C. The New Testament and Post-Apostolic Fathers.

1. In Ac. 26:10 Luke has Paul say that he had a part in sentencing Christians to
death by giving his voice (ψῆφος) against them.13
2. The white stone of Rev. 2:17 on which the new name is written is thought to be
an amulet,14, 15 In religious history the amulet has a place in the magical beliefs of the
time → V, 250, 35 ff. Magical formulae, in this case the new name, mediate
supernatural powers and offer protection against demons16 and evil forces.17 The fact
that the stone is described as white (→ IV, 250, 7 ff.) is an indication of the
supernatural, the distinctive, and the extraordinary.18 A new sphere is opened up → V,
281, 28 ff.19
3. Lk. 14:28 uses ψηφίζω in the sense “to reckon.” Before work is begun on the
tower the cost has to be worked out. The man who wants to be a disciple of Jesus should
do the same.20 He should examine himself21 to see whether he has the requisite means
and strength.22 V. 33 carries the thought of v. 28 a stage further: Having reckoned up his
resources, he must now renounce them all. This is how the Evangelist Luke interpreted
the tradition.23 In Ac. 19:19 the value of the magical books that are brought in is
calculated (συμψηφίζω). The addition yields an unusually high sum → VIII, 178, 17 ff.
4. In Rev. 13:18 the number (→ I, 463, 1 ff.) of the beast, which is also the number
of a man, is to be counted. This counting can only mean putting the number given in the
corresponding Hebrew, Greek, or Latin letters and thus arriving at the mysterious name

13
Wdt. Ag., ad loc. thinks καταφέρω ψῆφον is simply a fig. equivalent of συνευδοκέω in Ac. 8:1;
22:20. Acc. to Haench. Ag.14, ad loc., however, Ac. 26:10 is stronger than Ac. 8:1. As Luke
describes it Paul had an act. part in the voting and καταφέρω ψῆφον should not be weakened
to συνευδοκέω, cf. also H. Conzelmann, Die Ag., Hndbch. NT, 7 (1963), ad loc.
14
Cf. Pr.-Bauer, s.v.
15
Cf. W. Heitmüller, “Im Namen Jesu,” FRL, 1, 2 (1903), 128–265 and Bss. Apk., ad loc.
16
Cf. Loh. Apk., ad loc.
17
For older exegesis cf. F. Düsterdieck, “Krit.-Exeget. Handbuch über d. Offenbarung Johannis,”
Krit.-exeget. Komm. über d. NT, 164 (1887), ad loc. and Bss. Apk., ad loc.
18
Boll, 28.
19
In Rev. “white” denotes a change of category, cf. the white clothes, Rev. 3:4 f., 18; 4:4 etc.
20
Acc. to Bultmann Trad., 216 the original meaning has been lost.
21
Cf. Jeremias Gl.7, 195.
22
Cf. E. Biser, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (1965), 62.

v. verse.
23
Cf. Ac. 4:34; Lk. 5:11, 28 and already Mk. 10:28 and par.
(→ V, 280, 9 ff.; IX, 417, 3 ff.).24 But the calculation also means finding out what
numbers together add up to 666.25 The answer is 36, for 666 is the sum of the numbers 1
to 36. But 36 itself is the sum of the numbers 1 to 8. In Gnostic systems, however, the
number 8, the ogdoad, is identical with sophia (→ VII, 524, 14 ff.). If this view is
correct, Rev. 13:18, when combined with 17:11, tells us that sophia is meant by worship
of the beast, and Gnosticism is the enemy that we must fight.26
5. If συγκατεψηφίσθη27 in Ac. 1:26 is based on καταψηφίζομαι28 “to resolve,” the
meaning is that thereby he was (officially) given a place along with the eleven.29, 30.
6. Herm.v., 3, 1, 4 uses συμψηφίζω in the sense “to reckon,” “to add up,” “to calculate”: καὶ
συνώψισα (vl. συνεψήφισα) τὰς ὥρα·, cf. s., 5, 3, 7.

Braumann
ψυχή, ψυχικός, ἀνάψυξις, ἀναψύχω, δίψυχος, ὀλιγόψυχος*

24
Cf. P. Corssen, “Noch einmal die Zahl d. Tieres in d. Apok.,” ZNW, 3 (1902), 238–242; also
“Zur Verständigung über Apk. 13:18,” ZNW, 4 (1903), 264–7. “The beast has a name x == 666,
but 666 is like the name of a man, both names are, as they called it, ἰσόψηφα,” ZNW, 3 (1902),
240.
25
Cf. G. A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, “Die in d. Apok. bekämpfte Gnosis,” ZNW, 13 (1912),
293–305; Loh. Apk., 117 f.
26
Cf. van den Bergh van Eysinga, op. cit., 299. E. Stauffer, “666,” Festschr. A. Fridrichsen (1947),
237–341 arrives at the name of Domitian with the help of gematria.
27
Since in the NT συγκαταβαίνω occurs only in Ac. 25:5 and συγκατατίθημι only in Lk. 23:51, it
is possible that Lk. coined συγκατεψηφίσθη ad hoc. But cf. συγκατάθεσις in 2 C. 6:16.

