the soul into rational and irrational halves standard in Middle Platonism
(below). Due to her irrational condition, the soul is now controlled by both the
influence of sensorial perception and by the passions.40
There is no trace of a third element in the texts anthropology. There is
no reference to the intellect whatsoever and the only passage that mentions
the pneuma does not seem to consider it as a differentiated part of the soul,
but rather as the divine element by means of which God awakens the souls
dormant rational capacity.41
As is also the case in the Asclepius, the dichotomous scheme that governs the
texts anthropology can also be seen at the level of its cosmology, which opposes
the divine celestial region to the earthly realm. There is no reference to a third
intermediate region either. This means, of course, that mans salvation consists
in regaining his rational pristine nature; in letting the soul supersede all bodily
influences with a view to regaining her original abode. There are no other
obstacles the soul has to deal with, such as the password owed to the archontic
39 Exeg. Soul (nhc ii,6) 127,2931. Some scholars, however, tend to interpret this as a ref-
erence to sexuality as the souls plight. See, e.g., Scopello, Lexgse, 5859; Layton and
Robinson, The Expository Treatise, 137138. See, however, L. Roig Lanzillotta, Come out
of Your Country and Your Kinsfold: Allegory and Ascent of the Soul in the Expository Trea-
tise on the Soul (nhc ii,6), in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites: Jewish, Christian,
and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham (ed. M. Goodman, G.H. van Kooten, and
J.T.A.G.M. van Ruiten; tbn 13; Leiden 2010), 401420, esp. 405406.
40 The anthropology of the Auth. Teach. (nhc vi,3) is very close to that of the Exegesis of
the Soul. In spite of the view that considers it a composite work that includes various
theories on the soul, it presents a rather consistent view in its overall bipartite view of
man. As in the Exegesis of the Soul, the soul is said to have dwelled in the pleroma (divine
region) and to have changed its condition due to the fall into a body (23.1217): when the
spiritual soul was cast into the body, it became a brother to lust and hatred and envy, and
a material soul. Her contact with the body not only means she becomes a material soul, it
also produces the oblivion that will keep her attached to the world (24.1722): Therefore
she does not remember her brothers and her father, for pleasure and sweet profits deceive
her. Having left knowledge behind, she fell into bestiality.
41 Exeg. Soul (nhc ii,6) 133.34134.2, on which Roig Lanzillotta, Come out of Your Country,
418419.
powers occurring in tripartite world-views. Salvation is automatic once the soul

regains, after repentance and the Fathers grace, its original rational nature.
As the text expressively affirms: This is the ransom from captivity. This is
the upward journey to heaven.42 Let us now take a look at the tripartite
anthropological scheme.
3 Tripartite Views of Man in Nag Hammadi
As already advanced, most of the Nag Hammadi texts fall within this category
and add a third element, namely the intellect (or spirit, or logos), to soul
and body. True, some might object that bipartite anthropological schemes
also include frequent references to a third element, be it (intellect) or
(spirit). However, it is important to note that this third element is never
considered a constitutive part of man, but rather a kind of deus ex machina that
comes from without to liberate the soul from the drama of her present physical
condition. In contrast, in trichotomous schemes the intellect is a constituent
of the human being in its own right.
Trivial though it may seem, the appearance of a third element is therefore
of crucial importance and has far-reaching consequences. To begin with it
influences the conception of man to the extent that it replaces the soul, in
assuming the highest position in the human hierarchy: not only is the intellect
higher than the soul, but it is also mans only immortal part. Furthermore, the
soul is no longer conceived of as divine and everlasting, as in the previous
scheme, but clearly as mortal. As far as its internal structure is concerned,
the soul is still described as possessing rational and irrational parts, but their
function has slightly changed: given the intermediary position it occupies
between intellect and body, the rational and irrational halves are now related
to intellect and body respectively. As we will immediately see, these alterations
produce important changes at the level of cosmology and soteriology.
Nag Hammadi texts widely attest this anthropology.43 The tripartite scheme
is at work in the Treatise on the Resurrection (nhc i,4) and is clearly expressed
42 Exeg. Soul (nhc ii,6) 134.1315.

43 The motif of the garment one has to take off in order to ascend to divine regions appears
in tripartite contexts as well. According to Clement of Alexandria, Exc. 64, Valentinians
affirmed that the spiritual elements must leave behind their souls before they can achieve
the vision of God. Souls are further explicitly referred to as in 61.8; 63.1. See
A.D. Nock, ed., and A.-J. Festugire, trans., Corpus hermeticum i, Traits ixii (2nd ed.;
Bud; Paris 1960), 131n57. According to Dodds, Proclus, 307, behind the Valentinian inter-
in its conception of the spiritual resurrection, which swallows up the psychic

in the same way as the fleshly.44 The same view appears in the Teachings
of Silvanus (nhc vii,4), which presents a triadic conception of man formed
of a physical body, a soul, and a divine mind which has come into being
in conformity with the image of God. The divine mind has the substance of
God.45 According to this text, humans:
have come into being from three races: from the earth, from the formed,
and from the created. The body has come into being from the earth with
an earthly substance, but the formed, for the sake of the soul, has come
into being from the thought of the Divine. The created, however, is the
mind, which has come into being in conformity with the image of God.
Teach. Silv. [nhc vii,4] 92.1525
The same anthropological scheme is behind the anthropogonical myth in-

cluded in the Hypostasis of the Archons (nhc ii,4), which presents an inter-
esting tripartite reinterpretation of the passage of Gen 2:7 that we are dealing
with in this volume:
pretation of the coat of skin ( ) of Gen 3:21 as a reference to the fleshy

body (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.5.5) we might have the idea of Orphic-Pythagorean origin (see
above n. 26) that saw the body as the garment of the soul. See also Nock and Festugire,
Corpus hermeticum i, Traits ixii, 8283n9. Similarly Irenaeus (Haer. 1.7.1) had pointed
out that according to Valentinians souls were not admitted in the pleroma. According
to the Marcosians of Irenaeus, the spiritual element, after leaving behind the body in
the tangible world, abandons its bondage (), namely the soul that is given to the
Demiurge, before returning to its original abode (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.21.5; with frg. 11 apud
Epiphanius, Pan. 36.23).
44 See Treat. Res. (nhc i,4) 45.3946.2 and M.L. Peel, The Treatise on Resurrection, in The
Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi Codices i (The Jung Codex) ii, Notes (ed. H.W. Att-
ridge; nhs 23; Leiden 1985), 137215 ad loc.; and M.L. Peel, introd., trans., anal., and
expos., The Epistle to Rheginos: A Valentinian Letter on the Resurrection (Philadelphia 1969),
48f., 74f., 112 f., 148. See also B.R. Layton, ed., trans., and comm., The Gnostic Treatise on
Resurrection from Nag Hammadi (hdr 12; Missoula 1979), 6566, 7173, 78, 8284; Gos.
Mary (bg 1) 10.1416.
45 Teach. Silv. (nhc vii,4) 92.2326. See also Teach. Silv. (nhc vii,4) 102.34ff.: My son, do
not allow your mind to stare downward,| but rather let | it look by means of the light | at
things above. | For the light will always come from above. | Even if it [i.e., the mind] is upon
the earth, | let it seek to pursue the | things above. Enlighten your | mind with the light of
heaven | so that you may turn to the light of heaven. Translation by M. Peel and J. Zandee,
The Teachings of Silvanus, in The Coptic Gnostic Library: Nag Hammadi Codices vii (ed.
B.A. Pearson; nhms 30; Leiden 1996), 249369.
The rulers laid plans and said, Come, let us create a man that will be soil
from the earth. They had taken some soil from the earth and modelled
their man after their body and after the image of God that had appeared
to them in the waters And he breathed into his face; and the man came
to have a soul (and remained) upon the ground many days. But they could
not make him arise because of their powerlessness
Hyp. Arch. [nhc ii,4] 87.3388.846
It is well known that Gnostics had a very low opinion of the world and of its
creator. In their view, Genesis could not narrate the deeds of the true god,
but referred to the creative activity of some lower and ignorant creator god(s),
whose imperfection was apparent in the results. The Hypostasis of the Archons
therefore reinterprets Gen 2:7a such that it accords with this negative view of
both creator and creation, attributing the formation of the human soul and
body to the ignorant gods that populate the astral sphere. The rulers first shape
the body from the soil according to the likeness of God reflected in the waters;
then the chief ruler breathes into his face and the body becomes soul-endowed.
In spite of their efforts, however, their creature remains lifeless on the ground
because of their lack of power. It is the intervention from above, from the
invisible spirit of the highest God that will provide the spark of life, the
according to other sources, to animate the first man. Only then we find
a reference to the living soul in Gen 2:7b:
Now all these things came to pass by the will of the father of the entirety.
Afterwards, the spirit saw the soul-endowed man upon the ground. And
the spirit came forth from the Adamantine Land; it descended and came
to dwell within him, and that man became a living soul.
Hyp. Arch. [nhc ii,4] 88.1015
The Hypostasis of the Archons describes all three anthropological elements

referred to above: while the body proceeds from the earth, the soul proceeds
from the demiurgical sphere, namely from the rulers who breathe it into man,
and the intellect or spirit from the highest godly region.
Other texts, especially of Valentinian origin, explain mans three constitutive
elements as a result of a downward movement that determines the intellects
46 Translation by B. Layton, The Hypostasis of the Archons, in The Coptic Gnostic Library:
Nag Hammadi Codex ii,27, Together with xiii,2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and p.oxy. 1, 654,
655: With Contributions by Many Scholars (ed. B. Layton; 2 vols.; nhs 2021; Leiden 1989),
1:220259.
devolution from its divine origin. Even if the cause initiating this process is
never completely clear, at the end of the devolutive movement the intellect
(or spirit, or logos) has to cope with the accretions of soul and body. At any
rate, after the first step has taken place we see a dispersion of the intellects
unity, which necessarily results in ignorance. This ignorance is the cause of a
second stage of degradation because it initiates a series of affections: first of all,
insecurity and doubt, then fear and, finally, a desire to know, since knowledge
can remove all previous affections. The third and final step consists in a kind of
substantialization of affections that produces the appearance of matter and
the physical body.
The Tripartite Tractate (nhc i,5) may help us to understand how the first dis-
persion takes place: the text describes how, due to the Logos inability to grasp
the ungraspable and to bear the intensity of the light, it doubts and looks
down to the depth.47 As a result, a division and a turning away take place48
and these in turn produce the appearance of ignorance and oblivion.49 The
Gospel of Truth (nhc i,3) in turn describes the two subsequent steps, namely
the appearance and development of affections that will generate the psychic
and hylic levels of reality. Anguish and fear appear as direct consequences of
ignorance, and as anguish grows solid like a fog, it provides the suitable context
for error to appear, which became powerful and worked on its own matter
foolishly.50 The final stage of devolution is the alienation of the intellect and
the soul in the realm of physis.51 The original ignorance remains unaltered and
is perpetuated by oblivion and by the deficiency of the bodys cognitive means.
Sensorial perception is not only unable to help man achieve knowledge, but
also prolongs his ignorance since it delivers him to the delusion of externals.52
47 Tri. Trac. (nhc i,5) 77.1820. Translation by H.W. Attridge and E.H. Pagels, The Tripartite
Tractate, in Nag Hammadi Codex i (The Jung Codex) i, Introductions, Texts, Translations,
Indices (ed. H.W. Attridge; nhs 22; Leiden 1985), 159337.
48 Tri. Trac. (nhc i,5) 76.2377.11: according to the text, the fall of the logos has been planned
by God. See R. Kasser et al., eds., Tractatus Tripartitus i, De supernis (Bern 1973), 340 and
L. Painchaud and E. Thomassen, ed., introd., comm., and trans., Le trait tripartite (nh i,5)
(bcnht 19; Qubec 1989), 333 ff.
49 Tri. Trac. (nhc i,5) 77.2125.
50 Gos. Truth (nhc i,3) 17.1017. Translation by H.W. Attridge and G.W. MacRae, s.j., The
Gospel of Truth, in Nag Hammadi Codex i (The Jung Codex) i, Introductions, Texts, Trans-
lations, Indices (ed. H.W. Attridge; nhs 22; Leiden 1985), 55117.
51 The same view can be found in the Acts of Andrew, see L. Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae
Apocrypha: A New Perspective on the Nature, Intention and Significance of the Primitive Text
(co 26; Geneva 2007), vr 213214 (= Bonnet aaa ii.1 44.1214) with ch. 4, 3.4.2.1.
52 So, too, Acts Andr. vr 208209 (Bonnet aaa ii.1 44.78), with Roig Lanzillotta, Acta Andreae
Apocrypha, ch. 4, 3.4 passim.
As was the case in bipartite schemes, we see a strict correlation between the
view of man and that of the universe, consisting of transcendent, celestial, and
earthly realms. Anthropology and cosmology are so intrinsically related that
each anthropological element is conceived of as belonging to one cosmological
realm: the intellect is related to the transcendent realm, the soul to the celes-
tial region, the body to the earth. As could be expected, soteriology presents
exactly the same trichotomous structure. Given the intellects divine nature,
its liberation consists in deconstructing the accretions gained during its down-
ward movement to physis. The body returns to the elements, the soul is given
back to the archons who populate the astral region, and the nous or pneuma
speeds to its divine abode.
Now, where does this trichotomous scheme come from? It is well known
that mans tripartite conception is explicitly stated for the first time in Late
Antiquity in Plutarchs De facie in orbe lunae, where Sulla defends the view
that man does not consist of two parts, but rather of three, namely intellect,
soul, and body. In doing so, Sulla rejects the view that considers the intellect
a part of the soul, but also establishes a clear hierarchy among the parts:
, , .53 If we were to
accept Deuses hypothesis, this tripartition of man should be traced back to
the bipartition of the soul into rational and irrational halves, which on the
basis of Platos views in the Respublica and the Timaeus,54 was standard in
53 Plutarch, Fac. 943a: ,

