THE USE AND NON-USE OF PNEUMA BY JOSEPHUS 1)

BY

ERNEST BEST
Caledon, N. Ireland

The Greek Bible normally translates the Hebrew ruach by pneuma

(the principal departure is found when ruach is applied to the spirit
of man). The two words ruach and fineuuJa, though possessing the
same fundamental meaning, 'wind', differed widely in develop-
ment 2) ; ruach possessed a range and depth of meaning not to be
found in pneuma except where it had been affected by Jewish, and
possibly also Iranian, influence. The equating of ?nezama with ruach
in the LXX must have produced a difficult concept for non-Semitic
readers. How would an educated Jew have attempted to put over
for Greek readers the meanings of yzcach ? The LXX does not help
us but Josephus, who sought in his Antiquities to interpret the
Biblical history for such Greek readers, can give some assistance
in answering the question. How then does he avoid or make use of
the Biblical rztachlpneuma concept ? The first ten books of the
Antiquities are concerned with the sacred history which he re-
arranges, digests or expands from time to time, but which on the
whole he follows fairly closely. From i Samuel onwards he seems
to have been mainly indebted to the Greek Bible, but in the earlier
books he had preferred the use of the Hebrew text (or possibly an
Aramaic Targum) as basis for his work 3).
It must be realised that Josephus omits large portions of the
Biblical history and so rewrites other parts that many instances

1) All references are to the Jewish Antiquities except where otherwise

explicitly identified. The text used has been that of the LOEB edition, and
where that has not yet appeared, that of NABER.
2) Cf. P. VOLZ, Der Geist Gottes; E. DE W. BURTON, Spirit, Soul, and
Flesh; F. BÜCHSEL,Der Geist Gottes im Neuen Testament, pp. 1-147; W. R.
SHOEMAKER,The Use of 'Ruach' in the Old Testament, and of 'Pneuma' in the
New Testament: a lexicographical study, J.B.L., 23 (1904) 13-67 ; KLEIN-
KNECHT, BAUMGÄRTEL,SJÖBERG, BIEDER, SCHWEIZER, T.W.N. T. VI,
pp. 330-453.
3) Cf. THACKERYH.D.B. V, pp. 467b, 468a; and in the introduction to
vol. IV of LOEBJosephus, p. xii. Contrast Josephus' own implication that he
translated everything from the Hebrew, 1, 5.
 219

of ruachlpneuma disappear altogether without leaving us any

trace of how Josephus would have dealt with the problem of
translation. Our concern is with those passages in which he either
retains the word Pneuma, or introduces it, or conveys what it means
by either substituting another word or phrase or by rewriting the
passage.
It is obvious that some of the Biblical usages of ruachlpneuma
cause him no difficulty. This is true when it means 'wind'. He
retains its use in this sense in VIII, 346 --- i Kings 18 . 45 ; IX, 36 =
2 Kings 3. 17. With the LXX, he replaces ruach of the Hebrew in
Dan. 2. 35 = X, 207; Dan. 8. 8 = X, 271 by 1). He uses
Pneuma on a number of occasions where it is not used at the precise
point in Scripture, though it may occur in the context: II, 343, 349
(cf. Exod. 14. 21; i5. 8, io) ; IX, 210 (cf. Jonah 1.4); X, 279.
He uses it also in this sense in places where he is not dependent on
the O.T., XII, 75; XIV, 28, XVI 17, 62 ; B. J. IV, 477. There is
thus no tendency to avoid the use of the word in this sense. No
occasions happen to arise in which Josephus is forced to decide
whether to continue the use of ruachlpneuma in the sense of breath ;
outside the Biblically controlled passages he does so use it twice,
viz, III, 291 (where he introduces it into the context of Num.
10. i ff.) and XVII, 169. We postpone the discussion of I, 34 and
III, 260.
It is in those passages in which pneumalruach is referred to man
that Josephus has made the greatest change. Where pneuntalyuach
was equivalent to the personal pronoun in the original Josephus
normally replaces it by the pronoun or by a pronominal or other
phrae: VI, 360 = i Sam. 30. 12 ; VIII, 356 - 1 Kings 21. 5 (LXX
20. 5) ; VII, 173 = 2 Kdms. 13. 2i ; III, 271 = Num. 5. 14, 30 (the
spirit of jealousy becomes uno II, 75 = Gen.
41. 8 (The M.T. text says that Pharaoh's yuach was troubled, the
LXX says that his was troubled, Josephus uses the parti-
ciple V, 345 = I Sam. 1.155 (here the LXX has
already changed the phrase). Very similar to the usage of ruach
as thepersonal pronoun is its occurrence in 2 Chron. 36. 22 = Ezra
i. r, where it is said that the Lord stirred up the ruach of Cyrus;
here Josephus XI, 3 follows the LXX in retaining the phrase but
substitutes for ruacla. Josephus (XIII, 20I) replaces the
pneuma of 1 Macc. 13. 7 by and in XI, 237 = Esther 5. ie he
1) Theod. reads pneuma in Dan. 2.35 and in 8.8.
220

