The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

[Ahanu]

What exception, what rule?

You said:
OK. Do remember that Origen is not doctrine ...

Origen, it can be argued, saw the 'resurrected body' as purely a spiritual body, a body shaped by its eidos or form, the pattern of the soul. Therefore there is some identification between the person who died, and their resurrected body, but Origen does not – perhaps – therefore believe a resurrected flesh.

The Church however, generally believed in a bodily resurrection being a resurrection of the flesh, even though it was clear that the flesh of a particular person would have decomposed and 'vanished' into the earth.

The general rule is that the writings of early Church Fathers can provide valuable insights into the development of Christian thought. However, you selectively dismiss his views on the nature of the resurrected body as non-doctrinal. This allows you to avoid engaging in Origen's interpretation, which challenges your view.

Origen believed bodily substance is "changed in proportion to the qualities or merits of those who wear it, into an ethereal condition . . . and will shine with light" (Princ. 2.3.7). The pneumatic body, he says, dwells in heaven (2.10.3), similar to what we find in 2 Corinthians 5.1. These bodies will dwell in the air after the resurrection (2 Thess 4.17) before ascending through the celestial spheres (2.11.6). The pneumatic body will become one pneuma (1 Cor 6.17) with God in the higher reaches of the universe (3.6.6). Origen is an early witness to seeing celestial immortality/astral immortality in Paul. It is not out of this world to believe Paul also had such thoughts.

I don't think either Paul or Origen spoke of 'astral immortality' in precisely those terms, so I'd have to ask how you define that, as 'astral' has a broad connotation today, not necessarily as the Jews or Paul and Origen and their contemporaries saw it?

Christianity in general speaks of the immortality of the soul, which both Paul and the Fathers saw in relation to Christ, so I'm not sure where you think I dismiss it, or make any special pleading?

See above.

 

[Thomas]

Good luck with that from a few letters.

Well we have plenty of background material to work with, as Fredriksen and others argue.

But the point surely is, that's a better way than ignoring sitz im leben?

We might not be accurate, we can but try, but that's better than the alternatives.

Where are you getting figuratively out of the body from?

That, in retrospect, is a poor example, and I should not have leapt to it.

I'll answer the direct question about figurative language below.

 

[Thomas]

The general rule is that the writings of early Church Fathers can provide valuable insights into the development of Christian thought.

Whether those insights are correct are a matter of debate, that's my point.

Origen believed bodily substance is "changed in proportion to the qualities or merits of those who wear it, into an ethereal condition . . . and will shine with light" (Princ. 2.3.7).

OK

The pneumatic body, he says, dwells in heaven (2.10.3), similar to what we find in 2 Corinthians 5.1.

OK.

These bodies will dwell in the air after the resurrection (2 Thess 4.17)

These bodies are those who are living, in the flesh, at the time of the Lord's return.
1 Thessalonians 4:17 "Then we which are alive (in the flesh) and remain (on the earth) shall be caught up (carried away) together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

"with them in the clouds" is most likely a reference to "the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven" (Daniel 7:13, as later in Matthew 24:30, 26:64, Mark 13:25, 14:62).

"in the air" the Greek term distinguishes between the 'lower' air which we breathe and the higher realms, in this case the term used is for the lower.

So he's talking about the earth and the heavens and all therein 'shall ever be with the Lord'.

The pneumatic body will become one pneuma (1 Cor 6.17)

Not quite – Paul is talking about the physical body here, corruptible by sin. 1 Cor 6:17 makes no reference to the soma pneumatikos.

with God in the higher reaches of the universe (3.6.6). Origen is an early witness to seeing celestial immortality/astral immortality in Paul.

I suggest Origen's witness follows Paul in seeing an immortality of a higher order than a stellar or astral order – as Paul sees it, we shall sit in judgement upon angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).

It is not out of this world to believe Paul also had such thoughts.

Never said it wasn't.

 

[Thomas]

Back to figurative language.

Words like "taken up" can have figurative meanings.

Yes.

Their original, literal meanings within the cultural and historical context of the Bible are key, however.

OK.

A biblical writer's understanding of the physical world is different from our own.

Not so much from my own.

If you mean the biblical writer lacked the understandings derived from our technologies, telescopes and microscopes, etc., then yes, their material/physical understanding of the nature of matter falls far short of our contemporary understanding.

Their understanding of the physical world being shot through with the spiritual, as being an extension and a continuum of the spiritual in limited material form, in a kind of relative contingency, is far superior to the current assumptions of the secular world today.

They understood intrinsically that God is 'all in all' – it was a Cretan poet 600 years before Christ who said "In him we live and move and have our being" (echoed by Paul in Acts 17:28), and although he was talking about an entirely different god (Zeus), the principle is the same.

So I agree with Fredriksen that
Earth ... Surrounded by nested rings of cosmic forces ... Luminous bodies are animate intelligences with social agency; bodies made of
material spirit (pneuma). The highest god, high gods, gods, post-human gods, human gods, angeloi (messenger divinities), daimonia (godlings), pneumata (spirits); celestial cosmic powers and rulers; underworld powers; household gods; ancestors; daimones.

