The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The ... - josephprestonkirk

JÖRG FREY 455
to his negative usage of “flesh” in terms of Hellenistic or gnostic ideas. 185
More recently, a Hellenistic Jewish concept of dualistic wisdom was presented
as an explanation for the antithesis in Paul. 186 But the textual evidence
for such a concept is weak. A dualistic antithesis of sa/rc and
pneu=ma comparable to the Pauline usage can be found neither in the
Wisdom of Solomon nor in the works of Philo, where “flesh” (sa/rc) like
“body” (sw~ma) is viewed as a part of the earthly sphere, but not as the
reason or occasion for sin, 187 nor as a quasi-demonic power with cosmic
dimensions. Therefore, summarizing the discussion, Robert Jewett correctly
points out that “on the key issue of the precedent for Paul’s cosmic
sa/rc usage, the Qumran tradition offers a somewhat closer correlation
than Hellenistic Judaism.” 188
However, the suggestion that the apostle could have used the terms of the
Qumran community189 was too bold to be accepted. It is unlikely that Paul—
even when he was a Pharisaic student of the Torah in Jerusalem190 —had
185. With regard to Paul’s negative use of “flesh,” during the nineteenth century
adherents of the Tübingen school of Ferdinand Christian Baur attributed it to pagan
Hellenistic thought. The explanation from Hellenism or Hellenistic syncretism was
then continued by the scholars of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, e.g., by Wilhelm
Bousset, as in Kyrios Christos, 134; and Richard Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen
Mysterienreligionen (3d ed.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1927), 86, characterizing Paul as the
greatest of all gnostics. The explanation from Gnosticism was also accepted in the
influential works of Rudolf Bultmann, as in “Paulus,” RGG (2d ed.; 1930),
4:1019–45, esp. 1035; and his student Ernst Käsemann, in Leib und Leib Christi: Eine
Untersuchung zur paulinischen Begrifflichkeit (BHT 9; Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1933), 105.
On the history of research see Robert Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms: A Study of
Their Use in Context Settings (AGJU 10; Leiden: Brill, 1971), 49–94; Alexander Sand,
Der Begriff “Fleisch” in den paulinischen Hauptbriefen (Biblische Untersuchungen, NS 2;
Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1967), 1–121; Frey, “Die paulinische Antithese,”
45–48.
186. Cf. basically Brandenburger, Fleisch und Geist.
187. This holds true for Book of Giantsd ar 29 as well, where “flesh” is said to be “the
chief cause for ignorance” (cf. 4Q532 frags. 1–6 2.2–5). But in this Philonic passage,
flesh denotes only the duties of daily life, marriage, rearing of children, provision of
necessities, and the business of private and public life, which tie the human being to
the earthly sphere and hinder the growth of wisdom.
188. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 92–93.
189. Cf. Schulz, “Zur Rechtfertigung aus Gnaden,” 155–85, esp. 184: “kein Zweifel
…, daß Paulus die theologischen Anschauungen dieser Sekte gekannt und aufgegriffen
hat.” Becker, Das Heil Gottes, 249–50, asserts an indirect Essene influence on the
Pauline terminology of sin. Cf. also Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Truth: Paul and
Qumran,” in Paul and Qumran: Studies in New Testament Exegesis (ed. J. Murphy-
O’Connor Chicago: Priory, 1968), 179–230, esp. 179: “That there are traces of
Essene influence in the Pauline corpus is now generally admitted.”
190. On the general trustworthiness of the note on Paul’s studies in Jerusalem (Acts
22:3), see Martin Hengel and Roland Deines, The Pre-Christian Paul (London: SCM,
1991), 29–34, 40–43.