No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
In his influential article in TDNT, E. Schweizer was to claim
Luke adopts the typically Jewish idea that the Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy…. This may be seen in Lk 4:23–27, where the miraculous signs mentioned in the quotation in v. 18 are specifically rejected as manifestations of the Spirit and only authoritative preaching is regarded as the fulfilment of the prophecy.
1 TDNT 6 (1968) 407.Google Scholar
2 See e.g. TDNT 6 (1968) 402–4.Google Scholar
3 Menzies, R. P., The Development of Early Christian Pneumatology With Special Reference to Luke–Acts (unpublished PhD dissertation; Aberdeen, 1989).Google Scholar
4 See Development, 39–99; especially 54, 64, 79 and 99.
5 Chaps. 6–11: cf. his conclusion, ‘Whereas the primitive church, following in the footsteps of Jesus, broadened the functions traditionally ascribed to the Spirit in first-century Judaism and thus presented the Spirit as the source of miracle-working power, Luke retained the traditional Jewish understanding of the Spirit as the source of special insight and inspired speech’ (273).
6 We earlier offered a critique of this claim (as made by e.g. Schweizer, G. Haya-Prats and Rese, M.), both in ‘Jesus and the Spirit in Lucan Perspective’, Tyndale Bulletin 32 (1981) 15–18Google Scholar; and in Luke and the Spirit: Studies in the Significance of Receiving the Spirit in Luke–Acts (unpublished PhD dissertation; Cambridge, 1980) 60–7; 139–46Google Scholar. See now our ‘The Spirit and the Power of Jesus' Miracles in the Lucan Conception’, Novum Testamentum 33 (1991) 124–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7 This has been one of the positive legacies of the scholarship of von Baer, H. (Der Heilige Geist in den Lukasschriften [Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1926])Google Scholar; Lampe, G. W. H. (from ‘The Holy Spirit in the Writings of Saint Luke’, Studies in the Gospels [ed. Nineham, D. E.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1955] 159–200Google Scholar to God as Spirit [Oxford: Clarendon, 1977])Google Scholar, and Haya-Prats, G. J., L'Esprit force de l'Église (Paris: Cerf, 1975)Google Scholar as well as Schweizer and Menzies already mentioned.
8 Turner, , Luke, chaps. 4 and 5; and also ‘The Spirit of Christ and Christology’, Christ the Lord (ed. Rowdon, H.; Leicester: IVP, 1982) 174–81.Google Scholar
9 Contra Leisegang, H., Pneuma Hagion: Der Ursprung des Geistesbegriffs der synoptischen Evangelien aus der griechischen Mystik (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1922)Google Scholar, see Turner, M., ‘The Significance of Receiving the Spirit in Luke–Acts: A Survey of Modern Scholarship’, Trinity Journal 2 (1981) 134–7Google Scholar. Other than in discussions of the Delphic oracle (dealt with by Leisegang), Marie Isaacs can only find πνεμ⋯α related to inspiration of poets or priests in two places: Euripides, Frg. 192, and Democritus, Frg. 18 (so Isaacs, M. E., The Concept of Spirit [London: Heythrop Monographs, 1976] 15).Google Scholar
10 All direct prophecy would fit this classification: see Aune, D. E., Prophecy in Early Christianity and the Ancient Mediterranean World (Exeter: Paternoster, 1983) 23–4 and 339.Google Scholar
11 The attempt by Shelton, J. B., ‘“Filled with the Holy Spirit” and “Full of the Holy Spirit”: Lucan Redactional Phrases’, Faces of Renewal (ed. Elbert, P.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1988) 81–107Google Scholar, to argue that these phrases always mean ‘to inspire for witness/speech’ has a grain of truth, but is pressed too far when it is made to account for Luke 1.15 (John leaping in the womb); 4.1 and Acts 7.55, and once that is said other examples also fall under suspicion.