And (as Hart argues) Paul clearly did, and Hart refers to Enoch, which I could not track in the Fredriksen resources available above.

Precisely because neither Plato nor Paul saw such an intense bifurcation in the cosmos as we tend to see today – the veil was much more tenuous and translucent – it's because we have focussed so much and so exclusively on the physical we have lost sight and touch of the spiritual.

So where you seem to want to assert a radical difference between 'literal' and 'figurative', I don't think the ancient world was so defined. I think they saw things as literally so because they had a sense or understanding of what lay behind them, if you like.

The fundamental assumption of Greek Philosophy, as the foundation of the arts and sciences, is that the cosmos is ordered and rational, because it is so ordered by a higher power. Therefore the way to that Higher Power is up through the orders.

And again, while Fredriksen disabuses us of a Jewish monotheism, there was nevertheless, in the minds of the intelligentsia and the common people, the sense of One God Above All, and one heaven above all the heavens.

So I rather think the point is language was (and is) both literal and figurative – they saw physical things as figures of the spiritual.

Not 'this or that', but 'both/and'.

Simply asserting that this type of language back then was used figuratively without substantiation is not a sufficient argument.

I think there's plenty of substance to it ... You low opinion of the insights and intellects of Antiquity would preclude that, I would have thought, but I don't share that opinion, and I think there's a wealth of materials that refute it.

 

[Ahanu]

Well we have plenty of background material to work with, as Fredriksen and others argue.

I'm not sure what you mean by background material. Be more specific, please.

But the point surely is, that's a better way than ignoring sitz im leben?

Not sure why you mention sitz im leben ("setting in life"). What's sitz im leben got to do with you reading figuratively out of the body in 2 Corinthians 12.2? I say sitz im leben seems irrelevant to the specific textual interpretation thus far. Where's your proof he meant out of the body figuratively?

In fact, sitz im leben can supports the interpretation of a literal, out-of-body experience in 2 Corinthians 12.2. In the first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman world, it was common to believe in astral journeys.

We might not be accurate, we can but try, but that's better than the alternatives.

We can try.

That, in retrospect, is a poor example, and I should not have leapt to it.

In Baha'i thought there is no material spirit that ascends and descends through the celestial spheres, because human language itself fails to adequately capture transcendent realities:

"To every discerning and illumined heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress."
-Baha'u'llah, The Kitáb-i-Íqán

I'll answer the direct question about figurative language below.

Okay.

 

[Thomas]

I'm not sure what you mean by background material. Be more specific, please.

I'd look at Fredriksen's sources.

Not sure why you mention sitz im leben ("setting in life"). What's sitz im leben got to do with you reading figuratively out of the body in 2 Corinthians 12.2? I say sitz im leben seems irrelevant to the specific textual interpretation thus far.

I'd say it's always relevant – it's the basis of Fredriksen's argument, for a start. Paul is talking according to his knowledge and experience – he's not speaking from a void, but from the background of 1st century Jewish mystical and eschatalogical speculation.

So when he says 'third heaven', he hasn't picked that figure from nowhere.

Where's your proof he meant out of the body figuratively?

Where's the proof he meant it literally?

In fact, sitz im leben can supports the interpretation of a literal, out-of-body experience in 2 Corinthians 12.2. In the first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman world, it was common to believe in astral journeys.

Hang on ... I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. I am not arguing against an OOB experience, simply whether he was physically taken up to the third heaven, or psychically/spiritually.

I'd rather avoid using 'astral' as the term is so vague and broad. As you focus on the literal, it would be better to stick to actual references, rather than apply a term like 'astral' which carries so much anachronistic or irrelevant baggage. We can try.

In Baha'i thought ...

Your belief, not mine.

 

[Ahanu]

I'd look at Fredriksen's sources.

Her sources from other contemporary scholars?

I'd say it's always relevant

I never said it wasn't, but it sure hasn't been relevant in your discussion of 2 Corinthians 12.2 thus far. All you have to do is quote Paul’s contemporaries to show how they clearly understood astral journeys figuratively. By astral journey I am referring to a material spirit moving through physical space in an upward direction through the celestial spheres. Let me know if that is not clear.

– it's the basis of Fredriksen's argument, for a start.

I know that, but where is it the basis of your argument for 2 Corinthians 12.2?

Paul is talking according to his knowledge and experience – he's not speaking from a void, but from the background of 1st century Jewish mystical and eschatalogical speculation.

So when he says 'third heaven', he hasn't picked that figure from nowhere.

Are you going to mention the figurative out of the body passages from his contemporaries or keep me on my toes guessing here?

Where's the proof he meant it literally?

I have already discussed his cosmology . . .

Hang on ... I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. I am not arguing against an OOB experience, simply whether he was physically taken up to the third heaven, or psychically/spiritually.

Taken up physically is confusing, because both soul or body could be understood to be taken up in a physical sense for Paul’s time period . . .