. , ,
. , ,
. For the Aristotelian background of this assertion, see A.P. Bos, The Distinction
between Platonic and Aristotelian Dualism Illustrated from Plutarchs Myth in De facie
in orbe lunae, in Estudios sobre Plutarco: Misticismo y religiones mistricas en la obra de
Plutarco (ed. A. Prez Jimnez and F. Casadess; Madrid 2001), 5770, passim and A.P. Bos,
The Soul and Its Instrumental Body: A Reinterpretation of Aristotles Philosophy of Living
Nature (bsih 112; Leiden 2003), 280.
54 Against the view expressed in the Phaedo (783bc) that the soul is not composite
and therefore not liable to destructionthe Respublica affirms that the soul has three
partsthe spirited, the irrational, and the rational ones. As Drrie (H. Drrie, Porphyrios
Symmikta zetemata: Ihre Stellung in System und Geschichte des Neuplatonismus nebst
einem Kommentar zu den Fragmenten [Zet 20; Mnchen 1959], 167168) has pointed out,
however, Middle Platonists reduced the former to a single part in order to bring it into
line with the bipartition irrational-rational in the Timaeus. See on the bipartite structure
of the soul in Middle Platonism, J. Dillon, The Middle Platonists: 80 b.c. to a.d. 220 (2nd
ed.; Ithaka, n.y., 1996), 102 (Antiochus of Ascalon), 174176 (Philo), 194 (Plutarch), 256257
(Atticus), 263 (Severus), 290294 (Alcinous).
Middle Platonism. In Deuses view, Timarchus myth in the Plutarchean De

genio Socratis allows us to see how Plutarch develops his distinction between
intellect and soul from a basic bipartite conception of the soul consisting of
a rational and an irrational part.55 Philo of Alexandria might also seem to
provide some precedent for this conception. Even though mostly endorsing
the regular Platonic bipartite view of man, Philos application of the bipartition
of the soul as sometimes brings him close to a trichotomous view of man. For
example, in De migratione Abrahami, the first chapters present a clear tripartite
view of man, distinguishing body, soul, and logos, the latter being a specific
aspect of the rational part of the soul.56 Not only his allegorical interpretation
of Gods command to Abraham in Gen 12:1 (Land or country is a symbol of
the body, kindred of sense-perception, fathers house of speech [logos]),57
but especially his use of the term nous to describe the rational part of the soul,
seems to point in this direction. Note that Migr. 13 even asserts the separability
of mind from the soul-body complex: when mind (nous) begins to know
itself and to hold converse with the things of mind, it will thrust away from it
that part of the soul which inclines to the province of sense-perception.58
However, there are several reasons not to accept this inner Platonic origin of
the trichotomous anthropology. To begin with, there is the fact that trichoto-
55 Deuse (W. Deuse, Untersuchungen zur mittelplatonischen und neuplatonischen Seelenlehre

[agsk 3; Mainz and Wiesbaden 1983], 4647) sees in Timarchus myth in Gen. Socr. 591d
a first step towards the theory exposed in De facie in orbe lunae. Other scholars, such as
W. Hamilton, The Myth in Plutarchs De genio (589f592e), cq 28 (1934): 175182 and,
more recently, Y. Vernire, Symboles et mythes dans la pense de Plutarque (Paris 1977), 126,
consider that, in spite of Plutarchs confusion at the level of formulation or expression, the
exposition of De genio Socratis presents exactly the same trichotomy as that of De facie in
orbe lunae. Add W. Deuse, Plutarchs Eschatological Myths, in Plutarch: On the daimonion
of Socrates: Human Liberation, Divine Guidance and Philosophy (ed. H.-G. Nesselrath;
introd., text, trans., and interpr. essays by D. Russell et al.; sapere 16; Tbingen 2010), 169
197, esp. 182187.
56 The logos, however, is nevertheless clearly seen as a differentiated part of the soul
witness his assertion, some lines below, that discursivity (dianoia) is the rational part
of the soul as opposed to the irrational one that rules over sensation. Philo, Migr. 3.45
( , ,
).
57 Philo, Migr. 2.57.
58 Philo, Migr. 13.45 (
, ). See also Philo,
Her. 6974, where he expounds his view of ecstatic experience, conceived as the action by
means of which the mind quits itself.
mous patterns do not oppose the intellect to the body, but rather the intellect
to the soul-body complex. In a Platonic context this seems to be too drastic a re-
characterization of the soul, since it implies changing its status from divine to
mortal. Another important argument is that, as we have seen, anthropological
schemes in Antiquity normally coincide with cosmological ones. This means
that both patterns are expressions of a more fundamental conception of the
reality and that one cannot change without affecting the other. Last but not
least, not all Middle Platonists presenting a bipartition of the soul develop it
into a trichotomous anthropological scheme, witness Maximus of Tyre.
Given that the trichotomous view of man is not exclusive to Philo or Plu-
tarch, but also appears in other Middle Platonists, such as Alcinous, in the
Corpus hermeticum,59 as well as in the Nag Hammadi corpus, one needs to
find a more general explanation for its appearance.60 As has been pointed
out, all trichotomous schemes are mainly concerned with a clear distinction
between intellect and the soul-body complex, and this seems to reflect a clear
Peripatetic background, since it was Aristotle who redefined Platos conception
of a dichotomy in man, opposing his soul to his body when he opposed the
(intellect) to the (soul).61 Following Aristotle, all the examples dealt
59 The same hierarchy is at work in the tenth Hermetic tractate, called The Key (Corp. herm.
10.24 [125.1016 nf i]), which not only clearly distinguishes intellect, soul, and body, but
also stresses the higher rank of the former, without which the soul resembles an irrational
animal; only the intellect is divine and recovers its true nature after taking off the clothes
of the soul that served it as a vehicle (Corp. herm. 10.1617 [120.22121.19 nf i]).
60 See Bos, Distinction, 61 ff.
61 E. Barbotin, La thorie aristotlicienne de l intellect daprs Thophraste (ate; Leuven
1954), 220; A.H. Armstrong, Aristotle in Plotinus: The Continuity and Discontinuity of
psyche and nous, in Aristotle and the Later Tradition (ed. H. Blumenthal and H. Robinson;
OSAPSup 1991; Oxford 1991), 117127, esp. 117118. This differentiation is also stressed by
Atticus apud Eusebius, Praep. ev. 15.9.14 (frg. 7 in the edition of E. des Places, s.j., introd.,
Greek text, trans., and annot., Eusbe de Csare: La Prparation vanglique: Livres xiv
xv [sc 338; Paris 1987], 17). See P. Merlan, Greek Philosophy from Plato to Plotinus, in
The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (ed. A.H. Armstrong;
Cambridge 1967), 11132, esp. 7374 and A.P. Bos Aristotelian and Platonic Dualism in
Hellenistic and Early Christian Philosophy and in Gnosticism, vc 56 (2002): 273291, n. 16
and Bos, Soul, 216229; G. Luttikhuizen, Traces of Aristotelian Thought in the Apocryphon
of John, in For the Children, Perfect Instruction: Studies in Honor of Hans-Martin Schenke on
the Occasion of the Berliner Arbeitskreis fr koptisch-gnostische Schriftens Thirtieth Year
(ed. H.-G. Bethge et al.; nhms 54; Leiden 2002), 181202, esp. 190. On Aristotelian elements
in Nag Hammadi, see most recently, G. Luttikhuizen, Gnostic Revision of Genesis Stories
and Early Jesus Traditions (nhms 58; Leiden 2006), 2943, esp. 3242.
with above not only deny immortality to the human soul, but repeatedly state
that the intellect is mans most divine and only eternal element.62
4 Conclusions
From the preceding it seems obvious that anthropological schemes correlate

with cosmological ones. Following the old Democritean view that the human
being is a microcosmos, the human tends to be considered in the light of a
cosmological framework. In Plato, for example, his bipartite conception of man
consisting of soul and body strictly correlates with his view of the cosmos,
which opposed ideas to matter. The same holds true for Aristotle, since a
tripartite conception of man that differentiates nous (intellect) from soul
and body also correlates with his tripartite vision of the cosmos consisting
of the realm of the Unmoved Mover, the astral sphere, and sublunar world.
As has been pointed out, even the Stoic dualistic conception of the cosmos,
with its two principles, namely the active ( ) and passive ( ),
is determinant for their view of man, which sharply distinguishes soul and
body.63
As we have seen, Nag Hammadi texts are no exception to this rule. Texts
including a bipartite view of man coherently present a bipartite view of the
cosmos. The fullness of the pleroma (divine region) is contrasted to the barren-
ness of the kenoma (emptiness), the realm of creation: they oppose divine and
earthly regions in the same way as they contrast soul with body. This naturally
affected both their view of salvation and of the procedure that must be fol-
lowed to attain it. As for texts including a tripartite view of man, they present,
62 Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1177b261178a2: the intellect as the divine element in man by which
he achieves complete happiness and partakes in the divine. See his conclusion in Eth.
nic. 1178a27, that the intellect is mans true self; Eth. nic. 1179a2232, the man who lives
according to his intellect, that is, the man who pursues intellectual activity, cultivates
his intellect and keeps it in the best condition is the most beloved of the Gods; Eth. eud.
1248a2429, where the intellect is said to be mans highest element and to be connected
with God; De an. 430a2325; Metaph. 1072b2326; Part. an. 656a8, 10; 686a2728; Gen. an.
736b28; 737a811; Protr. frg. 108 (in the edition of I. Dring, introd., text, trans., and comm.,
Der Protreptikos des Aristoteles [QdP 9; Frankfurt am Main 1969], 8687). See P. Moraux,
Der Aristotelismus bei den Griechen: Von Andronikos bis Alexander von Aphrodisias i, Die
Renaissance des Aristotelismus im i. Jh v. Chr. (Perip 5; Berlin 1973), 230, and additional
bibliography in n. 24.
63 Emilsson, Soul-Body Dualism, 5332.
also coherently, a tripartite world-view, insofar as they oppose the transcen-

dent divine region to the realm of movement, including the astral and earthly
regions, in the same way that they contrast the intellect with the soul-body con-
glomerate.
The relatedness of the different aspects of the conceptual world behind the
texts prevents us from attempting too simplistic an explanation of the anthro-
pological differences between them. In our view, the different anthropological
schemes are neither due to the influence of a more basic Christian opposition
of spiritual and material realities nor to the bipartite background of Gen 2:7.
Furthermore, the relatedness of the anthropological, cosmological, and sote-
riological schemes also poses clear difficulties to a genealogical or develop-
mental explanation. Given the existence of several strands of Platonism at the
time of composition of the Nag Hammadi texts, it seems preferable to explain
the diverse anthropological schemes as arising from the different conceptual
milieus in which the texts first saw light. While bipartite schemes appear to
remain faithful to traditional Platonism, free of Aristotelian influencesas rep-
resented, for example, by Atticus64, trichotomous anthropologies reflect the
tripartite view of man current in Middle Platonic contexts under the influence
of the Peripatos, which from the second century onwards is more palpable
thanks to the edition of the Corpus aristotelicum by Andronicus of Rhodos more
than a century earlier.
We may then conclude that the diverging opinions referred to at the begin-
ning are not due to the incoherence or erratic thought of the Gnostic authors.
They might simply proceed from the variety of views they found in their intel-
lectual milieus.
64 On which, see Merlan, Greek Philosophy, 5383.

Adam, Dust, and the Breath of Life according to the
Targumim of Gen 2:7
Robert Hayward
The Aramaic translators of the books of Moses knew their Hebrew Bible inti-
mately. Whether they were providing Aramaic versions of the Hebrew text for
the synagogue service, for the Beth ha-Midrash, or for the use of students inves-
tigating the Torah in private, they were acutely aware of the potential relation-
ship of each verse of the Bible to its wider context in Scripture and tradition.1
The composition of the human creature is mentioned by several biblical verses,
among them Gen 2:7, which represents a very particular account of Adams for-
mation. Four Aramaic versions of this verse are extant, namely Targum Onqelos,
Targum Neofiti, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, along with the Fragment Targum
of ms Vatican 440, which preserves a translation of only the last four words of
the verse.2 Each displays its own concerns, which appear to be formulated with
an eye to biblical information about Adam recorded not only in Genesis, but
also in the Prophets and the Writings. The Hebrew of Gen 2:7 is immediately
preceded by a note that , a word usually translated as a mist, was going up
1 For the part played by Targum in the religious life of ancient Judaism, see A. Shinan, The
Late Midrashic, Paytanic, and Targumic Literature, in The Late Roman Period (ed. S.T. Katz;
vol. 4 of The Cambridge History of Judaism; ed. W.D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge
2006), 678698; P.S. Alexander, Jewish Aramaic Translations of the Bible, in Miqra: Text,
Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early
Christianity (ed. M.J. Mulder; Assen 1988), 217253; E. Levine, The Aramaic Version of the
Bible: Contents and Context (bzaw 174; Berlin 1988); M. Taradach, Le Midrash: Introduction
la littrature midrashique (MdB 22; Geneva 1991), 49160. For the role of the Targum in the
synagogue service in particular, see L.I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue (New Haven 2000),
140151, 445451. For the importance of the Beth ha-Midrash, see the critical discussion in
A.D. York, The Targum in the Synagogue and in the School, jsj 10 (1979): 7486.
2 For the text of the Targumim, the following critical editions have been used (translations
are mine): Targum Onqelos is quoted from A. Sperber, The Pentateuch according to Targum
Onkelos (vol. 1 of The Bible in Aramaic: Based on Old Manuscripts and Printed Texts; ed.
A. Sperber; Leiden 1959); Targum Neofiti from A. Dez Macho, Neophyti 1 (Madrid 1968);
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan from E.G. Clarke et al., Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch
(Hoboken 1984); Fragment Targum according to ms Vatican 440 from M.L. Klein, The Fragment
Targums of the Pentateuch according to Their Extant Sources (2 vols.; Rome 1980). A translation
of the extant text of the Targumim on Gen 2:7 can be found in the appendix to this article.