12 Contra Conzelmann, H., The Theology of Saint Luke (London: Faber, 1960) 19–27Google Scholar, and Wink, W., John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition (Cambridge: CUP, 1968) 42–57Google Scholar; see e.g. Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel according to Luke (I–IX) (New York: Doubleday, 1981) 213, 319–20; 326–7; 377; 385–6; 476–7; 670–6; 1114–18Google Scholar, or, Fitzmyer, , Luke the Theologian (London: Chapman, 1989) 86–116.Google Scholar
13 For literature on Jesus as the Mosaic Prophet see e.g. Turner, , Tyndale Bulletin 32 (1981) 25–8Google Scholar; but the fullest case is now made by Feiler, P. F., Jesus the Prophet: The Lucan Portrayal of Jesus as the Prophet like Moses (unpublished PhD dissertation, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1986)Google Scholar and Moessner, D. P., Lord of the Banquet (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989)Google Scholar
14 Jesus' logion is much more easily interpreted as the use of apocalyptic metaphor to describe the disciples' success than as a literal description of a vision. Against Kümmel, U. B. Müller, and H. Merklein, see e.g. the arguments of Fitzmyer, , Luke, 166–8.Google Scholar
15 Luke may mean Jesus rejoiced because of the Holy Spirit manifest in the successful mission: cf. Turner, , Luke, 86–8.Google Scholar
16 Aune, , Prophecy, 187.Google Scholar
17 Sato, M., Q und Prophetie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1988)Google Scholar, has attempted on formal grounds, and on the basis of some twenty-six criteria (95–107; summarised 105–6), to claim much of the Q material as prophetic (oracular) address, but his criteria of what is prophetic seem to us to be far too broad to permit the conclusion. Unfortunately this work arrived too late to be used in this article.
18 The difference between this category and the ‘Charismatic Revelation’ defined above is not absolute, but lies in several shifts in the typology of the charisma. Charismatic ‘wisdom’ typically involves the heightening and moulding of a man's natural understanding and abilities, to bring them into fuller accord with God's will or to bend them to serve his purpose: in contrast to ‘Charismatic Revelation’, (i) it need not be consciously received; (ii) it may be incrementally imparted over a considerable period of years; (iii) it is usually associated with an on-going skill or ability to handle information (rather than being content- or information-centred), and (iv) it is typically related to and enhances natural abilities (thus Ben Sira expected the pious scholar might (under God's grace) find himself ‘filled with spirit of understanding’ in and through his diligent study of the law (Sir 39.6, even if he did not think the devoted student would thereby attain ‘prophecy’).
19 I.e. an event in which some or all of the participants believe the Spirit to have become manifest.
20 See Schäfer, P., Die Vorstellung vom heiligen Geist in der rabbinischen Literatur (Munich: Kösel, 1972), 23–6Google Scholar; and ‘Die Termini “Heilige Geist” und “Geist der Prophetie” in den Targumim und das Verhältnis der Targumim zueinander’, VT 20 (1970) 304–14.Google Scholar
21 See Schäfer, , Geist, 34–8.Google Scholar
22 Tanchuma (Buber) ויךא §12 – Abraham said: Lord of the World, I see in the holy spirit, that once a single woman will save a whole town (scil. 2 Sam 20.13ff.) – and I, am I not worthy to save these five towns?
23 See Targum Onqelos, Targum PsJonathan and Codex Neofiti on Gen 41.38.
24 Conveniently assembled in Schäfer, , Geist, 27–61.Google Scholar
25 But Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer 39.92b characterises Joseph's gift as charismatic wisdom.
26 An exception might be the Jerusalem Targum on 1 Sam 2.1, Hannah ‘prayed in the Spirit of prophecy and said, “One day my son Samuel shall be prophet over Israel…”’. Whether this is regarded as invasive prophetic speech, or prayer formulated in the light of charismatic revelation, is unclear.
27 See Midrash Haggadol Num 1.374 commenting on 1 Sam 24.21; but this is a very late form of the tradition. The Targums to 1 Sam 10.6; 11.16 and 19.23 interpret the Spirit rather as the power of ‘invasive charismatic praise’.