 

[Thomas]

Her sources from other contemporary scholars?

I'll leave you to check Fredriksen's sources – you brought her into this debate.

All you have to do is quote Paul’s contemporaries to show how they clearly understood astral journeys figuratively.

Er, no. 'astral journeys' is your term, I'm not sure what it means.

By astral journey I am referring to a material spirit moving through physical space in an upward direction through the celestial spheres. Let me know if that is not clear.

Oh, that's clear – I think it's wrong. I'm not sure either Christian or Jew saw the human soul/spirit as a material entity.

I know that, but where is it the basis of your argument for 2 Corinthians 12.2?

Sitz im leben means 'setting in life' and I'm saying that plays a part in the language and understanding of the day.

Paul was writing to a Jewish audience. They would understand what Paul means by 'whether in the body or out of the body' and 'third heaven' in a cultural context. 'Astral travel' would have left them nonplussed, as the term wasn't in use at the time.

Are you going to mention the figurative out of the body passages from his contemporaries or keep me on my toes guessing here?

I've explained myself sufficiently, I think.

I have already discussed his cosmology . . .

As have I.

Taken up physically is confusing, because both soul or body could be understood to be taken up in a physical sense for Paul’s time period . . .

No, the soul is not a physical entity.

 

[Ahanu]

Not so much from my own.

Of course it is. Exorcism is a case in point. Happened quite regularly in the ancient world. Today I am hard-pressed to find one unless I travel to a remote jungle or community isolated from modernity. It's not because of something we have lost (as if our knowledge were somehow misplaced), but because of something we have gained in knowledge.

If you mean the biblical writer lacked the understandings derived from our technologies, telescopes and microscopes, etc., then yes, their material/physical understanding of the nature of matter falls far short of our contemporary understanding.

Also, their descriptions of their intrinsic world was quite different too. Some pretend those descriptions correspond to reality in the face of a collapsed cosmology. As Troels Engberg-Pedersen concludes: "If we cannot immediately adopt Paul’s cosmology, neither can (or should) we adopt his views on the body, on social life and even on politics just as they were. But this should not in the least prevent us from learning from studying him." I agree with his conclusion here.

I'll leave you to check Fredriksen's sources – you brought her into this debate.

Well, I have been using her sources. Not sure if we are talking about the same thing. For example, you wrote: "Oh, that's clear – I think it's wrong. I'm not sure either Christian or Jew saw the human soul/spirit as a material entity." However, Fredriksen cites Troels Engber-Pederson in her footnotes: "On Paul and pneuma (which is constituted of fine 'matter,' not of not matter), esp. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)." Paula Fredriksen concludes that "Paul and his people were bound together—literally and materially—by a stronger power: the holy pneuma of Christ, and of Israel’s god."

In the interview with Matthew Thessien that I provided a link to earlier, he was asked: "I’ve noticed, however, that Stoic philosophy is primarily used to support pneuma as a light material substance, whether fine particles, aether, or something else. It is held not only by you but also by Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Matt Novenson, and others. But Paul is Jewish, not Stoic. Maybe I overlooked it, or it’s in one of your other books, but are there Second Temple Jewish sources that support pneuma as a material substance?"

In response, he said: "Although Paul is Jewish this does not mean that he was uninfluenced by the philosophical and scientific currents of his day. Of course, he was no Stoic philosopher nor did he spend time writing scientific treatises on the ontological or metaphysical nature of pneuma. So, as is so often the case with Paul and other ancient writers, we have to fill in gaps from the literary remains of others. When Paul used pneuma, what would others have likely heard?"

To which the interviewer adds: "I’m glad you raise this question; salient interpretation should always be concerned with how Paul’s original auditors might have heard his letters."

To which Thessien's reply is: "Other Jewish writers were not also involved in scientific discussions either. The closest we get, and this is something that Engberg-Pedersen discusses, is the Wisdom of Solomon. This work is not straightforwardly Stoic in its thinking, but it does seem to contain stoicized elements, especially in relation to pneuma.

For instance, Wisdom speaks of the pneuma of the Lord filling the world and holding all things together (Wis 1:7) and then of divine wisdom in ways that evoke Stoic thinking about the pneuma: “wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God” (Wis 7:24–25).

In my own reading of Paul, I find it very suggestive that when he talks about the resurrected body, he speaks of it as a pneumatic body in the same context that he compares the resurrected body to astral bodies—sun, stars, and moon (1 Corinthians 15:35–49). To become a heavenly being and to enjoy the heavenly realm, one must become like the heavenly realm.

Here ancient scientists, following Aristotle, speak often of a fifth element of the cosmos, aether. Aetherial, heavenly bodies are material, but made of the best kind of matter—immortal, unchangeable, indestructible. Paul doesn’t use that language, but he uses the language of stars, and glory (doxa), and pneuma. And he uses the same language of the pneumatic bodies of the resurrection that ancient scientists do of aether."