uses 8v«vov«. We should note also at this point that the phrase
recurring in DSS, 'to judge the spirits', I QS 5. 20-24; 6. 17; cf.
9. 14-18; CD 20. 24, reappears in Josephus as To 100q
(B. J. II, 138). In one instance where yuach means 'anger' (Judges
8.3) this is made explicit by Josephus, V, 231. In Esther 8. 12 m
(16. 12) where fineuJna is used of 'life' (to take a man's life) Josephus
IX, 278 replaces it by in accordance with Greek usage; cf.
VIII, 325 = 3 Kdms. 17. 171). In i Chron. 28. 12 where pneitmal
yuach is used of 'mind' (the plans David had in mind), Josephus VII,
375 merely says that David gave the plans to Solomon; they are
obviously David's plans and no ambiguity is left when we omit the
mention of David's 'mind'. Josephus can also avoid the use of
pnettma by a long or short paraphrase or by the omission of the
clause in which it appears, thus showing his discomfort with it;
XI, 8 = Ezra 1. 5; IV, 40 = Num. 16. z2 (note his retention
of the universal reference of the phrase); in VIII, 170 = i Kings
10. 5 = 2 Chron. g. 4 and IX, 102 = 2 Chron. 21. 16 pneuma has
already disappeared from the LXX. Josephus introduces fineuma
at one place, XI, 240 = Esther 5. 2a, where it does not appear in
our existing LXX text (= the usage here is undoubtedly
Hebraic: eu6u5 u7rexc5pev ?,ov -r6 Tcve5?totXiX1.xaTeaev7ro?,r,v u?o
(cf. i Kings io. 5 etc.). It may be that Josephus possessed
a different Greek text at this point from ours or it may represent
merely a lapse into a Jewish mode of thought; he was brought up
a Jew and temporarily forgets his purpose to translate Jewish
terms into Greek clothing. On one other occasion we find fineuma
used of the human spirit, viz., B. J. III, 92,2) where he describes the
Roman soldiers before battle as TwoS xve4y«zoq
7rt?t7),4evoL. We must remember that the Greek version of B. J. is
based on an Aramaic original and this may be an oversight in the
interpretative translation; it is also possible that is to be
given here its full value and understood not as 'martial', but as 'of
the God, Ares'; we will see shortly that Josephus has no objection
to speaking of men as possessed with the divine pneztma, and he
prefers to say 0eiov 7-ve5?tocrather than Tcvz5pocOE:05;this may then

1) The Hebrew is here neshamah, which is in many respects equivalent

to ruach ; cf. BAUMGÄRTEL, op. cit., p. 362.
2) In B.J. III, 70-97 Josephus appears to be largely indebted to Polybius
(VI, 19-42); but the precise reference to the shouting in III, 92 is not found
in Polybius.
 221