adam, dust, and the breath of life 155
from the land and was watering all the surface of the ground (). Gene-
sis 2:7 itself then declares:
. This may be rendered into English as and the Lord
God formed the man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life; and the man became a living being.3
Commenting on this verse, Sarna notes that an earlier report of the mans
formation in Gen 1:27 says nothing of the material from which he was made;
here we learn that it was dust out of which God fashioned him in the manner of
a potter, for such is one of the implications of the Hebrew verb .4 Mention of
the mist and watering in Gen 2:6 allow the reader to infer furthermore that
God had mixed dust and water to produce clay, the raw material of the potters
art. This is an important observation, for Gen 1:27 declares that God created
the man ( ) not that he formed or fashioned him; and that
he had created the man in his image, and as male and female. In this respect,
Gen 1 asserted that human beings, like everything else brought into existence
before the first Sabbath, had been created by the Almighty. Significantly, all
the Targumim of Gen 2:7 represent the Hebrew verb by means of and he
created ().5
The effect of this translation on Targum Onqelos and Targum Neofiti is strik-
ing: all reference to the formation or fashioning of Adam disappears from the
verse they are expounding. As we shall see, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan manages
to retain a particular aspect of the original Hebrew , but not before he too
has insisted that God created Adam. One reasonable explanation of this state
of affairs would be the Targumists desire to present Scripture and Gods activi-
ties as consistent: since Gen 1 tells how God created everything, Gen 2:7, with its
talk of the formation or fashioning of Adam, does not contradict Gen 1, but must
be regarded as another way of speaking about Gods creative power. This was
no doubt a powerful factor in the Targumists decision to translate as they did;
3 Cf. A. Berlin and M.Z. Brettler, eds., The Jewish Study Bible (Oxford 1999), 15, which has: The
Lord God formed man from the dust of the earth. He blew into his nostrils the breath of life,
and man became a living being.
4 See N. Sarna, The jps Torah Commentary Genesis ( Philadelphia 5749/1989), 17, where
he alludes to similar ancient Egyptian, Mesopotamian, and Greek accounts of mans origins
from the earth and his being moulded and fashioned by the gods. The formation or mould-
ing of the first human being is not neglected by Jewish tradition: lxx, Aquila, Symmachus,
Theodotion, and the Vulgate versions all interpret Gen 2:7 as meaning that God fashioned
Adam; and human formation from clay is explicitly mentioned at Isa 64:7; Job 33:6. Note also
the description of Adam as the protoplast at, e.g., Wis 7:1; 10:1; l.a.b. 13:8; 26:5; 32:15; 37:3.
5 See the appendix for a translation of the targumim on Gen 2:7.
156 hayward
but Targum Onqelos and Targum NeofitiTargum Pseudo-Jonathan remains for

the moment a special casemay have been addressing additional difficulties
which could be seen as implicit in the Hebrew wording of Gen 2:7.
During the later Second Temple period, some Jews at least had tended to
read Gen 2:7 as describing not only humanitys creaturely status, but also
its moral weakness and disposition to depraved behaviour. This tendency is
particularly marked, for example, in some of the Qumran Hodayot, where
imagery derived from Gen 2:7 is used to emphasise the poets proclivity towards
sin and weakness. There we encounter the expression ( e.g., 1qha
ix, 21; xi, 2324) or simply ( e.g., 1qha iii, 7, with restoration of the
second word; 1qha xii, 29), formation, fashioning of clay, which underscores
the poets inadequacies and failings. Thus at 1qha ix, 2123, the writer speaks
of himself as a formation of clay, who is moulded with water, a foundation
of shame, a source of pollution, a crucible of iniquity, an edifice of sin, and
an erring and perverted spirit without knowledge.6 1qha xii, 2930 declares
that the formation of clay is in iniquity from the womb, and until old age is
in treacherous guilt. Closely related to this phrase, and again clearly recalling
Gen 2:7, is the expression edifice of dust ( ) used in 1qha v, 21 to
describe one born of woman, who is also kneaded with water (;
see also 1qha ix, 22 for the description edifice of water [)] . This
creature is also possessed of a foundation of disgraceful shame, pollution, and
a perverted spirit.7 The overwhelmingly negative character of the formation
of clay is starkly presented: the precise significance of particular descriptive
details may be matters for debate, but there is no escaping the generally harsh
judgment they pass on the composition of the human creature.8 Small wonder,
6 Quotations from the Hodayot are taken from F. Garca Martnez and E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The
Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition i, (1q14q273) (Leiden 1997). Translations are mine. In the case
of 1qha ix, 22, the expressions and , translated above as foundation of
shame and source of pollution respectively, have strong connotations of sexual immorality.
For the biblical background to these expressions, see M. Mansoor, The Thanksgiving Hymns
(stdj 3; Leiden 1961), 101.
7 The text of 1qha v, 21 has two lacunae which do not seriously obscure the general sense
of the lines: see Garca Martnez and Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition i, (1q1
4q273), 150151. The words and , however, are perfectly legible and
uncontested.
8 For studies in the anthropology presented by the Dead Sea texts, see particularly H. Lichten-
berger, Studien zum Menschenbild in Texten der Qumrangemeinde (sunt 15; Gtersloh 1980);
H. Ringgren, The Faith of Qumran: The Theology of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Philadelphia 1963),
94104; and the perceptive observations of C. Newsom, The Self As Symbolic Space: Construct-
ing Identity and Community at Qumran (stdj 52; Leiden 2004).
then, that documents from Qumran sometimes called sectarian,9 of which

1qha is a representative, identify very specific human sources and effects of
impurity which differ quite significantly from those defined in the earliest
rabbinic texts.10 Harrington remarks that the writer of the Hodayot regards the
human being as inherently impure, always requiring purification by the holy
spirit as well as by ritual means.11 There were reasons enough, therefore, for
the Targumim to take particular care over their rendering of Gen 2:7 which, as
we have seen, provided at least one non-rabbinic Jewish group with the means
of constructing a model of humanity quite unlike anything envisaged by the
sages.
One well known rabbinic interpretation of the opening words of Gen 2:7 is,
indeed, provided by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the verse, which reads: And
the Lord God created Adam with two inclinations () . This gives us
a double interpretation of the Hebrew , first as create, and then with
two inclinations. By this means, is not only defused of any awkward
connotations it may have suggested, but is also brought safely within the
boundaries of rabbinic thought. The Targumist offers no explanation of the
two inclinations: the hearer or reader of the Targum is assumed to be familiar
with a well known rabbinic idea which the sages derived from this very verse,
the double writing of the letter yod in being taken to indicate the two
yetsers, the good and bad inclinations in the human person.12 They would
9 What might constitute a sectarian text from the Qumran corpus of writings is the sub-
ject of continuing debate and disagreement. For a convenient account, see the judicious
remarks of C. Hempel, Kriterien zur Bestimmung essenischer Verfasserschaft von Qum-
rantexten, in Qumran Kontrovers: Beitrge zu den Textfunden vom Toten Meer (ed. J. Frey
and H. Stegemann; Paderborn 2003), 7185.
10 See J. Klawans, Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism (Oxford 2000), 6791; H.K. Harrington,
The Purity Texts (cqs 5; London 2004).
11 See Harrington, Purity Texts, 5455, where she associates with statements from the
Hodayot passages from the Rule of the Community such as 1qs iii, 78, 1119.
12 The notion of the two yetsers is found in classic texts such as m. Ber. 9:5; b. Sanh. 61a; Gen.
Rab. 14:4; and other rabbinic sources. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan refers explicitly to the good
and the evil yetser at Deut 30:6, and to the evil yetser at Exod 32:22; Deut 17:3. Note also the
expression the yetser of the heart in Tg. Ps.-J., Exod 14:8; Deut 5:29, out of several examples
which could be cited. The most informative accounts of the two yetsers remain those
of Schechter (S. Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology [New York 1961], 242292) and
Urbach (E.E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs [2 vols.; Jerusalem 1979], 1:471
483). These should now be considered, however, in light of I. Rosen-Zvi, Two Rabbinic
Inclinations?: Rethinking a Scholarly Dogma, jsj 39 (2008): 513539. Although Rosen-
Zvi (pp. 526531) characterizes the notion of two inclinations as marginal in rabbinic
158 hayward
also presumably be expected to know that the bad inclination or yetser, like
everything else God had created, was very good, as is clearly stated in Gen. Rab.
9:7; Qoh. Rab. 3:11. At the same time as referring implicitly to this duality of
good and evil inclinations, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has pointed to the notion
of multiplicity in the composition of Adam, a concern with numbers which will
be accentuated as the Targum pushes forward with a lengthy expansion of Gen
2:7. The two inclinations, whose meaning Targum Pseudo-Jonathan takes for
granted, will serve presently to introduce other aspects of the creation of Adam,
aspects which humanity does not share with the animals.13
The medium of Adams creation was dust of the ground. The Hebrew of this
phrase ( ) is somewhat ambiguous: does it mean dust from ground
generally, any dust from any place; or does the defined noun refer to
particular dust? Targum Neofiti seems unconcerned about this, and follows
the Hebrew very closely by using the Aramaic cognate word to trans-
late its Hebrew counterpart.14 Targum Onqelos, however, renders ground with
( the land) and thereby allows the reader to envisage either land in
general, or the land, that is, the land of Israel, in particular. Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan exploits the relative vagueness of the Hebrew by taking up both
understandings implicit in Targum Onqeloss version, and declares: and he
took the dust from the place of the sanctuary and from the four winds of the
world. According to this Targum, therefore, Adams dust was collected by the
Creator from the place of the Jerusalem temple, and from the north, south, east,
and west, that is, from five separate locations. Schmerlers suggestion, that Tar-
gum Pseudo-Jonathan had arrived at this interpretation by taking the definite
literature generally, he convincingly argues that it is a specifically rabbinic idea, and that
scholarly attempts to discover its direct antecedents in texts like the Qumran Rule of the
Community and the Testament of Asher require such considerable qualification as to be
unconvincing. It should be noted that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan does not directly allude
to other explanations of the two letters yod in given in Gen. Rab. 14, which include
the notion of Adams creation with two prosopa; and two formations, one from the lower
world and one from the upper, or one for this world and one for the world to come. Some
aspects of these other interpretations may be glimpsed, perhaps, in the overall expansion
of Gen 2:7 which Targum Pseudo-Jonathan sets forth.
13 The fact that the animals do not possess two yetsers, and the implications of this, is
explicitly discussed at Gen. Rab. 14:4. The view of the evil yetser commonly held by many
modern researchers, that it represents a sexual impulse in human beings which is often
difficult to control is discussed and cogently criticised by I. Rosen-Zvi, Sexualising the Evil
Inclination: Rabbinic yetzer and Modern Scholarship, jjs 60 (2009): 254281.
14 The same procedure is followed by the Syriac Peshitta at this point.
article letter he of the Hebrew as the numeral five is entirely likely and,
as we shall see, has much to commend it.15
In other rabbinic texts we find both these views, but separately recorded in
different sources. Thus the dust of Adams creation came from the place of the
altar, according to a statement of R. Judah b. Pazzi in y. Naz. 7.2.56b. This sage
notes that Adam was created from , the exact material out of which God
commands that an altar of earth be made for him (Exod 20:24). Thus Adam
was created from stuff of the place where the sins of his descendants would
be purged, a point made explicit also by Rabbis Berekiah and Helbo in Gen.
Rab. 14:8. It is true that this haggadah from the Jerusalem Talmud undoubtedly
bears a family resemblance to Targum Pseudo-Jonathans words; but it does not
correspond exactly to the Targums insistence that Adams dust came from the
sanctuary. Both the Targum and the Talmud agree on one mightily important
issue: at least a part of Adams physical composition was, by definition, holy.
The Targum may imply something more, for if some of Adams dust was taken
from the sanctuary rather than the place of the altar, might it not have been
gathered from the holy of holies itself? This particular implication is excluded
in the Jerusalem Talmud; but for Targum Pseudo-Jonathan it might assume
great weight if this Targum was concerned to combat gnostic or dualistic
conceptions of Adams physical creation from the earth, a material substance
of low quality and quite possibly the dwelling place of evil. Both Targum and
Talmud would agree, however, that the Jerusalem temple is a single, unique
place: it is the one place where the one God, the God of Israel, promised that
he would place his name, which is one. Dust from either altar or from temple,
therefore, would imply also a specifically Jewish element in Adams physical
make-up.16
15 Schmerler made this suggestion in B. Schmerler, ( Bilgoraj 1932), which was