A Jewish Paul: Part 3 Of The Interview With Matthew Thiessen

We are back for a third and final segment of a three-part interview with Matthew Thiessen, author of the recent book, A Jewish Paul: The Messiah’s Herald to the Gentiles (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2023). Dr. Thiessen is an associate professor of religious studies at McMaster University. He...

www.patheos.com

This is an example of sitz im leben ("setting in life").

 

[Ahanu]

This is an example of sitz im leben ("setting in life").

Paul is talking according to his knowledge and experience – he's not speaking from a void, but from the background of 1st century Jewish mystical and eschatalogical speculation.

So when he says 'third heaven', he hasn't picked that figure from nowhere.

@Thomas, any sitz im leben you can provide for 2 Corinthians 12.2 to convey figuratively out of the body?

 

[Thomas]

However, Fredriksen cites Troels Engber-Pederson in her footnotes: "On Paul and pneuma (which is constituted of fine 'matter,' not of not matter), esp. Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)." Paula Fredriksen concludes that "Paul and his people were bound together—literally and materially—by a stronger power: the holy pneuma of Christ, and of Israel’s god."

As I understand it, Troels Engberg-Pedersen interprets Paul through a Stoic lens.

With regard to TEPs view of Paul's essentially Stoic philosophy, we have this:

Stoic philosophy is primarily used to support pneuma as a light material substance, whether fine particles, aether, or something else... But Paul is Jewish, not Stoic. Maybe I overlooked it, or it’s in one of your other books, but are there Second Temple Jewish sources that support pneuma as a material substance?"

In response, he said: "Although Paul is Jewish this does not mean that he was uninfluenced by the philosophical and scientific currents of his day. Of course, he was no Stoic philosopher nor did he spend time writing scientific treatises on the ontological or metaphysical nature of pneuma. So, as is so often the case with Paul and other ancient writers, we have to fill in gaps from the literary remains of others. When Paul used pneuma, what would others have likely heard?"

As regards the last statement, there's Plato and Aristotle, Pythagoras and Epicurus among others, all with variable themes between the poles of physical and immaterial 'materia prima' – be it hyle, aether – but I should not suppose that they, or indeed necessarily TEP, mean 'matter' as we currently hold the term – they saw matter as different to the way we conceive it today, as they saw fire, as an element, for example.

To which the interviewer adds: "I’m glad you raise this question; salient interpretation should always be concerned with how Paul’s original auditors might have heard his letters."

There you go – sitz im leben

To which Thessien's reply is: "Other Jewish writers were not also involved in scientific discussions either. The closest we get, and this is something that Engberg-Pedersen discusses, is the Wisdom of Solomon. This work is not straightforwardly Stoic in its thinking, but it does seem to contain stoicized elements, especially in relation to pneuma.

Seem to being conditional here.

For instance, Wisdom speaks of the pneuma of the Lord filling the world and holding all things together (Wis 1:7) and then of divine wisdom in ways that evoke Stoic thinking about the pneuma: “wisdom is more mobile than any motion; because of her pureness she pervades and penetrates all things. For she is a breath of the power of God” (Wis 7:24–25).

Not convinced by this at first pass: In what way is the wisdom 'more mobile than motion' – perhaps because motion is attributed to material things, and wisdom, being immaterial, possesses a greater power of motion still? I can move my body, but how does one move one's mind, except in figurative terms? Wisdom can go from 'here' to 'there' or 'this' to 'that' in an instant ...

Furthermore, 'a pureness that penetrates all things' I can correlate (but only weakly) with the idea of a prima materia, the formless substrate of which all things are composed, the ur-stuff which lies at the root of everything, prakriti, I believe, in the Hindu tradition.

Of course, later Christian though would see the Logos as underpinning all, much as the Stoics do, the one thing by which all things subsist. But the Jews and John would not accept, I think, that God was a corporeal entity, as the Stoics did.

... I find it very suggestive that when he talks about the resurrected body, he speaks of it as a pneumatic body in the same context that he compares the resurrected body to astral bodies—sun, stars, and moon (1 Corinthians 15:35–49). To become a heavenly being and to enjoy the heavenly realm, one must become like the heavenly realm.

Like, but not the same as which this brief extract rather implies. The verses point out the difference between bodies, indeed between individual stars "for star differs from star in glory" (v41) – different 'glories' – and speaks of the Lord as "out of heaven" and we, too, "bear the image" of the heavenly man – "heaven", in Pauline cosmology, is 'above' the celestial / astral spheres.

I think the author is glossing over distinctions.

 

[Thomas]

Found this review:

Volker Rabens’s book, however, challenges many of the central concerns of Engberg-Pedersen...

Rabens surveys Graeco-Roman and Jewish literature... In discussing Jewish literature, Rabens concludes that apart from perhaps one strand in Philo (where pneuma is referred to as an σώματος οὐσία) there is evidence neither for any interest in the materiality/immateriality of the Spirit in Judaism nor for an infusion-transformation ethic.

Chapter 3 ... treats the ‘spiritual body’ of 1 Cor 15:44 and the possible infusion of the material Spirit through the sacraments (1 Cor 12:13; 6:11; 10:3–4). On the basis of extensive exegesis of 1 Cor 15:44, Rabens argues that the idea of a physical pneuma is not found here.