be a parallel in which he suggests that the Roman soldiers are

filled with the spirit of Ares; it would not then be an example of
pneuma in the human sense but in the divine.
Two places into which Josephus has introduced fineuma seem to
stand by themselves (i) III, 260 (= Lev. 17. 11), §v/(v auTO (To
ay«) XiX1.Tc-ve5Voc The Hebrew says that the nefiliesh of
the flesh is in the blood and the LXX that the §v/% of all flesh is its
blood; in both cases the reference is to all that lives, animals
as well as men. In non-Biblical Greek there does not appear to be
any connection of this nature between §v/% and blood, and this
would be an exceedingly difficult phrase for the Greek thinker;
contemporary Greek medical thought did however make a con-
nection between pneuma and the blood 1). Pneuma is a corporeal
term in Stoic thought and could therefore be related to blood.
Probably it is then under Stoic influence that Josephus has inserted
pneuma at this point and it is an attempt to explain this peculiar
usage of §v/% to the Hellenistic world. (ii) I, 34 (= Gen. 2. 7),
£vixev 0(6,7FOXiX1.
1tVe:Ü[J.iX 2). Neplteslt and ux. appear in
the Scripture in that man becomes 'a living soul' by this act of God.
It was neshamah that God breathed into man; now nesha-
mah is in large part equivalent to ruach 3) in the O.T. and this may
have suggested to Josephus the use of pneuma here; further in Greek
is a purely physiological term without psychological over-
tones like pneuma, but Gen. 2. 7 is more than a description of the
physiological creation of man; hence Josephus' use of pneuma.
This is re-inforced by the use of to the Greek it is easier to
say man has a soul than that he is one. So Josephus parallels pneacma
and §v/% hoping that they will explain each other.
When the ruachlpneuma conception refers to God Josephus is
more inclined to retain it than when it refers to man. We find that
he has kept it in I, 27 = Gen. 1. 2 4) ; IV, 118 = Num. 23. 7
(Josephus has here put the reference to the divine fineuma at the
end of the speech rather than at the beginning as in the LXX;
1) Cf. G. VERBEKE,L'Evolution de la Doctrine du Pneuma, pp. 177 ff. Cf.
Philo, Qu. in Exod. II, 59.
2) The statement of Gen. 2.7 that God breathed into the face of man dis-
appears, presumably as too anthropomorphic.
3) Cf. note. 5.
4) Perhaps pneuma should be taken here as 'breath'; in the context,
however, it is certainly a breath coming from God and it is thus easier to
give it the full meaning 'spirit'. A Greek reader would be at liberty to take
it as 'breath'.
222

there is no reference to the Spirit at this point in the M.T. 1).

VI, 222 = i Sam. 19. 20; VI, 223 = i Sam. 19. 23; X, 239 = Dan.
5.14 (M.T. and Theod., but not LXX). We may note that in each
case Josephus changes 6eou to 6eiov 7rvE:5?toc(Except Gen.
1. 2, where the possibility of change does not arise) 2). There are a
number of points at which Josephus introduces fineuma where it
does not occur in either M.T. or LXX at the exact point but does
appear in the immediate context. (i) IV, io8 = Num. 22. 15 ff. ;
ruach occurs in the M.T. at 24. 2 and pneuma at 24. 2 and 23. 7 in
LXX (A) 3). The part played by the divine spirit in this encounter
of Balaam with the angel is difficult; Balaam riding on the ass
approaches the angel; the ass is conscious of the divine pneuma;
it is said that both angel and divine fineuma draw nearer to the ass;
this may imply identification of the two and the divine spirit
is here to be thought of as 'a spirit'; then the ass speaks with a
human voice and we must assume that the divine spirit has entered
it and so it has the gift of prophecy; then the angel speaks, and so
appears to be regarded as distinct from the divine pneuma. The
divine fineuma is in any case here connected with oracular speech.
(ii) IV, II9 f. = Num. 23. 12. In Scripture Balaam attributes his
prophetic speech to God; Josephus transfers the attribution to the
divine pneun,a; it is only on this occasion that he speaks of To ro5
8eou 7ve5poc instead of 0evov making it somewhat more
personal. We may note again that Josephus emphasises more
strongly than Scripture the passivity of Balaam and the compulsion
to utter what is put in his mouth by the Spirit of God. (iii) VI,
166 == i Sam. 16. 14; but the reference to the divine fi>.i.euJxa in
regard to David is found at I Sam. 16. 13. We may in passing note

1) This is an indication that at this point he is following the Greek rather

than the Hebrew.
We may observe also that he indicates here that when the Spirit seizes a
man he is passive under it and his own desires and mind are overruled by it;
cf. VI, 223.
2) A. SCHLATTER,Die Theologie des Judentums nach dem Bericht des
Josefus, p. 58, notes this alteration as part of a general change in which
Josephus avoids and substitutes in such similar phrases as
Such a general change hardly arises here as the O.T.
rarely uses the phrase though it is more common in the Rab-
binic writings and in those of the Qumran Community. BURTON,op. cit., p.
116 argues that the phrase was in use as early as 300 B.C. in
non-Biblical Greek; cf. KLEINKNECHT,T.W.N.T. VI, p. 336 f.
3) This is one of the few places where ruach is not found in M.T. but the
LXX introduces pneuma.
 223

the disappearance from this passage of the evil ruach of Yahweh;