not available to me; I owe the information to A. Shinan, The Aggadah in the Aramaic
Targums to the Pentateuch (2 vols.; Jerusalem 1979), 1:137 (Hebrew).
16 Levison (J.R. Levison, Portraits of Adam in Early Judaism [JSPSup 1; Sheffield 1988], 186)
remarks that Apoc. Mos. 40 indicates that the dust utilised for the creation of Adam had
come from the place of paradise. If paradise be construed as the garden of Eden, then
the Apocalypse of Moses may well suggest that Adams dust was taken from the place of
the temple, since Eden may be identified as the site of the temple. See Jub. 4:26; 8:19;
and similar notions in 1 En. 26:1. For a detailed account of Jewish, Christian, and Muslim
sources which indicate the various places from where the Almighty collected Adams dust,
see V. Aptowitzer, Zur Erklrung einiger merkwrdiger Agadoth ber die Schpfung des
Mensches, in Festkrift i anledning af professor David Simonsens 70-aarige fdslesdag (ed.
J. Fischer, A. Freimann, and J. Guttmann; Kbenhavn 1923), 112, 121122.
160 hayward
At the same time, says Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Creator took dust from
the four winds of the world, which, unlike the temple dust, would be unconse-
crated.17 This view is represented in some manner also in other rabbinic texts
like b. Sanh. 38ab; Pirqe R. El. 11; Tanh. 3. It must be carefully noted,
however, that these sources do not offer an exact copy of what Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan tells us; we shall say more about this later.18 The collection of dust
from the cardinal points of the compass testifies to the universal character of
Adams composition, a matter to which Targum Pseudo-Jonathan will return.
Inevitably, some students of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan have discerned here an
internal contradiction in the Targum, which seems to depict Adam now as an
Israelite, now as an everyman, a prototype of universal humanity, with the
Targum placing the emphasis on the latter.19 Shinan, however, has argued con-
vincingly that internal contradiction is not a factor here, since Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan is adopting a course of action, well represented in other parts of the
Targum which he duly notes, to exploit to the full the potential of the scriptural
verse being translated.20 In any event, we have a responsibility to attempt to
make sense of the text of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan as it stands in its final form,
whatever putative sources may theoretically lie behind it. In truth, its message
is clear, that the physical composition of Adam Rishon was of unconsecrated
dust mixed with holy dust, possibly dust whose holiness was of the highest pos-
sible quality. This message parallels neatly the Targums observation about the
two yetsers: Adams two inclinations go hand in hand with two kinds of dust,
17 Maher (M. Maher, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis: Translated, with Introduction and
Notes [ArBib 1b; Edinburgh 1992], 22) notes 2 En. 30:13 and Sib. Or. 3.2426 as recording
Gods creation of Adam out of four letters representing north, south, east, and west. See
also R. le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque i, Gense (sc 245; Paris 1978), 8485; and below,
n. 25.
18 See below. Throughout, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan seems intent on setting forth a distinc-
tive and carefully considered account of Adams formation which is consistent in its own
terms. Shinans insight (see below, n. 19) that the identification of sources for Targum
Pseudo-Jonathans haggadah in this instance yields only limited results for an apprecia-
tion of the overall meaning and force of the Targums words seems entirely correct.
19 See particularly E. Levene, Contradictory Sources in Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel, Sinai
33 (1968): 3638 (Hebrew). Ginzberg (L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews [7 vols.; Philadel-
phia 57275728/19671968], 5:7273) offers a comprehensive survey of traditions about
the sources of Adams dust, and concludes that the older sources spoke of Adams dust
as taken from different parts of the earth, while later sources locate his dust and forma-
tion in Jerusalem.
20 See Shinan, Aggadah, 1:136138; A. Shinan, The Embroidered Targum: The Aggadah in
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem 1992), 8687 (Hebrew).
holy and unconsecrated, to make up this unique creature.21 While it would be

exceeding the evidence to suggest that the Targums words represent polemic
against a particular group of people, no-one who held views about Adams dust
of the sort we encountered in the Hodayot, or gnostics who denigrated the
human body as hopelessly implicated in evil, or anyone of the Manichaen per-
suasion, would have found the words of this Targum acceptable.22
A distinctly positive estimate of Adams human composition is what Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan wishes to convey; and the Targum reinforces this with its
next observation, which belongs logically with the mention of the types of
dust involved, that Adam was a mixture ( )from all the waters of the
world.23 Once more the universal character of Adams composition is asserted,
although this specific notion is not attested in other rabbinic sources.24 What
is of particular interest, however, is the fact that the Aramaic verb signifies
to knead, mould, and is used time and again by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to
describe the kneading or mingling of substances used in the temple service.
For example, Exod 29:40 requires the offering of fine flour kneaded ( )with
beaten oil to accompany the Tamid lamb: Targum Pseudo-Jonathan took this
to mean that the flour must be with the oil. Indeed, Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan uses the verbal stem on some 32 occasions, and no fewer than
27 of these occur in the legislation for the priests. To describe the mixture of
Adams substances he does not use , a common verb which, intriguingly, the
21 While some statements in Qumran texts noted above directly juxtapose the physical
composition of the human being, expressed by means of the noun , with human
sinfulness and weakness, this is not the case in rabbinic texts. As Rosen-Zvi makes plain
(Rosen-Zvi, Two Rabbinic Inclinations?, 529), the yetser in rabbinic thought represents
a reified object; he does not, however, comment on the yetsers intimate involvement in
the Hodayot with the physical formation of humanity, which lies outside his concerns in
that essay.
22 For the polemical character of Targum Pseudo-Jonathans interpretation of Gen 2:7 and
traditions related to it, see Aptowitzer, Zur Erklrung, 113114.
23 The single ms and the printed editions of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan read the noun ,
which would require a translation as follows: And he took dust from the place of the
sanctuary and from the four winds of the world, and (he took) a mixture from all the waters
of the world. On this point, see Shinan, Embroidered Targum, 86.
24 So Schmerler, , 23 as noted by Shinan, Aggadah, 1:187. See also M.M. Brayer,
The Pentateuchal Targum Attributed to Jonathan ben UzzielA Source for Unknown
Midrashim, in The Abraham Weiss Jubilee Volume (ed. M.S. Feldblum; New York 1964), 201
231, for the present reference 207 (Hebrew). Shinan (Shinan, Aggadah, 1:136137) notes
a partial parallel to this idea in the Syriac Cave of Treasures. See also Aptowitzer, Zur
Erklrung, 122.
162 hayward
translators of the Peshitta employed to render the opening of mt Gen 2:7,

but rather a word heavily associated with the priestly service of the temple. One
possible reason for this choice of vocabulary is not difficult to discover, because
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan regarded Adam as a priest: the Targum informs us
that he had built an altar after he was expelled from Eden, and that Cain
and Abel had later sacrificed on it.25 In his physical composition, it would
seem, Adam has been kneaded by his Creator in much the same way as the
later priests would mix together the holy offerings in the temple service. This
somewhat broad hint of a priestly character for Adam will be developed further
in this Targum, as we shall see presently.
This is not given to us, however, until Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has made
one final observation about the dust from the ground out of which God cre-
ated Adam: and he created him as red, black, and white. Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 11
is often cited as a parallel to the Targums words at this point; in reality, how-
ever, that midrash differs substantially from what we find in Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan, in that it lists four distinct colours, not of human beings, but of the
different kinds of dust from which Adam was himself created.26 The Targum,
by contrast, appears to have in mind the skin colours of the various races of
humankind, and to wish to indicate that all these varied groups have a single,
common ancestor.27 The original unity of humanity is very much to the fore in
this Targums lengthy description of Adams physical composition: in this one
creature, two yetsers, three colours, four kinds of unconsecrated dust, and one
kind of holy dust are all combined. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is now ready to
expound the next segment of the Hebrew text about Adam, the note that the
Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.
We must first glance briefly at Targum Onqelos and Targum Neofiti, which
translate this phrase in a fairly straightforward manner. Targum Onqelos, in-
25 So Tg. Ps.-J., Gen 8:22. See also Gen. Rab. 34:9, which specifies that it was the great altar
which is in Jerusalem. Adam was certainly viewed as priest by the book of Jubilees, which
records his offering of incense on the day he left Eden ( Jub. 3:27). See further Levison,
Portraits, 95.
26 See M. Prez Fernndez, Los Captulos de Rabb Eliezer (Valencia 1984), 109 for brief
discussion. Note particularly his observation on the Greek form of Adams name and its
interpretation in some texts as an acrostic, yielding the first letters of the Greek words for
east, west, north, and south. Targum Pseudo-Jonathans haggadah will not fit this scheme,
nor does it cohere with Pirqe Rabbi Eliezers statement that the dust of the first man was
of four colours, red, black, white, and green: the red composing his blood, the black his
entrails, the white his sinews, and the green his body.
27 On this point, see J. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature (Cambridge 1969), 117,
citing m. Sanh. 4:5.
deed, uses Aramaic words cognate with the original Hebrew (

)to yield .28 This Aramaic translation possibly pre-
serves an ambiguity of the Hebrew, where may be translated either as
into his nostrils or into his face. Targum Neofiti and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
eliminate this uncertainty by translating the words as into his nostrils.29 Oth-
erwise, all the Targumim remain fairly close to the original Hebrew at this point.
The last four words of Gen 2:7 in Hebrew ( ) are usually
translated into English as and the man became a living being. For the Tar-
gumists, this presented an obvious difficulty: the Hebrew phrase had
already been used at Gen 1:21, 24, 30 with reference to animals. Here, it is directly
associated with the breath of life which God breathes into Adam. No such
breath is recorded as having been granted to the animals; so what might be the
difference between the living being which Adam becomes with the breath of
life, and the animals which are apparently granted no such thing? Only one Tar-
gum, Fragment Targum according to ms Vatican, translated the Hebrew without
embellishment.30 All the others in one way or another understood this phrase
to refer to Adams ability to speak. Closest to the Hebrew is Targum Neofiti,
which states: and Adam became a living being, one speaking.31 Both these
Targumim preserve in their Aramaic the noun cognate with the Hebrew ,
here translated as being, but often rendered as soul. Targum Onqelos, having
up to this point remained very close to the Hebrew, now offers what, for this
Targum, is quite a sharp divergence from the biblical text, informing us and it
[i.e., the breath of life] became in Adam a speaking spirit. Here, the Targum
has altered the structure of the Hebrew sentence to make its point: the breath
of life becomes the subject of the sentence, and is said to become within Adam
28 Similar to Targum Onqelos is a marginal gloss of Targum Neofiti, which reads