However, Rabens is more cautious regarding the possibility of Paul having an ‘infusion-transformation’ concept of ethical enabling. He argues that Paul is ambiguous regarding the actual method of reception of the Spirit—i.e., the image of being made to drink of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) may have evoked an association with Stoic pneumatology in Paul’s audience.

However, not only does the philosophic language of Stoicism fundamentally differ from Paul, it remains to be proven that Stoic pneumatology was understood by all the members of Paul’s churches (and not just the elite). As such, Rabens argues, it seems wiser to attempt to develop a model of the work of the Spirit in Paul’s ethics that is based on the actual effects that are attributed to the Spirit in Paul (and in Judaism).

Chapter 7 summarises his findings: though certain strands of Hellenism subscribe to a view of a material pneuma, this is not present in the Hebrew Bible, early Judaism, or Paul; nor do these sources operate with an idea of ethical empowerment or transformation through the infusion of a material Spirit.

Rabens ... agrees with Engberg-Pederson that Paul’s pneumatology cannot simply be reduced to either ‘Hellenistic-materialistic’ or ‘Jewish-immaterialistic’. However, he argues that it is also a false dichotomy to reduce Paul’s understanding of pneuma to either a Stoic or a Platonic one as Engberg-Pederson does.

On balance, Rabens is more convincing since he more thoroughly compares Stoic and Pauline thought and highlights the obvious differences that Engberg-Pedersen disregards. Rabens’s book is a model of thorough research, lucid argument, and careful exegesis. Engberg-Pedersen’s volume is also carefully argued, intensely stimulating, and an important study, but, ultimately, on a number of key points it remains unconvincing.

 

[Thomas]

I looked up 'matter' on wiki –

"In general relativity and cosmology
... Matter, therefore, is sometimes considered as anything that contributes to the energy–momentum of a system, that is, anything that is not purely gravity. This view is commonly held in fields that deal with general relativity such as cosmology. In this view, light and other massless particles and fields are all part of matter.

In ancient Greece
Thales (c. 624 BCE–c. 546 BCE) regarded water as the fundamental material of the world.
Anaximander (c. 610 BCE–c. 546 BCE) posited that the basic material was wholly characterless or limitless: the Infinite (apeiron).
Anaximenes (flourished 585 BCE, d. 528 BCE) posited that the basic stuff was pneuma or air.
Heraclitus (c. 535 BCE–c. 475 BCE) seems to say the basic element is fire, though perhaps he means that all is change.
Empedocles (c. 490–430 BCE) spoke of four elements of which everything was made: earth, water, air, and fire.
Meanwhile, Parmenides argued that change does not exist, and Democritus argued that everything is composed of minuscule, inert bodies of all shapes called atoms

Aristotle (384 BCE–322 BCE) was the first to put the conception on a sound philosophical basis ... He adopted as reasonable suppositions the four Empedoclean elements, but added a fifth, aether. Nevertheless, these elements are not basic in Aristotle's mind. Rather they, like everything else in the visible world, are composed of the basic principles matter and form.

"For my definition of matter is just this—the primary substratum of each thing, from which it comes to be without qualification, and which persists in the result." — Aristotle, Physics I:9:192a32

Summary
The modern conception of matter has been refined many times in history, in light of the improvement in knowledge of just what the basic building blocks are, and in how they interact... It is fair to say that in physics, there is no broad consensus as to a general definition of matter, and the term "matter" usually is used in conjunction with a specifying modifier."

Thoughts:
I reckon it's fair to say the more I read about what matter is, the more complex it becomes.

I reckon if you look at the Stoic view of 'matter', then clearly it becomes something not quite as materialistic as we regard it today – the intellect is matter,

I reckon that the more Quantum Physics or whatever supplants it explains the cosmos, the definitions will be refined all over again.

I reckon that how we understand 'matter', or 'spirit', will never be precisely what it is, but is always a viable means of expressing the most profound metaphysical, philosophical and theological ideas ... that the ancients had a view of the cosmos and matter that we now know as wrong, that should not lead us to suppose the wisdoms they derive from contemplating the cosmos is wrong.

To my mind there is, in the sacra doctrina of the world, a timeless wisdom which although may be expressed in culturally-relative and contingent analogies, that should not be obscured by too close forensic focus on the material aspect – these texts are not scientific treatises, and nor should they be judges as such.

 

[Thomas]

On Stoics philosophy:

Fundamental to Stoic physics and the explanations of natural phenomena it offers are the two principles (archai), the active principle and the passive principle, which bear complex and often debated relations to pneuma, primary matter, the four elements (air, water, fire, earth), and the cosmos as a whole. These terms appear to be used in different senses in the surviving fragmentary evidence, making the task of reconstructing a coherent and unified physical theory somewhat challenging.