Saul is said to be afflicted by wva XiX1. (iv) VIII,
408; the context of this is i Kings 22. 21-24 in which the ruach
pneuma concept occurs. With the exception of I, 27 = Gen. 1. 2
the divine pneuma is thus connected with the gift of oracular or pro-
phetic speech. This was becoming an admissible usage of pneuma
in Greek; it occurs frequently in Plutarch's discussion of the
Delphic Oracle which is inspired by a breath coming from a cavern
in the earth 1). In I, 27 pneuma plays no clear role; loyalty to such
an important passage of Scripture demands its retention; a Greek
could easily take it to mean 'wind' or 'breath'.
The only genuinely new place into which Josephus introduces
the conception of the divine pneuma comes in Solomon's prayer
at the dedication of the Temple, VIII, 114 = i Kings 8. 27-30 ;
2 Chron. 6. 18-21; Solomon prays that TLVOC ro5 60?J TcvE:6-
y«zoq may dwell in the Temple. Elsewhere Josephus refers to the
dwelling of God himself in the Temple, III, 100, 202; VIII 102, io6;
B. J. V. 459. Judaism tended to speak of the Shekinah rather
than of God as present in the Temple. Moreover in 'Jewish litera-
ture the "holy spirit" frequently occurs in connections in which
"the Presence" (shekinah) is elsewhere employed, without any
apparent difference of meaning' 2). It is this which may have led
Josephus to his choice of pneuma at this point preferring it to
'Shekinah', an even more difficult concept for the non-Jew. To the
Stoic also Pneiima was corporeal and hence it is possible to refer to
a 'portion' of the pneuma 3). God is undoubtedly in heaven, all
Solomon asks is that a portion of his spirit should dwell in the
Temple. In this way Josephus attempts to overcome the gap
between the conception of Heaven as God's dwelling place and
his particular presence in the Temple-a difficulty which is felt
particularly at this point in Solomon's prayer.
However in the majority of instances Josephus has substituted
some other phrase for the reference to the Spirit in the original;
in most cases the substituted phrase retains a supernatural refe-
rence. In a number of instances he sublimates an explicit mention
of the spirit of God into a reference to prophecy, prophecy being a
supernatural phenomenon well-known in the ancient world;
1) De defectu oraculorum, 432 ff.
2) G. F. MOORE, Judaism, I, p. 437.
3) Cf. SHOEMAKER,op. cit., p. 46, who argues that the quantitative con-
ception is uppermost in Josephus' mind.
224

IV, 165 = Num. 27. 18 ; V, 285 = Judges 13. 25 (It is odd that
Samson has to be brought under the category of prophet); VIII,
295 = 2 Chron. 15. z; IX, 10 = 2 Chron. 20. 14; IX, 169 = 2
Chron. 24. 20. Josephus thus mentions prophets and prophecy
both with and without reference to the divine spirit. The spirit is
mentioned only in reference to prophets of the Biblical period;
where he mentions prophecy outside that period he does not use
the term Pneuma 1). Where in i Sam. 10. 6; m. 6 Scripture speaks
of the Spirit as coming on Saul, Josephus speaks of him as
VI, 56, 76. In V, 182 = Judges 3. 10 Othniel is warned by
an oracle. In V, 263 = Judges m. 29 Jephthah prays for victory.
In Judges 15. 14 = V, 300 where Samson in the power of the spirit
breaks his bonds, Josephus does not say that the spirit came on
him but does attribute his strength to divine assistance (V, 301). In
i Sam. 16. 14 = VI, 166 where the M. T. and LXX speak of the
Spirit of the Lord leaving Saul, Josephus says that To 6s?o?
abandoned Saul and passed over to David; we find a similar change
in Dan. 6. 4 = X, 250: Josephus frequently replaces 6 Oe6q by
To 8eiov but the latter also represents the 'powers' which stand
alongside God in the administration of the cosmos 2). It is possible
to suspect that nve:ü[J.iX may have been omitted at an early stage in
the development of the text. In Gen. 6. 3 = I, 75 the conception
of the Spirit of God as abiding in man is written out of the text
altogether: God condemns the people and then sends the flood.
On a number of occasions where the ruachlpneuma conception
refers to the giving of intelligence and understanding the super-
natural reference completely disappears and the person described
appears as wise or skilful in a purely human way (Gen. 41. 38 =
II, 87; Exod. 28. 3; 31. 3 ; 35. 31 - III, 200). Some references are
so embarrassing that they dropped without leaving any trace:
Judges 14. 6 = V, 287; Judges 14. 19 = V, 294 in which Samson