.
29 For Hebrew as meaning face on certain occasions, see F. Brown, S.R. Driver, and
C.A. Briggs, , bdb 60, where the expression bow ones face to the ground is noted.
The Septuagint translated this segment with the clause and he breathed into his face the
breath of life, whereas Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion all represent the Creator as
breathing into Adams nostrils. See J. Wevers, Notes on the Greek Text of Genesis (scs 35;
Atlanta 1993), 25; M. Harl, La Bible dAlexandrie i, La Gense (Paris 1994), 101.
30 The Aramaic reads , which Klein (Klein, The Fragment-Targums of the
Pentateuch, 2:90) translates as And Adam became a living being.
31 Targum Neofitis Aramaic is very similar to that of Fragment Targum of ms Vatican 440, with
the addition, at the end of the clause, of the participle ( speaking). McNamara
(M. McNamara, Targum Neofiti i, Genesis Translated, with Apparatus and Notes [ArBib 1a;
Edinburgh 1992], 57) translates as and Adam became a living being endowed with speech.
164 hayward
a speaking spirit. The Hebrew , which we have noted may also be trans-
lated as soul, is taken by Targum Onqelos as meaning spirit in this context.32
No doubt Targum Onqelos had in mind Gen 7:22, which mentions everything
in which was the breath of the spirit of life.33 This scriptural clause might go
some way towards explaining in general terms the translational tactics of Tar-
gum Onqelos, but it does not deal with the particular matter of the speaking
spirit. Indeed, this may be one of those many occasions when Targum Onqelos
cannot be fully comprehended without reference to Targum Pseudo-Jonathan,
which alters the Hebrew in exactly the same way as Targum Onqelos, and offers
further information.34 It reads: and the breath in the body of Adam35 became a
speaking spirit, for enlightenment of the eyes and for making the ears attentive
to hear.
Both Targum Onqelos and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, therefore, envisage the
breath of life as being in Adam and becoming a speaking spirit. What might
be the rationale behind this exegesis of the Hebrew? Central to the thinking of
the Targunists at this point will have been other passages of Scripture which
juxtapose spirit along with breath, dust, or life. They would have found
no difficulty in introducing spirit into their interpretations of Gen 2:7, since
in addition to Gen 7:22 (as already noted) they would have found in Job 27:3
the statement as long as my breath is in me, and the spirit of God in my
nostrils, which is followed by a reference to speech: my lips shall not speak
32 Unlike Fragment Targum of ms Vatican 440 and Targum Neofiti, both Targum Onqelos and
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan dispense with the Aramaic cognate of this word. We should note
that Gen. Rab. 14:11 states that is one of five expressions which refer to the same thing,
the others being spirit, breath, unique one, and life. For all the Targumim, what
transforms Adams dust into something living is the divine breath.
33 Targum Onqelos, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Targum Neofiti of this verse offer very close
translations of the Hebrew phrase; a marginal gloss of Targum Neofiti, however, reads
everything in which was of life, in its nostrils.
34 For an informative discussion about the complex relationship between Targum Onqe-
los and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, especially in the matter of haggadic information, see
G. Vermes, Haggadah in the Onkelos Targum, in Post-Biblical Jewish Studies (Leiden 1975),
127138; G.J. Kuiper, The Pseudo-Jonathan Targum and Its Relationship to Targum Onkelos
(SEAug 9; Rome 1972); R. le Daut, Introduction la littrature targumique (Rome 1988),
98101.
35 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan merely refers in passing to the of Adam, and says nothing
directly about his having been first fashioned as a golem. This may be implied in what the
Targum reports, but it is not essential to the understanding of Targum Pseudo-Jonathans
words. For the initial creation of Adam as golem, see Gen. Rab. 14:10, and sources listed by
Aptowitzer, Zur Erklrung, 122123.
injustice (Job 27:4).36 From the prophetic writings, they would recall Zech
12:1, which describes the Lord as ( and forming the spirit
of Adam in the midst of him).37 King David had also stated explicitly that
the spirit of the Lord spoke in him, and that Gods word ( )was upon his
tongue.38 Post-biblical Jewish works also speak of spirit as having a central
role in Adams composition: writings like Wis 15:11 and Josephus, a.j. 1.34 come
to mind, but they do not suggest that the spirit had any role in speech.39 In
the case of the Wisdom of Solomon writer, however, the spirit of God is promi-
nently associated with divine wisdom, whose role in enlightenment needs no
discussion. Perhaps Targum Pseudo-Jonathan felt that mention of a speaking
spirit would allow the reader to make the implicit connection with wisdom
and its power to enlighten Adams vision and hearing. The classical midrashim,
too, declare that God implanted speech in Adam: according to Gen. Rab. 14:4
this was one of the four attributes which Adam shared with the creatures of
the upper world.
The targumic references to the speaking spirit in Adam, however, may ulti-
mately be most closely indebted to certain rabbinic interpretations of Ps 139. It
will be recalled that a passage from b. Sanh. 38ab was noted earlier as inform-
ing us that the dust used in the composition of Adam came from different parts
of the world. To R. Meir, the Talmud ascribes the view that Adams dust came
from all parts of the earth: two scriptural texts are offered as proof, the first of
36 See also Job 33:4: The spirit of God made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.
The Qumran 1qha ix, 2728 represent the Almighty as one who has created a spirit on the
tongue of human beings, specifically (in this instance) to recount Gods praises and just
judgments. This text, however, does not employ the phrase speaking spirit, and does not
refer to the breath of life nor, indeed, to any other species of breath. It also appears directly
to indicate that God has foreknowledge of human speech (
) , a notion not expressed in the Targumim. Mansoor
(Mansoor, Thanksgiving Hymns, 102) compares a similar idea found in 1 En. 84:1, which
Nickelsburg (G.W.E. Nickelsburg, 1 Enoch i, A Commentary on the Book of 1Enoch, Chapters
136; 81108 [Hermeneia; Minneapolis 2001], 345) translates as follows: And I spoke with
the breath of my mouth and with a tongue of flesh, which God has made for the sons of the
flesh of man, that they might speak with it. (And he has given them breath and tongue and
mouth that they might speak with it). Nickelsburg (Nickelsburg, 1Enoch i, A Commentary
on the Book of 1Enoch, Chapters 136; 81108, 352) also draws attention to 1 En. 14:12; 1Cor
13:1; Sir 51:22, none of which, however, uses the language of the Aramaic Targumim.
37 This text is cited at Gen. Rab. 14:4.
38 2Sam 23:2, which reads .
39 Discussion of these two texts, and their possible affinities with ideas well known in
contemporary Greek philosophy, can be found in Levison, Portraits, 5354, 102103.
166 hayward
which is Ps 139:16 (Your eyes saw )and the second Zech 4:10. R. Oshaiah
then declares in Ravs name that four constituent parts of Adams body came
from four different places. The crucial point for our purposes is that Ps 139 is
interpreted here as referring to Adam; and that the verse cited could be con-
strued, and indeed was construed, as though Adam were the speaker.40 Sure
enough, further on in the sugya, we hear that Rav Judah stated in the name of
Rav that Adam Rishon spoke Aramaic, and for proof of that statement he gives
Ps 139:17, another saying couched in the first person singular which reads
. The speaker is once again said to be Adam, who is declaring: how
glorious are thy thoughts to me! Ravs view is evidently that Adam wanted at
least the last two words of this sentence to be understood as Aramaic rather
than Hebrew. For those whose business it was to provide Aramaic Targum for
the Hebrew Bible, this rabbinic opinion, which grants a certain cachet for the
Aramaic language, must have been of some moment. Thus if we examine Ps 139
with this information in mind, we find that the first person governing voice of
the text has indicated right at the start of his poem that the Lord has under-
stood from afar off (Ps 139:2). This word might look as if it were an Aramaic
form, with the object marker followed by the term which will be used again
in v. 17, but here with a first person singular suffix, meaning my thought. Two
verses later, the poet remarks that there is no ( word) on his tongue that
the Lord does not know. While is certainly part of Classical Hebrew poetic
vocabulary, it is also extremely common in Aramaic.41
In addition, the poet is conscious that God has fashioned him (;
Ps 139:5), a process which is later (at v. 15) described in somewhat obscure terms
as involving his being made in secret, this idea being expressed in parallelism
with the defining sentence ( I was variegated in the lower
parts of the earth). The first word here is a Pual form of a verb meaning to
variegate, and could most naturally be understood to mean that the poet was
compounded of various substances and colours. Outside Ps 139:15, the verb
is found only in the book of Exodus, where it describes the weaving together
40 According to b. B. Bat. 14b, although David composed the Psalms as a whole, this verse was
specially composed by Adam. Although several rabbinic texts credit Adam with having
uttered this Psalm or verses within it, such a view was by no means universal. Thus the
Targum of Psalms is very careful to ascribe the whole composition to David. See D. Stec,
The Targum of Psalms Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib
16; London 2004), 232234. Rashi was able to comment on this Psalm without a single
direct reference to Adam. See M.I. Gruber, Rashis Commentary on Psalms (Leiden 2002),
732738.
41 For its use in Hebrew, see, e.g., Ps 19:5; Job 13:17; 21:2; 24:25, and often in this latter book.
of materials of different colours for use in the sanctuary.42 The fashioning

the poet mentioned in v. 5 could also easily suggest that he was formed from
cardinal points of the compass, for he has been made , words usually
rendered behind and before, but which can equally well mean west and east.
More might be said, but it seems clear that much of what Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan has to tell us in his detailed interpretation of Gen 2:7 might owe a
good deal to Ps 139 understood, as some rabbinic authorities understood it,
as a psalm about Adam, even to the extent that Adam himself uttered at least
some words of it, if not the whole composition. The speaking spirit which God
placed into Adam seems to have been derived by the Targumists, therefore,
at least in large part, from their reading of Ps 139. As such, this speaking
spirit addresses the Almighty and ponders Gods wonders: not least, he is
overwhelmingly conscious of God as light (Ps 139:1112); accordingly, Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan explains that the speaking spirit in Adam is for illumination
of eyes. It is also for attentiveness of ears, implying that Adam is ready to
do Gods bidding. And here, inevitably, the reader encounters an irony; for
the illumination of eyes and attentiveness of ears which Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan attributes to the speaking spirit breathed by God into Adams body
turn out to be faculties he does not use to best effect. Endowed with such
privileges, he still fails to obey the divine command, and is sent out from Eden.
We may summarize the exegetical endeavours of the several Targumim as
follows.
1. Fragment Targum of ms Vatican 440 is tantalisingly brief, but serves to remind

the Meturgeman of the more or less exact wording of the final Hebrew words
of Gen 2:7. Why it should feel called upon to act in this way is not a question
we can answer, given Fragment Targum of ms Vatican 440s terseness; but this
Targum might have been aware of dangers in publishing too freely the notion
that Adam had within him a speaking spirit of divine origin. It might, therefore,
have been concerned to warn against too elevated a view of Adam.
42 Thus it is used with reference to the screen at the door of the tent of meeting (Exod 26:36;
36:37); for the screen at the gate of the court (Exod 38:18); the weaving of the various
colours in certain of the high priestly vestments (Exod 28:39; 39:29); and in discussion
of those craftsmen entrusted with the sacred tasks (Exod 35:35; 38:23). Outside this one
occurrence in Ps 139, therefore, the word occurs entirely in settings referring to the
sanctuary and its holiness. The cognate noun , however, is used, particularly by
Ezekiel, to refer to matters which are anything but sacred. See Ezek 16:10, 13, 18; 27:7, 16,
24.
168 hayward
2. Targum Onqelos, Targum Neofiti, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan insist that

God created Adam. They further insist that Gods breath within him became
a speaking spirit. Adam was thus composed of both earthly and heavenly
material. Targum Onqelos further implies, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan openly
declares, that some of the earth used in his creation was holy. Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan seems also to envisage an analogy between Gods mixing the dust and
water which make up Adams body and the mixture of holy substances by the
priests in the temple service. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan certainly, and Targum
Onqelos possibly, might prove helpful in combating gnostic, Manichaen, or
other dualistic-style notions about the low-grade quality of Adams formation.
In particular, Targum Pseudo-Jonathans expansive interpretation of the verse
stands in complete contrast to the picture of the human being presented in
the Hodayot from Qumran, in which the physical characteristics of humanity
are intimately associated with negative qualities like shame, iniquity, sin, and
pollution.
3. The speaking spirit which Targum Onqelos, Targum Neofiti, and Targum
Pseudo-Jonathan ascribe to Adam seems to be derived from the application of
scriptural verses from the Prophets and the Writings to Gen 2:7 in an attempt to
define what differentiated Adam as a living being from the animals as living
beings. It would seem that Ps 139 in particular played an important part in
the thinking of at least some rabbis about the nature of Adams formation; and
the interpretation of that Psalm in some talmudic passages noted in this essay
serves to emphasise the close affinities of the Targumim with other rabbinic
texts.
4. Individual constituent elements of Targum Pseudo-Jonathans interpretation

of Gen 2:7 in particular seem remarkably in tune with several other statements
in Ps 139, once these are understood as having been uttered by Adam himself.
To this extent, the speaking spirit makes of Adam an inspired author of (part
of) a scriptural text, if we follow the thinking of those rabbis who associated
this Psalm so closely with the first human being. The composition of Adams
physical form as represented by Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Gen 2:7 may include
not only a careful and sustained exegesis of individual verses from Ps 139 as
referring to Adams constitution, but also the use of priestly traditions, to which
this Targum is no stranger.43
43 For a recent exhaustive survey of the extensive, even pervasive priestly contents and char-
acter of much information provided by this Targum, see B.P. Mortensen, The Priesthood in
Certainly Targum Onqelos, Targum Neofiti, and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan could

be taken to imply that the first Adam was, in the literal sense of the word,
inspired. Whether the Targumists themselves thought of him as a prophet,
however, is by no means clear; and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan especially paves
the way for intimations of Adams disobedience in designating the speaking
spirit as given for illumination of eyes. A little later in the Genesis narrative,
this Targum will inform us that Eve looked at the tree of life, saw that it was a
cure for the light of the eyes, and under Sammaels evil influence, decided to
eat from it.44 The consequences of her act need no comment. Others, knowing
the Targumim, may have concluded that Adams speaking spirit had indeed
made him a prophet, and that without the prophetic spirit human beings were
inadequate. Such seem to have been the views of the Montanists, who would
no doubt have found the targumic versions of Gen 2:7 much to their tastes; but
that, as they say, is another story.45 Enough has been said here to demonstrate
the remarkable exegetical ability of the Targumists, and the rich resources
which they provide for the student of Hebrew Scripture.
Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Renewing the Profession (2 vols.; sais 4; Leiden 2006). For the
possible origin of some of this information in late Second Temple and Tannaitic times,
see A. Bchler, Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des jerusalemischen Tempels
(Vienna 1895), 151159. And for the likely preservation by this Targum of halakah relating to
priestly matters which dates from before the fall of the temple, see J.M. Baumgarten, The
Laws of orlah and First Fruits in the Light of Jubilees, the Qumran Writings, and Targum
Ps.Jonathan, jjs 38 (1987): 195202.
44 See Tg. Ps.-J., Gen 3:6, which declares: And the woman saw Sammael, the angel of death;
and she was afraid, and she knew that the tree was good to eat, and that it was a healing
for the light of the eyes, and that the tree was desirable so that one might become wise
by means of it. So she took from its fruit, and ate, and gave it also to her husband with
her; and he ate. For further information on this verse, see Shinan, Aggadah, 2:272273;
Bowker, Targums, 125126; le Daut, Targum du Pentateuque i, Gense, 91.
45 The possibility that Montanism in its origins was influenced by Judaism is explored by
J. Massingberd Ford, Was Montanism a Jewish-Christian Heresy?, jeh 17 (1966): 145158,
and is discussed further by C. Trevett, Apocalypse, Ignatius, Montanus: Seeking the Seeds,
vc 43 (1989): 313338. Certainly the Montanists were concerned to present Adam as a
prophet, and the second chapter of Genesis proved crucial for their purposes. Genesis 2:21
reports that the Almighty had cast ( stupor) upon Adam, and the Septuagint had
interpreted this to signify ecstasy, which the Montanists understood to refer to prophetic
inspiration. See Tertullian, An. 2.21. For Jewish and early Christian interpretations of this
verse, see C.T.R. Hayward, Jeromes Hebrew Questions on Genesis: Translated with an
Introduction and Commentary (Oxford 1995), 111113.
170 hayward
Appendix: The Targumim of Gen 2:7, and selected verses of Ps 139 in

Translation
1. Targum Onkelos of Gen. 2:7, ed. A. Sperber, The Bible in Aramaic 1 (Leiden:
Brill, 1959).
And the Lord God created Adam (from) dust from the land/earth; and He
breathed into his face the breath of life, and it became in Adam a speaking
spirit.
2. Targum Neofiti of Gen. 2:7, ed. A. Dez Macho, Neophyti 1 Gnesis (Madrid-
Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientficas, 1968).
And the Lord God created Adam (from) dust from the ground; and He
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and Adam became a living being,
speaking.
3. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan of Gen. 2:7, ed. E.G. Clarke et al., Targum Pseudo-
Jonathan of the Pentateuch (Hoboken: Ktav, 1984).
And the Lord God created Adam with two inclinations; and He brought dust
from the place of the Sanctuary and from the four winds of heaven. And (He
made) a moulding from all the waters of the world, and created him as red,
black and white; and He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. And the
breath became in the body of Adam a speaking spirit for enlightenment of the
eyes and for attentiveness of the ears.
4. Fragment Targum ms Vatican Ebr. 440 of Gen. 2:7, ed. M. Klein, The Fragment-
Targums of the Pentateuch, vol. 1 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1980).
And Adam was a living being.
5. mt of Psalm 139 (selected verses)
(1) For the choir-master. Of David, a Song. O Lord, you have searched me
and known me. (2) You know my sitting down and my rising up: you have
understood from afar off my thought [ler]. (4) For there is not a word
[millh] on my tongue, but that you, O Lord, know it entirely. (5) You formed
me [tzartn] behind and before, and have laid the palm of your hand upon
me.
(15) My bone was not hidden from you when I was made in secrecy: I was
variegated [ruqqamt] in the lowest places of the earth. (16) Your eyes saw
my unformed state, and upon your book all of them were written: for days
they were formed [ yutzr] (17) And for me, how honourable are your
thoughts [reykh]. O God
Index of Ancient Sources
i Ancient Near Eastern Texts
Atrahasis Epic Epic of Gilgamesh