The active and passive principles together make up the world and everything in it. To achieve this, the active principle, which is identified with God or Zeus, a corporeal entity, identical with the active principle, characterized as eternal reason (logos: Diogenes Laertius, 44B) or intelligent designing fire or breath (pneuma) which structures matter in accordance with its plan (Aetius, 46A).

The active principle, then acts on the passive principle, which is also called (at least by Zeno) primary matter.

Primary matter is eternal, unqualified, formless, and inert. Primary matter is suffused throughout by the active principle in order to create objects in the world. The active and the passive principles in this way both constitute the cosmos and all objects in it.

The Stoics stressed that they are entirely blended, or mixed “through and through” (Galen, 47H; Alexander of Aphrodisias, 48C), and developed a theory of mixture which allowed for two bodies to be in the same place at the same time (Hensley 2018; cf. Helle 2018 and 2022).

The vehicle for the divine active principle is called pneuma, literally “breath” (Hensley 2020). Pneuma, by its nature, has a simultaneous movement inward and outward which constitutes its inherent “tensility”. Pneuma passes through all (other) bodies; in its outward motion it gives them the qualities that they have, and in its inward motion makes them unified objects (Nemesius, 47J; cf. Helle 2021).

Pneuma comes in gradations and endows the bodies which it pervades with different qualities as a result. The pneuma which sustains an inanimate object is a “tenor” (hexis, lit. “a holding”). Pneuma in plants is, in addition, “physique” (phusis, lit. “nature”), and in animals, it is “soul” (psuchê, see 2.9 below).

 

[Ahanu]

Found this review:

Found this description of your website where you found your review: "Themelios [the-mel-i-os - “foundation”] is an international, evangelical, peer-reviewed theological journal that expounds and defends the historic Christian faith. Its primary audience is theological students and pastors, though scholars read it as well. It began in 1975 and was operated by RTSF/UCCF in the UK, and it became a digital journal operated by The Gospel Coalition in 2008. The editorial team draws participants from across the globe as editors, essayists, and reviewers. Themelios is published three times a year online at The Gospel Coalition website in PDF and HTML, and may be purchased in digital format with Logos Bible Software and in print with Wipf and Stock. It is also accessible in full-text through the ATLA Religion Database. Readers are free to use it and circulate it in digital form without further permission, but they must acknowledge the source and may not change the content."

The reviewer is a New Testament lecturer at Moore Theological College. "The college has a strong tradition of conservative evangelical theology with an emphasis on the study of the Bible in its original languages, the use of primary sources in theology, the heritage of the Reformation and the integration of theology and ministry practice. It gives particular attention to full-time study in the context of a Christian learning community as an appropriate context for training for full-time Christian ministry, however it also offers part-time and online learning opportunities. The college trains both men and women at every level of its program. On 1 July 2021, Moore College was recognised by the Australian Government's Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency as an Australian University College."

As I understand it, Troels Engberg-Pedersen interprets Paul through a Stoic lens.

Yep.

The interviewer says that "I’ve noticed, however, that Stoic philosophy is primarily used to support pneuma as a light material substance, whether fine particles, aether, or something else. It is held not only by you but also by Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Matt Novenson, and others." Paula Fredriksen and Robyn Faith Walsh also follow this line of thinking. Brilliant thinkers.

As I understand it, Paul is unaware of the distinctions you draw between Greek, Roman, and Jewish philosophy. Did he even see the Stoic lens that is so obvious to you today? Or are you applying distinctions that were nonexistent in Paul's thinking?

"The roots of Christianity are obviously Jewish, but in the Hellenistic and Roman periods Judaism itself was part of Greco-Roman culture, even though it, too, had its roots way back in history before the arrival of the Greeks. Thus the borderline between Judaism and the Greco-Roman world that has been assiduously policed by theologians speaking of Early Christianity has been erased. Similarly, the borderline between Greco-Roman ‘philosophy’ and Jewish and early Christian ‘religion’ has been transgressed."
-Troels Engberg-Pedersen, "Stoicism, Platonism, and the Jewishness of Christianity"

It's not about calling Paul a Stoic; it's about seeing if some of these ideas help us better understand aspects of Paul's thinking. So far they do. It makes complete sense of "substantial transformation/change," for example. One can argue intelligently and convincingly for a degree of influence.

"First, it is far from settled that Paul and John are in fact best understood in Stoic terms. For instance, I have myself argued that Paul’s idea of the “resurrection body” as a “spiritual body” (a sôma pneumatikon) is best understood in terms of the specifically Stoic understanding of the “spirit” (pneuma) as a bodily phenomenon. This reading extends also to explaining Paul’s views of how human beings should live in the present, as prematurely informed by the pneuma (only to be fully present in them at their resurrection). Here I find a basically monistic understanding pervading all of Paul’s cosmology and anthropology. Others, however, have argued for some extent of Stoic colouring in Paul’s cosmology and ontology, but a much more Platonic colouring in his anthropology, e.g. when Paul (“dualistically”?) contrasts “our inner (human) being” with “our mortal flesh.” This is argued, for example, by Stanley Stowers in From Stoicism to Platonism."
-Troels Engberg-Pedersen, "Stoicism, Platonism, and the Jewishness of Christianity"

As regards the last statement, there's Plato and Aristotle, Pythagoras and Epicurus among others, all with variable themes between the poles of physical and immaterial 'materia prima' – be it hyle, aether – but I should not suppose that they, or indeed necessarily TEP, mean 'matter' as we currently hold the term – they saw matter as different to the way we conceive it today, as they saw fire, as an element, for example.