1) Cf. SCHLATTER,op. cit., p. 58. Josephus himself possessed the prophetic

gift: B.J. III, 399-408; B.J. IV, 622-29. He attributes it to John Hyrcannus
and to various Essenes: XIII, 299 f.; B.J. I, 69; B.J. VI, 300 ff.; B.J. I,
78-80; B.J. II, 159; Ant. XIII, 311-313 etc. Cf. BÜCHSEL,op. cit., pp. 95-8;
E. FASCHER,ΠPOΦHTHΣ pp. 161-4; G. DELLING,Josephus und das Wunder-
bare, N.T. 2 (1958) 291-301. Josephus also maintains that the series of pro-
phets ended with the O.T.; cf. c. Ap. I, 41. This was a general position of
Judaism. Yet spiritual gifts e.g. foretelling future events, continued; to meet
this the Rabbis introduced the conception of the Bath Qol.
2) Cf. SCHLATTER,op. cit., p. 24. We may compare the use of ενθεo of the
prophets; VI, 56 ; B.J. III, 353.
 225

is portrayed in the original as a charismatic hero; there is no means

of transforming him into a prophet at this point. Likewise the
reference to the transportation of Elijah by the spirit goes out:
i Kings 18. 12 = VIII, 333. We may note however that when Saul
appeared as a charismatic hero in i Sam. IL6 Josephus describes
him as £v0eoq ye:v6[J.e:voç,VI, 76 ; at IX, 183 Elisha is described
as having 36vx?tLv 8dûLV. Josephus does not thus drop the idea that
God can assist men other than by the enlightening of their under-
standing, though he uses pneuma only of the latter.
The increasing tendency in Judaism after the Persian period to
use pneuma of disembodied spirits is also found in Josephus ; this
usage also appears in non-Biblical Greek 1). For the evil spirit which
came on Saul Josephus retains pneuma (VI, 214 = 1 Sam. 19. 9
cf. VI, 2II, though he qualifies it with 8«tylviov 2). At VI, 166, 8 =
i Sam. 14-16 the evil pneuma becomes TCKOv] wva XiX1.aiXL[J.6vLiX.In
both cases he does not go along with the Bible in stating that
the evil spirit came from God. At VI, 2m he introduces a reference
to ro5 xovrpov x«1 TWV 8ayoviwv. In B.J. VII, 185,
TOC 8ayowa are spoken of as the xve4y«z« of the wicked dead which
enter into the living; and in B.J. I, 69 he traces prophecy to r6
?iXL[J.6vLOV indicating how closely ?at?L6vLov and nve5pot were asso-
ciated in his mind. Micah's vision of the lying spirit entering the
false prophets (i Kings 22. 21-23 = 2 Chron. 18. 20-23) is rewritten
without mention of ?MgMMM,the prophets being explicitly called
'false' (VIII, 406). Judges 9. 23 is also rewritten in V, 240 to remove
the mention of Pneuma.
In conclusion we may say that fineuJxa is retained in the meanings
which a Greek would easily accept, e.g. wind, breath. It virtually
disappears where it is applied to the spirit of man; this is an ex-
tension of a tendency already found in the LXX; the same occurs
in Philo. When it applies to God we find 0eiov Tc,)e6potrather than
7tVe:Ü[J.iX 8e:oü; its usage here is almost completely restricted to
prophecy and oracular speech and is used only of such within the
Biblical period; when prophecy is discussed outside that period
Pneuma is never used. This restriction to prophecy both follows the
general tendecy of post-Biblical Judaism and links up with Greek
usage in Plutarch.

1) Cf. BURTON, op. cit., p. 81.

2) On the use of the root δαµoν. with reference to good and evil spirits
see H. St. J. THACKERAY and R. MARCUS,A Lexicon to Josephus, p. 119.