1.204212, 223233 1:3441 11n33
10n31 1.4.634 11n34
Enki and Ninmach Myth Kar4Myth

1.910 10n27 2426 11n36
Enuma Elish Zincirli (kai 214) 50

1 6
6.67 10
6.3536 10
ii Old Testament
Genesis 2:45 107

16 34 2:4 107n29
13 114 2:53:24 5
12 43, 100, 115 2:56 56, 54
1:12:3 41, 77, 155 2:5 7, 17, 23, 41, 107n29
1:131 107n28 2:6 7, 56, 108, 155
1:3 130 2:7 passim
1:45 77 2:8 41, 113
1:1112 19n9 2:9 5, 8, 41
1:11 66 2:1014 54, 108n31
1:12 66 2:14 41n16
1:20, 24 16 2:15 11, 17, 23, 41
1:21 21, 66 2:1617 9
1:22 16 2:16 41
1:24 21, 66, 109n33 2:18 9, 41, 108n31
1:25 66 2:19 5, 8, 17, 21, 41, 108n33
1:2627 17, 101, 102, 104, 105, 106, 2:21 41
109, 110, 114 2:22 9, 41
1:26 43, 70, 103, 104 2:23 9
1:27 11, 101n8 3 17, 34
1:28 16, 17, 25, 70 3:1 109n34
1:29 17, 19n9 3:18 107
23 73n54, 107, 109 3:16 17
2 12, 116 3:1719 17
2:17 116n50 3:17 5
2:16 109 3:19 1, 5, 8, 13, 46
2:1 44, 107, 108 3:2023 107
2:2 107 3:21 146
2:46 107 3:22 41
174 index of ancient sources
Genesis (cont.) Deuteronomy

3:23 5, 17 12:23 22
3:24 5 18:914 81n90
4:116 17
4:10 2 1 Samuel
4:2022 17 16:14 62
5:1 17
5:2124 29 2 Samuel
5:286:22 17 23:2 165n38
5:2832 29
5:29 17 1 Kings
6:14 18n3, 33 17 3
6:12, 4 18 17:17 3
6:2 25 17:22 3
6:3 17, 49
6:59:17 29 2 Kings
6:58:22 30 4:34 3
6:57, 1113 17 5:7 131
6:67 34
7:15 4 1 Chronicles
7:21 4 11:19 23
7:22 4, 164
9:117 33, 34 Nehemiah
9:1 16, 25 9:6 131
9:45 22 9:17 73n57
9:7 16, 25
9:11 33 Job
12:1 150 2:9 120
28:14 46 7:15 (lxx) 48
13:17 166n41
Exodus 14:14 49
26:36 167n42 16:18 2
28:39 167n42 19:2526 49
29:40 161 27:3 164
34:6 73n57 27:4 165
35:35 167n42 32:8 9
36:37 167n42 33:4 165
38:18 167n42 33:6 155n4
38:23 167n42 34:1415 4, 73
39:29 167n42 34:14 72,n54
36:27 7
Leviticus 38:8 124
19:11 22
Psalms
Numbers 8:7 70
14:18 73n57 19:5 166n41
21:2 166n41
22:2728 27
22:27 28
index of ancient sources 175
24:25 166n41 21:16 7n21

33:9 130 26:19 49
47:8 27 42:14 8
49:8 1 45:7 78
51 69, 87 45:9 7n21
63:24 27 45:1415 27
71:20 (lxx 70:20) 131 45:14 28
73:26 1 60 27
86:9 27, 28 60:5 28
86:15 73n57 60:11 28
102:15 27 63:3, 6 23n21
103:8 73n57 63:11 72, 74
104:27, 2930 3 64:7 7, 155n4
106:38 23 65:1725 33
117:1 27 66:1823 27
139 165, 166, 167, 168, 170 66:2223 33
139:2 166 66:23 28
139:5 166, 167
139:1112 167 Jeremiah
139:15 166 2:34 23
139:16 166 15:15 73n57
139:17 166 16:19 27
145:8 73n57
Ezekiel
Proverbs 11:19 72n54
5:1518 14 16:10, 13, 18 167n42
14:29 73n57 27:7, 16, 24 167n42
15:18 73 36 12
15:33 83n99 36:18 23n21
16:32 73n57 36:2627 12
18:12 83n99 36:26 72n54
22:4 83n99 36:27 72n54
37 5, 12, 13, 15
Ecclesiastes 37:110 12
2:1416 13 37:2 12
3:1921 5, 13, 14, 15 37:3 12
3:21 13 37:5 12
9:5, 10 15 37:7 12
11:7 14 37:8 12
12 14, 15 37:9 12
12:17 14 37:14 12, 72
12:1 14
12:5 14, 15 Daniel
12:7 1, 5, 13, 14, 15 7:14 27
Isaiah Hosea
2:3 27, 28
18:7 27, 28 Joel
19:22 27 2:13 73n57
Jonah Zephaniah
4:2 73n57 2:3 83n99
Micah Zechariah
4:2 28 4:10 166
8:2023 27
Nahum 14:1621 27
1:3 73n57 14:1619 28
iii Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
Apocalypse of Moses 9:10 21n18, 23

40 159n16 10 33
10:13 28, 29, 30
Letter of Aristeas 10:1 30
128171 116 10:2 30
10:3 30, 31n40
Aristobulus (Eusebius, Praep. Ev.) 10:416 24, 26
9.6.65 44 10:413 30
f 5.15 116 10:46 30
10:4 30
2Baruch 10:56 30
29:57 24 10:914 32
10:910 22, 30
3Baruch 10:9 20, 30
4:10 31n40 10:1113 30
10:11 30
1Enoch 10:1213 30
136 18 10:1411:2 34
616 16, 2527, 33, 34 10:1415 31
611 16, 2634 10:14 30n39
6 25 10:1619 24, 33
6:12 25, 31 10:16 28, 31, 33
6:2 18 10:1711:2 27, 30
78 32 10:1719 33
7:1 18 10:17 31n40
7:35 19, 23, 24, 32, 33 10:2022 26, 27, 28, 31
7:3 19 10:21 27, 28, 33
7:4 22 10:22 33, 34
7:5 19, 21, 23, 24 11:1 23, 33
8:13 18, 32 1216 16, 26, 27
8:3 23 12:6 22
8:49:11 30 14:12 165n36
9:1 22, 30 1516 21
9:3 20, 21n18 15:116:4 20
9:4 23, 30 15:816:1 20
9:8 20 15 19, 21n17, 22
9:9 22 15:2 20
15:4 20, 21 7:22 19

15:57 25 7:24 24
15:6 20 8:19 159
15:710 33
15:9 21 Liber antiquitatum biblicarum (Pseudo-
15:10 20 Philo)
16 19, 22 13:8 155n4
16:1 21 26:5 155n4
19:1 21n13 32:15 155n4
22:3 21n16, 17 37:3 155n4
22:57 21n16
22:916 21n16 2 Maccabees
2527 28 3:16 140
25:45 28n31 3:31 54
25:67 28n31 7 131
26:1 28n31, 159n16 7:2829 131132
26:427:2 28n31 7:37 140
32:36 18 14:38 140
48:5 27 15:30 140
50:2 27
65:4 28n33 3 Maccabees
67:168:5 28n33 2:4 31n40
84:1 165n36
88:2 19 Psalms of Solomon
89:1 31n40 17:2932, 34 27
90:2836 28
90:30 27n28 Pseudo-Eupolemus (Eusebius, Praep. Ev.)
106:1107:3 29 9.17.19 29
107:1 32 18.2 29
2 Enoch Sibylline Oracles

30:13 160n17 3:2426 104n18, 160n17
2 Esdras Sirach (Ben Sira)

19:6 131 51:22 165n36
4 Ezra Testament of Job

2:4 105n22 15 119
1:5 120n3
Joseph and Asenath 4:10 120n3
12:2 55 68 119
16:4 55 915 119
20 :7 131 11:10 120n3
20:13 118, 120
Jubilees 20:12 119
3:27 162n25 20:3 119
4:26 159 20:425:10 120
5:2 24 25:10 120
5:9 19 26:16 118, 120
Testament of Job (cont.) 39:1140:3 123

26:1 120 40:414 123
26:2 120 4146:2 123
26:5 120 4647 123
27 121 46:28 124
27:4 120n3 47:1 124
27:7 120n3 47:210 124
2831 121 47:11 124
28:5 120n3 48:2 124
32 121 48:34 124
33 121 50:1 125
3538 118, 121 50:23 125
35:45 121 52:111 125
35:4 120n3
3638 122 Wisdom of Solomon
36:23 122 2:24 140
36:45 122 2:24 132
38:3 122 7:1 155n4
38:4 122 8:1920 140
38:6 122 9:15 140
38:7 122 10:1 155n4
38:8 123 11:18 55
4650 118, 123 14:6 31n40
39:110 123 15:11 105n22, 165
iv Qumran
1qha xi,2324 156

iii,7 156 xii,2930 156
iv,17 86 xii,29 156
iv,29 73n58, 84, 91n128 xiii,30 90
iv,3436 80, 89, 96 xiii,3738 90
iv,34 83n100 xiii,37 90
iv,37 89, 95 xv,7 85n103
v 64 xvi,37 80n88
v,14 83n97 xxii,28 85n103
v,21 156 xxiv,26 85n106
v,30 90n123 xxvi,15 80
vi,36 76n66, 82n94 xxvi,29 82n95
vii,1528 70n44
viii,34 73n58 1qm
ix,79 70n44 iv,2 79
ix,8 73n58 iv,4 84
ix,1920 70n44 xiii,2, 4 78n78
ix,2123 156 xiii,9 96n145
ix,21 156 xiii,1012 78
ix,22 156 xiii,1011 78
ix,2728 165n36 xiii,10 76, 80n87
xiii,12 88n116 iv,15 71

xiii,14 78n79 iv,16 71, 88
iv,2023 89
1qs iv,2022 76
ii,24 83n100 iv,2021 85, 86, 87, 89, 90,
iii,3 86n109 91
iii,69 89n120 iv,20 71, 76n64, 83
iii,78 157 iv,2326 88
iii,7 86n109 iv,2325 61
iii,8 83 iv,23 62, 71, 75, 85, 88, 90, 91,
iii,1119 157 93
iii,13iv,26 58, 63, 65 iv,24 71, 72n52
iii,1315 5859, 66, 72 iv,25 88
iii,13 71, 79n80, 96 iv,26 71, 88n118
iii,1415 67 iv,29 84
iii,14 67, 72, 83 v,3 83n100
iii,1518 69 v,25 83n100
iii,1718 70, 91 ix,12 72n53
iii,17 72, 91, 95 ix,22 83n100
iii,1819 61, 77 xi,3, 56,19 86n109
iii,18iv,1 75 xi,1011 70n44
iii,18 67, 71, 72, 73, 75, 82, 83, xi,1718 70n44
87n115
iii,19 76 1QSb
iii,2021 72, 77 v,25 84
iii,20 76
iii,2124 85, 96 cd
iii,2123 80 ii,213 64
iii,21 78n76, 87n112 ii,210 70n44
iii,20 79n80 ii,23 85n105
iii,2425 75, 78n77, 80 ii,57 88n117
iii,24 78, 79n80, 80, 83, 87n113, ii,1418 85
88 ii,1417 87
iii,25iv,1 8182, 85 ii,14 73n58
iii,2526 76 ii,17 85n105, 95
iii,25 67, 72, 75, 77, 78, 79n80, iv,1517 67n67
87n115, 91, 95 v,18 76n65
iv,214 68, 82 xii,23 81
iv,2 71, 76 xii,2 78n78
iv,3 80, 83 xii,12 79
iv,4 80, 83, 84 xii,2021,23 72n53
iv, 56 79n80 xiii,18 83
iv,6 83 xix,17 86n108
iv,9 76, 90 xxv,6 76
iv,10 80, 86, 87 xxv,8 76
iv,11 83n98, 87
iv,12 61, 87 1q20
iv,1523 68, 87 ii,1v,26 29
iv,1516 61, 72 xx,1620, 26, 28 67n33
1q23 4q286
1, 6, 22 24 1 ii,8 83n100
9, 14, 15 24 7 ii,4 71, 79
1q34bis 7 ii,6 79
3 ii,3 70n45 7 ii,78 87n110
1q36 4q287
14,2 89n121 6,7 87n110
4q174 8,13 87n111
12 i, 89 79, 80n86 4q298
1011,4, 7 79 34 ii,8 83n100
1213 i,11 79 4q299
4q177 6 i,13 85n103, 90n124
14 78n78 9,5 73n58
1011,3 79n83 4q300
1213 i,7 80n87 3ab, 4 73n58
1213 i,15 75 4q368
4q180 2, 78 86n108
1,2; 24 ii,10 70n44 4q370
4q186 64 1,6 31
4q197 4q381
4 i,13 67n33 1,7 70n45
4q201 4q382
1 iii, 1721 23 104,9 73n58
1 iii, 18 23 4q392
1 iii, 21 21, 23 1,4 78
1 iv, 611 21n15 4q393 86
ii, 25a 19n8 1 ii 97
iii, 21 19,n7 1 ii,56 87, 89
4q202 3,3,5 87
1 ii, 25a 21 4q402
1 iii, 11 21n15 4,1215 70n44
4q215a 4q405
1 ii,9 70n44 17,3 84
4q230 81 19,4 84
1,4 83 4q416
4q255 1,9 71n49
2,2 83 1,12 90n123
4q266 iv,7 72n53
9 iii,7 83 4q417
4q270 1, i,7 71, 90n123
1 i,1 87 1 i,1318 70
4q271 2 i,78 71n49
5 i,1819 81 4q418
5 i,18 78n78, 79 81+81a,2 90n123
4q280 4q420
2,2 87n110 1a iib, 2 73n58
4q285 4q421
viii,7 83n100 1a iib, 14 73n58
xi,1 83n100
4q423 4851 20n12, 85n106