Here's Engberg-Pedersen's definition: "the Stoic pneuma is a material element or energy made up from a mixture of the two finest elements of the four: fire and air. It extends throughout the world but has its principal place in the uppermost regions of the world. But also the Stoic pneuma is also a cognitive entity (reason). It is what gives human beings a share in rationality and reason (logos and nous). The Stoics therefore said (and I am quoting from Paul’s contemporary, Seneca) that ‘reason is nothing other than a part of the divine spirit descended (or sunk) into a human body.'"

Volker Rabens’s book, however, challenges many of the central concerns of Engberg-Pedersen...

Rabens surveys Graeco-Roman and Jewish literature... In discussing Jewish literature, Rabens concludes that apart from perhaps one strand in Philo (where pneuma is referred to as an σώματος οὐσία) there is evidence neither for any interest in the materiality/immateriality of the Spirit in Judaism nor for an infusion-transformation ethic.

Chapter 3 ... treats the ‘spiritual body’ of 1 Cor 15:44 and the possible infusion of the material Spirit through the sacraments (1 Cor 12:13; 6:11; 10:3–4). On the basis of extensive exegesis of 1 Cor 15:44, Rabens argues that the idea of a physical pneuma is not found here.

However, Rabens is more cautious regarding the possibility of Paul having an ‘infusion-transformation’ concept of ethical enabling. He argues that Paul is ambiguous regarding the actual method of reception of the Spirit—i.e., the image of being made to drink of the Spirit (1 Cor 12:13) may have evoked an association with Stoic pneumatology in Paul’s audience.

However, not only does the philosophic language of Stoicism fundamentally differ from Paul, it remains to be proven that Stoic pneumatology was understood by all the members of Paul’s churches (and not just the elite). As such, Rabens argues, it seems wiser to attempt to develop a model of the work of the Spirit in Paul’s ethics that is based on the actual effects that are attributed to the Spirit in Paul (and in Judaism).

Chapter 7 summarises his findings: though certain strands of Hellenism subscribe to a view of a material pneuma, this is not present in the Hebrew Bible, early Judaism, or Paul; nor do these sources operate with an idea of ethical empowerment or transformation through the infusion of a material Spirit.

Rabens ... agrees with Engberg-Pederson that Paul’s pneumatology cannot simply be reduced to either ‘Hellenistic-materialistic’ or ‘Jewish-immaterialistic’. However, he argues that it is also a false dichotomy to reduce Paul’s understanding of pneuma to either a Stoic or a Platonic one as Engberg-Pederson does.

On balance, Rabens is more convincing since he more thoroughly compares Stoic and Pauline thought and highlights the obvious differences that Engberg-Pedersen disregards. Rabens’s book is a model of thorough research, lucid argument, and careful exegesis. Engberg-Pedersen’s volume is also carefully argued, intensely stimulating, and an important study, but, ultimately, on a number of key points it remains unconvincing.

Yet, despite Raben's opposition to Engberg-Pedersen, he still concludes: "Paul does not attribute such an importance to these factors (referring to the material/immaterial πνεῦμα); rather he leaves these matters open." While Rabens strongly advocates for a non-material understanding of πνεῦμα, he ultimately acknowledges that Paul doesn't explicitly define its nature.

Paul hails from Tarsus, a hotbed for the Stoic tradition. We shouldn't be surprised to find Stoic ideas in his writings. I would suggest Rabens listens to Thiessen's advice and try to understand the significance of the Greco-Roman intellectual context and its influence.

"Paul was neither a Stoic nor a highly trained philosopher. But the basic elements of Platonic and Stoic thinking were the conceptual air that most people in the Greco-Roman world breathed. One would surely be wrong to think that all people today know what quarks and hadrons are, but many of us have a basic understanding of what gravity is or what atoms, protons, and neutrons are. So too, it is hard to believe that someone like Paul would not have known how the term pneuma was being used more broadly in his day. And, if we can trust Acts on this point, Paul came from the city of Tarsus, a known hotbed of Stoic philosophy. This was his world, even if it is not ours.

Therefore, when Paul spoke of the pneuma, he was doing so under the influence of not only the Greek translations of Jewish scriptures but also of the intellectual context of his own day, where pneuma was thought to be the best material in the cosmos. In other words, unless he unmistakably signaled that he meant something quite different, his readers would inevitably have heard pneuma as those around them were commonly using it: to refer to a type of matter that was eternal and divine. While we cannot know what was in Paul’s mind, I would suggest that unless he was a very poor communicator, he would have known he needed to clarify what he meant by pneuma if he meant something dramatically different from what most others around him would have meant by the term. Otherwise he would have opened himself up to inevitable misunderstandings."
-Matthew Thiessen

Thiessen's on point.