28 See Schäfer, , Geist, 67f.Google Scholar
29 Certainly so in the case of Eldad and Medad in the Targum tradition.
30 Cf. also t. Sota 6.2; Exod. Rab. 23.2 and parallels attributing Israel's participation in ‘the Song of Moses’ to the Holy Spirit resting upon them: here too we appear to have a kind of invasive charismatic praise.
31 Cf. the more elaborate (later) version in Midrash Haggadol Gen 242.
32 Moses is said to hear from the mouth of God and to speak in the Holy Spirit (Num. Rab. 14.21 and //s), but the distinction appears to be between direct revelation (as at the Burning Bush, Sinai etc.), and indirect (God heard through the Holy Spirit). Interestingly, in Lev. Rab. 1.3, ‘He (Moses) was called … “Father of Soco” because he was father of the prophets who see (sokim) by means of the Holy Spirit.’
33 In Eusebius Praeparatio Evangelica 8.9.38–8.10.17: Fragment 2.4.
34 Decal. 175; Vita Mos. 2.265.
35 Philo does not relegate prophecy to the past: he describes himself as experiencing such charisma often (‘a thousand times’ and with ‘corybantic frenzy’ of ‘divine possession’ according to Migr. Abr. 34–35; Cher. 27). This is undoubtedly hyperbole, and draws on traditional and Platonic language of manticism: but that strong awareness of charisma is implied can barely be doubted (cf. the discussion in Isaacs, Spirit, 49ff., and Wedderburn, A. J. M., Baptism and Resurrection, Tübingen: Mohr 1987, 249–68)Google Scholar. While Isaacs (49) suggests that Philo restricts the Spirit to the biblical period, and spoke of charismata in his own time only without reference to the Spirit (to safeguard the ancient revelation), this must be regarded as improbable. It would contravene his own unders tanding of the relation of τò θεῖμα to ‘mind’ and ‘wisdom’, and it goes against his own testimony in Som. 2.252).
36 Contra Menzies, Development, 49–50, who takes this to prove that the Wisdom of Solomon is pessimistic about mankind, and believes that salvation is only attained as individual men and women each receive saving wisdom in a charisma of the Spirit. Wis 9.17 is more simply understood as a reaffirmation of the traditional Jewish belief that without the revelatory wisdom God gave Moses, Solomon and Israel's prophets, no-one would know the path to life. The aim of the book is to encourage Jews to adhere to their traditional faith (see e.g. Winston, David [Wisdom of Solomon, New York: Doubleday, 1979] especially 63)Google Scholar, not to justify a novel charismatic wisdom theology. Solomon is portrayed as having received the highest wisdom through the Spirit upon him, not as an archetype of the spiritual man, but as a king of Israel (contrast the Roman emperor), whose charisma has brought Israel the wisdom she cherishes. If the writer envisages a present parallel, it would suggest he saw Spirit (qua ‘wisdom’) widely given in his own generation, to the pious reader of the Law, and it is precisely Spirit as revelation (contained in the Law, and applied to the reader), that is given.
37 But this may be Montanist redaction: so Spittler, R. P., The Testament of Job (unpublished PhD dissertation; Harvard, 1971) 58–69.Google Scholar
38 Even at Micah 3.8, which is as close to Schweizer's view as the OT comes, the ‘power’ of the Spirit is the compelling force of the prophet's conviction concerning the revelation he has received. It stands in direct contrast to the feeble dithering of the false prophets stripped of their powers and devoid of revelations (3.5–7).
39 The Christian redactional nature of 1.7 is also evident from the words ‘and as the Beloved of my LORD lives’ (referring expression for Christ).
40 See e.g. Burge, G. M., The Anointed Community: The Holy Spirit in the Johannine Community (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) ch. 5.Google Scholar
41 Schmitz, O., ‘Der Begriff δ⋯ναμις bei Paulus’, Festgabe für Adolf Deissmann (ed. Schmidt, K. L.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1927) 139–67.Google Scholar