2,2 70n45 4849+51,3 90
8,1 90n123 52+1 73n58
4q427 108,1 73n58
7 i,1920 80 iii,8 85n103
7 ii,10 80n88, 82n95 4q525
4q429 2 ii+3,6 83,n100
2,12 90 10,4 83n100
4q434438 73, 86 1112, 14 64
4q434 14 ii,20 83n100
1,i 74 21,8 73n58
4q435 4q531
2 i,2 73, 74, 84, 86, 91 1, 23 19n9, 23, 24
2 i,45 73, 74 1, 4 22
4q436 95 2 24
1 ii,1 73, 74, 84, 86, 91 7, 6 22
1 ii,23 73, 74 19, 34 21
1 ii,2 83n100 4q532
1 ii,4 74n59 1, 23 24
4q437 4q533
1 i,1011 74n60 4 22
2 i,8, 13 74 4q538
4q438 12,4 91n127
4 ii,3 74n63 4q543549 92
4 ii,5 74 4q543
4q444 73, 76, 84, 89, 91 59,2 92n131
14+5,2 85, 90, 95 59,34 92n132
14+5,3 84, 85, 89 4q544
2 i, 4 20 1,1011 92n130
14+5,4 85, 96 1,12 92n131132
14+5,8 85 2,1216 93n134
4q461 3,2 93n135
4,3 73n58 4q547
4q468i 97 12,1112 92n131132
4q471 4q560
2,3 73n58 1 ii,56 67n33
4q473 6q8
2,7 88n117 2 29
4q504 11q5
8 recto i 70n45 xix 96
4q510511 96 11q13
4q510 ii,8 78n75
1, 5 20n12, 88 ii, 12, 13 78n78
4q511 11q19
2 ii,3 85n106 ii,1315 86n108
2829,34 90 lx,1621 81n90
35,7 20n12, 85n106, 90n125
v Philo of Alexandria
De Abrahamo 1.59 108n31

96 140 1.6162 108n31
258 140 1.6364 108n31
1.64 108n31
De agricultura 1.65 108n31
46 140 1.66 108n31
152 140 1.67 108n31
1.68 108n31
De cherubim 1.69 108n31
128 140 1.105106 111
2.5 108n32
Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat 2.9 109n33
16 140 2.10 109n33
19 140 2.11 109n33
2.12 109n33
De Fuga et inventione 2.7172 109n34
54 111 2.74108 109n34
3.152 140
De gigantibus 3.62 140
31 140
De Migratione Abrahami
Quis rerum divinarum heres sit 3.45 150
56 55 2.57 150
6974 150 13 150
13.45 150
Legum allegoriae
1.1 107 De Opificio mundi
1.2 107 1314 100n6
1.21 107 16 103
1.22 108 4752 100n6
1.3142 109 62 100n6
1.3132 105 6976 102, 104
1.31 55, 106, 110, 111, 114 6971 102, 103
1.32 114 69 103, 106, 134
1.3342 105 7275 102
1.33 111 76 102, 103
1.3435 111 89127 100n6
1.3638 112 129 100
1.36 112n37 134135 101, 104, 105
1.37 106 134 55, 101, 102, 104n16, 110,
1.3941 106, 112 114, 134
1.39 114 135 106, 114, 134, 140
1.40 112 136147 104
1.41 112 136138 104
1.42 112 137 102
1.45 108n31 139 102, 105, 106, 107,
1.56 108n31 114
140141 104 1.5 105, 112

142144 104 1.8 113
146 105, 114 1.16 111
153 105 2.59 55
3.3 115
De Plantatione
19 55 De somniis
147 140 1.31 140
1.34 55
Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin
1.45 106, 114 De specialibus legibus
1.4 105, 106 4.123 55
vi Josephus
Jewish Antiquities Jewish War

1.34 105n22, 165 2.1444 55
vii Rabbinic Literature
1. Mishnah 14 158n12
Berachot 14:4 158n13, 165
9:5 157n12 14:10 164n35
Sanhedrin 14:11 164n32
4:5 162n27 34:9 162n25
Qohelet Rabbah
2. Babylonian Talmud 3:11 158
Sanhedrin Midrash Tanhuma
38ab 160, 165 3 160
61a 157 Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer
Baba Batra 11 160
14b 166n40 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan
Gen 3:6 169n44
3. Palestinian Talmud Gen 8:22 162n25
Naz. Exod 14:8 157n12
7.2.56b 159 Exod 32:22 157n12
Deut 5:29 157n12
4. Other Texts Deut 17:3 157n12
Genesis Rabbah
9:7 158
viii New Testament
Matthew 15:26 132

22:4344 129n4 15:29 130
25:3146 129 15:3544 130
26:64 129n4 15:35 130
15:3638 132
Mark 15:38 133
12:36 129n4 15:4244 133
14:62 129n4 15:4549 133134
15:4547 105n22
Luke
20:4243 129n4 2 Corinthians
22:69 129n4 4:16 140
5:10 129
John 5:17 135
1:1 129
1:3 130 Galatians
1:14 130 6:1415 135
1:18 129
20:28 129 Ephesus
1:2022 129n4
Acts
2:33 129n4 Philippians
5:31 129n4 2:68 127, 135
17:25 55 2:911 127, 129n4
18:24 134
19:1 134 Colossians
1:1517 129
Romans 3:1 129n4
7:22 140
8:1822 130 Hebrews
8:34 129n4 1:3 129n4
14:10 129 8:1 129n4
10:12 129n4
1Corinthians 12:2 129n4
8:6 129 1:8 129
13:1 165n36
15 127, 130 1 Peter
15:12 130 3:22 129n4
15:19 130
15:2122 132 Revelation
15:2328 132 5:6 129n4
15:25 129n4 5:13 129n4
ix Nag Hammadi Codices
Apocryphon of James (nhc i,2) Dialogue of the Savior (nhc iii,5)

14.3536 141 132.1112 141
138.20139.2 141
Gospel of Truth (nhc i,3)
17.1017 148 2 Apocalypse of James (nhc v,4)
56.714 141
Treatise on the Ressurection (nhc i,4)
45.3946.2 146 Authoritative Teaching (nhc vi,3)
25.69 143
Tripartite Tractate (nhc i,5)
76.2377.11 148 Asclepius (nhc vi,8)
77.1820 148 76.2237. 143
77.2125 148
Teachings of Silvanus (nhc vii,4)
Gospel of Thomas (nhc ii,2) 92.1525 146
37.46 141 92.2326 146
102.34 146
Gospel of Philip (nhc ii,3)
66.1620 141 Letter of Peter to Philip (nhc viii,2)
75.2125 141 137.69 142
82.3083.9 142
123 142 Interpretation of Knowledge (nhc xi,1)
6.3035 142
Hypostasis of the Archons (nhc ii,4)
87.3388.8 147 Sentences of Sextus (nhc xii,1)
88.1015 147 34.1620 141
Exegesis of the Soul (nhc ii,6) Trimorphic Protennoia (nhc xiii,1)

23.1217 144 49.2832 141
24.1722 144
127,2931 144 Gospel of Mary (bg 1)
133.34134.2 144 10.1416 146
134.1315 145
x Later Christian Authors and Writings
Acts of Andrew Excerpta ex Theodoto

vr 208209 148 1.3 136
3.1 136
Acts of Thomas 53.5 136
111 141 61.8 145
63.1 145
Clement of Alexandria 64 145
Stromata
5.138.23 103n14
7.108.12. 136
Epiphanius 1.7.1 146

Panarion 1.911 136
36.23 146 1.13.3 136
37.4.13 136 1.21.5 146
5.6.1 141
Eusebius 22 136
Praeparatio evangelica
15.9.14 151 Origen
Contra Celsum
Hippolytus 8.49) 136
Refutatio omnium haeresium
5.19.1317 136 Tertullian
10.11.710 136 Adversus Judaeos
10.11.10 136 2.21 169
5 137
Irenaeus
Adversus Haereses
1.5.5 145
xi Greek and Latin Pagan Texts
Aetius Cicero
De placitis reliquiae Tusculanae disputationes
4.23 136 1.1719 137
1.19 ff. 136
Aristotle
De Anima Democritus
406a411b 136 b 159 dk 139
430a2325 152
Ethica Nicomachia Diodore of Sicily
1177b261178a2 152 Bibliotheca historica
1178a27 152 17.33 55
1179a2232 152
Ethica Eudemia. Empedocles
1248a2429 152 dk 31, b 126 141
De Generatione Animalium
736b28 152 Iamblichus
737a811 152 De anima (apud Stobaeus, Eclogarum)
Metaphysica 1.362367 137
1072b2326 152
De Partibus Animalium Lucianus
656a8, 10 152 Icaromenippus
686a2728 152 56 103
Protreptikos
frg. 108 152 Nemesius
De natura hominis
536537. 137
Plato Pseudo-Aristotle
Alcibiades i De mundo
130a13. 137 1 319a12 103n14
Charmides
156d11ff. 137 Plutarch
Gorgias De facie in orbe luae
493a15 137 28 111
523c 141 942f943e 111
Phaedo 943a 149
81c20 140 Quaestiones convivales
783bc 149 9 115
Phaedrus Moralia
246d249d 103 706d 115
247c 103n14 Ex commentariis in Hesiodum [Mor.]
Timaeus 84 133
30cd 43 De Genio Socratis
36e37a 4243 591d 150
42de 4546
Porphyry
Plotinus De antro nympharum
Enneadi Frg. 3033 115
4 137
xii Papyri
Papyri Halle Papyri Tebtunis

ii.107111 5253 i.13 5354
i.56 5556
Index of Modern Authors
Aejmelaeus, A. 50 Casevitz, M. 37
Alexander, P. 18, 20, 64, 154 Charles, R.H. 21, 27, 28
Alexandre, M. 42, 45, 46, 99, 104 Charlesworth, J.H. 58, 66, 73, 118
Anthonioz, S. 2 Chazon, E. 73, 84, 87
Aptowitzer, V. 159, 161, 164 Clarke, E.G. 154
Armstrong, A.H. 151 Clayton Croy, N. 37
Assan-Dhte, I. 37 Coblentz Bautch, K. 22
Attridge, H.W. 146, 148 Collins, J.J. 19, 60, 63, 66, 70, 74,
Auffarth, C. 16, 20 117
Auld, A.G. 37 Collins, N.L. 39
Avemarie, F. 40, 57 Crsemann, F. 40
Bagnall, R.S. 53 Dafni, E.G. 43

Barbotin, E. 151 Dalley, S. 6
Baumgarten, J.M. 169 Danilou, J. 88
Ben-Dov, J. 94 Daniels, D.R. 10
Berlin, A. 155 Davies, W.D. 154
Bernstein, M. 59 Daut, R. le, 160, 164, 169
Berthelot, K. 29, 94 Delcor, M. 117
Bethge, H.-G. 143, 151 Delkurt, H. 1
Betz, H.D. 141 Derow, P. 53
Betz, O. 66 DeSilva, D. 37
Bianchi, U. 66 Deuse, W. 150
Birnbaum, P. 1 Dever, W.G. 118
Black, M. 18, 26 Diels, H. 104, 137
Blumenthal, H. 151 Diethard Rmheld, K.F. 20, 22
Bohak, G. 60, 81, 96 Dietrich, M. 9, 10, 11
Bons, E. 37 Dez Macho, A. 154
Borgen, P. 100, 106, 107 Dillon, J. 104, 108, 115, 149
Bos, A.P. 149, 151 Dimant, D. 19, 61, 77, 78, 79
Boulluec, A., Le 37 Dirkse, P.A. 143
Bovon, F. 141 Dobos, K.D. 22, 27
Bowker, J. 162, 169 Dochhorn, J. 105
Brashler, J. 143 Dodds, E.R. 141, 145
Bratsiotis, N.P. 48 Drrie, H. 149
Brayer, M.M. 161 Dogniez, C. 37
Brayford, S. 37 Dorival, G. 37
Bremmer, J.N. 48, 49, 139 Dring, I. 151
Brettler, M.Z. 155 Duhaime, J. 66
Brownlee, W.H. 81 Duke, R.R. 92
Buchanan, G.W. 27 Dumouchet, . 37
Bchler, A. 169 Dupont-Sommer, A. 61, 88
Burkert, W. 139, 140
Bury, R.G. 42 Emilsson, E.K.E. 137, 151
Erlandsson, S. 86
Casadess, F. 149 Erler, M. 116
index of modern authors 189
Eshel, E. 22, 29, 74, 81 Hanson, P.D. 13, 19