 

[Ahanu]

It makes complete sense of "substantial transformation/change," for example. One can argue intelligently and convincingly for a degree of influence.

"Writing in Greek, Paul’s term for ‘spirit’ is pneuma, which was as elastic as its Hebrew and Aramaic counterparts, so that it could also mean ‘breath’ or ‘wind’. For most first-century philosophers, pneuma was not the abstract immateriality of Platonic theory, but an airy yet material substance pervading the cosmos, much as Stoic thinkers imagined. Its fiery heat and dynamism gave it a generative quality easily qualified as divine in origin. In this early ritual confession in Romans [1:3-4], the pneuma that resurrects Christ is identified as being ‘holy’, and it is the powerful divine force that not only reboots but upgrades Christ’s body in a process of extraordinary corporeal transformation. While the portrayal of holy pneuma evokes something of the generative nature it was accorded in some philosophical circles, it also reflects a specialized outworked of what were already very ancient scriptural traditions about the bodily transformation of Yahweh’s kings and prophets, and the divine breath that had enlivened the clay figurine of Adam. For Paul himself, the transformation of Christ’s corpse was a substantive corporeal change, so that his risen body was composed entirely of pneuma: ‘Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”, the last Adam [Christ] became enlivening pneuma’ [1 Cor. 15:45]."
-Francesca Stavrakopoulou, God: An Anatomy

 

[Ahanu]

Chapter 3 ... treats the ‘spiritual body’ of 1 Cor 15:44 and the possible infusion of the material Spirit through the sacraments (1 Cor 12:13; 6:11; 10:3–4). On the basis of extensive exegesis of 1 Cor 15:44, Rabens argues that the idea of a physical pneuma is not found here.

In his analysis of 1 Corinthians 15, Rabens changes Paul's question to the following: "By what agency or power can this extraordinary thing happen?" He distorts Paul.

No, Paul asks: "How are the dead raised? With what sort of body do they come?" This is a question about the nature of the body. Rabens believes the Corinthians' question "does not specify an interest in the very physics of it [the body]."

David Litwa takes down the objections of Rabens. "Rabens argues that if the σῶμα πνευματικόν (v.44) means a body made up of pneuma, then σῶμα ψυχικόν must mean a body made up of soul. This is not entirely off the mark. In some way the current physical body is made up of soul, if the soul is conceived of as a breath of life breathed into the earthly body in the creation account of Gen. 2.7 (cited in Paul in 1 Cor. 15:45). (The breath in Gen. 2:7 does not appear to be an immaterial entity, but - like the wind - something felt and physical.) Thus according to Genesis 2, humans in their current state are made up of two things: earth (thus Paul can name the first man 'earthly') and breath (the soul breathed into the earth by God). Put together, the earthly body inspired by soul (or breath) makes up the σῶμα ψυχικόν. Such a body is corruptible because the earthly substance, or flesh, grows old and decays. In the current earthly state, Paul's converts had an initial dose of pneuma (a 'life-giving breath') which renews their true or inner self even as the outer self (or flesh) continues to waste away (2 Cor 4:17). The flesh will no longer be a hinderance in the eschaton when the believer entirely becomes a pneumatic body not entirely connected to earthly, corruptible flesh. If the σῶμα ψυχικόν, then, can be conceived of as some way made up of soul (or breath), there is no reason why σῶμα πνευματικόν cannot be conceived of as made up of pneuma. Rabens objection thus does not stand."

 

[Ahanu]

". . . if the pneumatic body is made up of pneuma, the question arises, 'What, in the physics of Paul's day, was pneuma?' Scholars and exegetes are more and more coming to the conclusion that it did not mean immaterial 'spirit.' It is more suitably translated as 'breath' or 'wind.' Among ancient philosophers and medical professionals, it was thought of as a corporeal substance, though not a solid, earthly substance like earth and water. It was much more like air. Air, however, was thought to be more cold and misty, whereas pneuma was hot, fiery, fine, and subtle. Many Stoics described pneuma as a mixture of air and fire, and identified it as the substance of aether, or the fiery air that existed in the upper reaches of the universe."
-David Litwa

 

[Thomas]

It's not about calling Paul a Stoic; it's about seeing if some of these ideas help us better understand aspects of Paul's thinking. So far they do. It makes complete sense of "substantial transformation/change," for example. One can argue intelligently and convincingly for a degree of influence.

OK, his ideas satisfy you. They don't, so firmly, for me, as the evidence is far from conclusive and, as critics point out, selective.

 

[Thomas]

... For most first-century philosophers, pneuma was not the abstract immateriality of Platonic theory, but an airy yet material substance pervading the cosmos, much as Stoic thinkers imagined.

Yet the Fathers were, almost to a man, primarily Platonists.

Its fiery heat and dynamism gave it a generative quality easily qualified as divine in origin.

So we have to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to assert the Jews thought God was a material substance?