Evans, C.A. 117 Hardmeier, C. 40
Harl, M. 36, 37, 42, 45, 163
Fabry, H.-J. 68 Harl, P. 37
Falk, D.K. 65, 87 Harlow, D.C. 74, 81
Feldblum, M.S. 161 Harrington, H.K. 157
Feldman, L.H. 92 Hay, D.M. 113
Feldmeier, R. 128 Hayward, C.T.R. 169
Fernndez Marcos, N. 37 Heckel, T.K. 140
Festugire, A.-J. 142, 145 Hedrick, C.W. 141, 142
Figl, J. 48 Heger, P. 62
Finkelstein, L. 154 Hempel, C. 58, 63, 64, 65, 157
Fischer, J. 159 Hendel, R. 16, 18
Flashar, H. 116 Hofius, O. 128
Fletcher-Louis, C.H.T. 65, 70 Horbury, W. 50
Flint, P.W. 22 Horst, P.W. van der 117, 118, 125
Flusser, D. 69 Houtman, A. 60
Fossum, J. 5, 102, 103 Hultgrd, A. 61
Foster, B.R. 6 Hunt, A.S. 54
Fox, M.V. 14 Hyde, T. 2
Freimann, A. 159
Frey, J. 59, 65, 66, 157 Jacob, B. 7
Jacobs, I. 117
Garca Martnez, F. 59, 60, 65, 66, 70, Janowski, B. 4, 5, 8, 40
156 Janz, T. 37
Garrett, S. 117 Jeremias, J. 133
Georgi, D. 140 Johnson, A.R. 4
Gersh, S. 142 Jong, A. de 60, 62, 63, 93, 94, 98
Ginzberg, L. 160 Joosten, J. 47
Glessmer, U. 10 Jurgens, B.A. 92
Goff, M. 23, 65, 70
Goldman, L. 92 Kaiser, O. 140
Goodman, M. 144 Kamlah, E. 61
Gray, P. 117, 122 Kampen, J. 59
Greenspoon, L.J. 13 Karrer, M. 37, 38, 51
Grenfell, B.P. 54 Kasser, R. 148
Greschat, K. 105 Katz, S.T. 154
Grillet, B. 37 Kee, H.C. 117
Gross, A.D. 92 Kessler, R. 40
Gruber, M.I. 166 Kierkegaard, B. 117, 119
Gruen, W. 117, 119, 126 King, K.L. 136
Gunkel, H. 16 Kister, M. 60
Guttmann, J. 159 Klancher, N. 117
Gzella, H. 38, 49 Klawans, J. 157
Klein, A. 61, 89
Haas, C. 117 Klein, H.-D. 48
Hallo, W.W. 6 Klein, M.L. 154, 163
Hamilton, W. 150 Knibb, M.A. 50, 61, 71, 77, 78, 117, 118
Hamonville, D.-M. d 37 Koch, K. 8, 10
190 index of modern authors
Kooten, G.H. van 100, 101, 105, 112, 134, 135, Mansoor, M. 156, 165
141, 144 Martin, J.D. 13
Kszeghy, M. 22, 27 Massingberd Ford, J. 169
Kooij, A. van der 38, 50, 51 McNamara, M. 163
Kratz, R.G. 61 van der Meer, M.N. 37, 38, 51
Kraus, W. 37, 38, 51 Meiser, M. 38, 51
Krause, M. 8 Mlze Modrzejewski, J. 37
Krger, T. 14 Merlan, P. 151
Kugel, J.L. 92 Metso, S. 94
Kugler, R. 117, 123, 125 Meyer, M.W. 142
Kuhn, K.G. 61 Michaud, H. 61, 88
Kuiper, G.J. 164 Michel, D. 4, 5
Kulawik, C. 143 Milik, J.T. 18, 23, 27
Misset-van de Weg, M. 60
Labahn, M. 50, 81 Mitchell, T.C. 8
Lampe, P. 127 Mittmann-Richert, U. 40, 57
Lang, M. 50 Moatti-Fine, J. 37
Lange, A. 20, 22, 58, 60, 65, 82 Moigne, P. Le 47
Lauha, A. 14 Moraux, P. 151
Lawson Younger., K. 6 Mortensen, B.P. 168
Layton, B.R. 143, 144, 146, 147 Mosshammer, A.A. 18
Lee, J.A.L. 51 Mller, U.B. 127
Legaspi, M.C. 117 Mulder, M.J. 154
Leicht, R. 94 Mundahl, T.W. 1
Leisegang, H. 100, 111 Muraoka, T. 37, 45, 46, 47, 47
Lesses, R. 118, 124
Lestienne, M. 37 Najman, H. 94
Levene, E. 160 Nasrallah, L. 5
Levine, E. 154 Neher, M. 140
Levine, L.I. 154 Nesselrath, H.-G. 150
Levison, J.R. 58, 59, 61, 73, 159, 162, 165 Neumann-Gorsolke, U. 40
Licht, J. 66 Newsom, C.A. 19, 58, 63, 66, 67, 77, 156
Lichtenberger, H. 20, 22, 27, 58, 65, 96, 156 Nickelsburg, G.W.E. 19, 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 165
LiDonnici, L.R. 118 Nicklas, T. 22
Lieber, A. 118 Nock, A.D. 142, 145
Lietaert Peerbolte, B.J. 81 Noy, D. 50
Lim, T.H. 60, 63
Littman, R.J. 37 Oegema, G.S. 40, 57
Logan, A.H.B. 136 Olley, J.W. 37
Lohmeyer, E. 127 Olson, D. 27
Long, A.A. 116 Osten-Sacken, P. von der 61
van der Louw, T.A.W. 44, 46, 50
Luttikhuizen, G. 151 Pagels, E.H. 148
Lys, D. 48 Painchaud, L. 148
Parrott, D.M. 143
Machinist, P. 118 Parry, D.W. 70
MacRae, S.J., G.W. 148 Pearson, B.A. 146
Maher, M. 160 Peel, M.L. 146
Mansfeld, J. 137 Prez Fernndez, M. 162
index of modern authors 191
Prez Jimnez, A. 146 Schmerler, B. 159, 161

Perrin, A.B. 92 Schmid, K. 5
Peters, D.M. 29 Schpflin, K. 22
Pfann, S.J. 18 Schofield, A. 63
Philonenko, M. 61, 118 Schreiner, J. 48
Pietersma, A. 37 Schuller, E.M. 65, 94
des Places, . 112, 151 Schweizer, E. 140
Plisch, U.K. 142 Scopello, M. 143, 144
Poirier, H. 105, 112 Secunda, S. 94
Popovi, M. 60, 61, 64, 66, 68, 94 Sedley, D.N. 116
Potter, P. 137, 140 Seebass, H. 2, 4, 5
Pralon, D. 37 Seeligmann, I.L. 38
Procksch, O. 16 Seely, D. 73, 74, 94
Puech, . 18, 59, 60, 64, 94 Seitz, O.J.F. 61
Sekki, A.E. 67, 68, 76
Qimron, E. 89 Seow, C.L. 13, 15
Sevrin, J.M. 143
Rabe, H. 115 Shaked, S. 59, 78
Rabin, C. 66 Shinan, A. 154, 159, 160, 161, 169
Rahlfs, A. 99 Sieber, J.H. 142
Rahnenfhrer, D. 118 Siegert, F. 39, 57
Reese, J.M. 140 Smyly, J.G. 54
Reinmuth, E. 127 Snell, B. 139
Reiterer, F.V. 22 Sorensen, E. 81
Rey, J.-S. 65 Sosin, J.D. 51
Riedweg, C. 5 Sperber, A. 154
Ringgren, H. 40, 156 Spieckermann, H. 128
Robinson, H. 151 Spittler, R. 118
Robinson, T.M. 137, 138 Spottorno Daz-Caro, M.V. 37
Robinson, W.C. 143, 144 Stec, D. 166
Rohrbaugh, R. 117, 123, 125 Stegemann, H. 61, 64, 81, 82, 157
Roig Lanzillotta, L. 139, 144, 148 Steinmetz, P. 116
Roitman, A.D. 77 Sterling, G.E. 107
Roqueplo, T. 37 Steudel, A. 93
Rsel, M. 4, 10, 42, 43, 46, 47, 49 Stkl Ben Ezra, D. 29, 94
Rosen-Zvi, I. 72, 157, 158, 161 Stoyanov, Y. 66
Ruiten, J.T.A.G.M. van 144 Suter, D. 32
Runia, D.T. 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 107, 115 Stuckenbruck, L.T. 16, 18, 20, 27, 29, 32, 60,
Rterswrden, U. 7 65
Sander, O. 4 Taradach, M. 154

Sandevoir, P. 37 Tengstrm, S. 68, 69
Sandmel, S. 99, 100, 106, 107 Thesleff, H. 108
Sarna, N. 155 Thiel, W. 3
Schaller, B. 118, 119 Thomassen, E. 148
Schaper, J. 38 Tigchelaar, E. 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 69, 72, 73, 81,
Scharbert, J. 48 95, 96, 97, 98, 156
Schechter, S. 157 Tobin, T. 99, 102, 106, 107, 110, 112, 115
Schiffman, L.H. 77, 92 Trevett, C. 169
192 index of modern authors
Triebel, L. 50 Wernberg-Mller, P. 62, 67, 71, 77, 89

Troxel, R.L. 38 Westermann, C. 7, 16
Tucker, G.M. 16 Wevers, J.W. 44, 163
Turner, J.D. 142 Widengren, G. 61
Tzoref, S. 77 Winston, D. 42
Wisse, F. 141, 142
Ueberweg, S. 116 Wold, B.G. 65, 70
Uhlig, S. 27 Wolff, H.-W. 4, 40
Ulrich, E. 70 Wright, A.T. 20, 22
Urbach, E.E. 157 Wright, B.G. 37
Wright, J.E. 118
VanderKam, J.C. 22, 25 Wright, J.P. 137, 140
Verhoogt, A.M.F.W. 54
Vermes, G. 64, 164 Xeravits, G. 62, 64, 70
Vinel, F. 37
Yadin, Y. 66
Wagner, A. 4, 40, 49 Yarbro Collins, A. 139
Wagner, S. 117 York, A.D. 154
Wahl, H.M. 118
Walter, N. 112, 116, 127 Zenger, E. 38
Weigold, M. 29 Zimmerli, W. 13
Weinfeld, M. 73, 94 Zandee, J. 146
Wenham, G.J. 8 Zsengellr, J. 70

(THBN 20) (Van Ruiten, Kooten, Eds.) Dust of The Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2,7) - The Problem of Dualistic Anth. in Early Jud. and CHRST PDF

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

(THBN 20) (Van Ruiten, Kooten, Eds.) Dust of The Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2,7) - The Problem of Dualistic Anth. in Early Jud. and CHRST PDF

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Dust of the Ground and Breath of Life (Gen 2:7)

George H. van Kooten

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/tbn

Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Copyright 2016 by Koninklijke Brill nv, Leiden, The Netherlands.

This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Theological Anthropology and the Enochic Book of Watchers (1 En.

Anthropology in the Ancient Greek Versions of Gen 2:7 36

Anthropology, Pneumatology, and Demonology in Early Judaism: The Two

From Cosmogony to Psychology: Philos Interpretation of Gen 2:7 in De

On Anthropology and Honor in the Testament of Job 117

Christ As Creator: Pauls Eschatological Reading of Gen 2:7 in 1 Cor

Anthropological Views in Nag Hammadi: The Bipartite and Tripartite

Index of Ancient Sources 173

abg Arbeiten zur Bibel und ihrer Geschichte

hbs Herders biblische Studien

Lautaro Roig Lanzillotta

Michal N. van der Meer

George H. van Kooten

Jacques T.A.G.M. van Ruiten

The concept of a division between body and soul, as an interpretation of the

of the Timaeus. In the Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin, Philo presents

Reinhard Feldmeier, in his contribution on Christ As Creator: Pauls

Jacques van Ruiten & George van Kooten

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004334762_002

27 They all wait upon you

5 Thus says God, Yhwh,

Job 34:1415 is even clearer:

14 If he [i.e., God] should take back his spirit ( )to himself

8 H.W. Wolff, Anthropologie des Alten Testaments (Mnchen 1973), 96101.

7aa Then Yhwh Elohim13 formed man 7aa

Contextually, the circumstantial clauses of v. 56, with the non-existence of

Enuma Elish 1:15

1 When on high no name was given to heaven,

16 C. Westermann, Genesis i, Genesis 111 (bkat 1.1; Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974), 273.

the Targumim interpret the as the ability to speak. Therefore Koch

3 Texts from the Ancient Near East

26 M. Dietrich, Die Menschenschpfung im Garten Eden: Ein mesopotamischer Mythos im

33 Epic of Gilgamesh 1.3441.

37 lxx adds (b. of life), without doubt a reference to Gen 2:7.

5 Ecclesiastes 3:1921; 12:7

45 Seow, Ecclesiastes, 364.

Nowhere in 1Enoch is there a discernible citation of or allusion to the divine

koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2016 | doi: 10.1163/9789004334762_003

of God as they sired offspring through the daughters of humanity remains

2 Elements Shared by the Book of Watchers and Genesis

described above, are presented as a categorically bad development, attributed

3 1Enoch 616: The Theological Anthropology of Giants and

7 The text of 4q201 iii, 21 has ( ]Cod.Pan. [ ]).

of what a human being is based on the inadmissible nature embodied by

;14 from Heb./Aram. 15).16 Although the Aramaic vocabulary behind

14 In an expansionary move, both Syncellus recensions read .

They consume the labor of all humanity (4q201 1 iii, 18 [;]

M. Goff, Monstrous Appetites: Giants, Cannibalism, and Insatiable Eating in Enochic

Parallel lists of species affected by ante-diluvian upheaval can also be found

4 The Book of Watchers Understanding of Humanity: Implications

4.1 The Eschatological Outcome: A Restored Humanity

20 But as for you, cleanse the earth from all uncleanness,

This passage, which follows an account describing a series of divine punish-

comments over a century ago by Charles who, in an overview of apocalyptic

4.2 1Enoch 611 and the Figure of Noah

42 Cf. Stuckenbruck, 1 Enoch 91108, 682.