28
κατεψηφίαθη ‫ *א‬is to be taken in the sense “to decree or resolve something,” cf.
Aristot.Pol., IV, 14, p. 1298b, 39 f., not as condemnation with the eleven, e.g., Plat.Resp., VIII,
558a, Jos.Ant., 15, 229; PhiloVit. Mos., I, 134 etc.
29
On μετά cf. Bl.-Debr. § 221 and 227.
30
If, however, we take συφψηφίζω as the basis (cf. Ac. 19:19), cf. Wdt. Ag., ad loc., the
meaning is that he was counted with the eleven, cf. v. 17, κατηριθμημένος ἦν.

Herm. Pastor Hermae.

v. visiones.

vl. varia lectio.

s. similitudines.

Braumann Georg Braumann, Waldeck (Vol. 9).

*
ψυχή κτλ. Bibl.: General: Thes. Steph., Liddell-Scott, Pr.-Bauer, s.v.; G. Dautzenberg, “Sein
Leben bewahren,” Stud. z. AT u. NT, 14 (1966); M. Delcor, “L’immortalité de l’âme dans le Livre
de la Sagesse et dans les documents de Qumrân,” Nouvelle Rev. Théol., 77 (1955). 614–630; J.
Fichtner, “Seele oder Leben?” ThZ, 17 (1961), 305–318; R. B. Onians, The Origins of European
Thought about the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time and Fate2 (1954); F. Rüsche,
“Blut, Leben u. Seele,” Stud. z. Gesch. u. Kultur d. Altertums, Suppl. Vol. 5 (1930), on A.: A. W.
H. Adkins, Merit and Responsibility (1960); J. Böhme, Die Seele u. d. Ich im homerischen Epos
(1929); W. Burkett, “Weisheit u. Wissenschaft,” Erlanger Beiträge z. Sprach- u.
Kunstwissenschaft, 10 (1962), 98–142; E. R. Dodds, The Greeks and the Irrational (1951); B.
Meissner, Mythisches u. Rationales i. d. Psychologie der euripideischen Tragödie, Diss.
Göttingen (1951); J. Moreau, L’âme du monde de Platon aux Stoiciens (1939); M. Pohlenz, Die
Stoa, I4 (1970), 81–93, 141–153, 196–201 etc.; II4 (1970), 49–53, 77–83 etc.; T. M. Robinson,
“Plato’s Psychology,” Phoenix Suppl., VIII, (1971); F. Rüsche, “Das Seelenpneuma,” Stud. z.
Gesch. u. Kultur d. Altertums, 18, 3 (1933); B. Snell, Die Entdeckung d. Geistes3 (1955), 17–42;
Aristot., Über d. Seele, ed. W. Theiler in Aristot., Werke in deutscher Übers., 132 (1966);
Tertullian De Anima, ed. J. H. Waszink (1947). On B.: L. Adler, “Das Wesen d. Menschen in jüd.
Sicht,” Kerygma u. Dogma, 16 (1970), 188–198; P. Bratsiotis, “‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬/ ψυχή. Ein Beitrag z.
Erforschung d. Sprache u. d. Theol. d. LXX,” Volume du Congrès Genève 1965, VT Suppl., 15
(1966), 58–89; also Ἀνθρωπολογία τῆς Παλαιᾶς ∆ιαθήκης 1. Ὁ ἄνπρωπος ὡς θεῖον
δημιούργημα (1967); J. S. Croatto, “Nota de antropologia bibl.,” Rivista Bibl., 25 (1963), 29f.; F.
Delitzsch, System d. bibl. Psychologie (1855); E. Dhorme, L’emploi métaphorique des noms de
parties du corps en hébreu et en akkadien (1923); A. M. Dubarle, “La conception de l’homme
dans l’AT,” Sacra Pagina I, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theol. Lovaniensium, 12 (1959), 522–536;
R. Dussaud, “La notion d’âme chez les Israélites et les Phéniciens,” Syria, 16 (1935), 267–277;
W. Eichrodt, “Das Menschenverständnis d. AT,” AbhThANT (1944); G. Fohrer, “Theol. Züge d.
Menschenbildes im AT,” Stud. z. at.lichen Theol. u. Gesch. (1949–1966), ZAW Beih., 115 (1969),
176–194; J. de Fraine, Adam u. seine Nachkommen (1962); K. Galling, “Das Bild vom Menschen
in bibl. Sicht,” Mainzer Univ.-Reden, 3 (1947); A. Gelin, “L’homme selon la Bible,” Foi Vivante,
75 (1968); J. Hempel, “Gott u. Mensch im AT,” BWANT, 382 (1936); A. R. Johnson, The Vitality
of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel (1949); A. Kammenhuber, “Die hethischen
Vorstellungen v. Seele u. Leib, Herz u. Leibesinnerem, Kopf u. Person,” Zschr. f. Assyriologie,
NF, 22 (1964), 150–212; J. Köberle, Natur u. Geist nach d. Auffassung d. AT (1901); L. Köhler,
Der hbr. Mensch (1953); F. M. T. de Liagre Böhl, “Das Menschenbild in babylon. Schau,”
Anthropologie religieuse, ed. C. J. Bleeker, Suppl. to Numen, 2 (1955), 28–48; D. Lys.
“Nèphèsh,” Étud. d.Hist. et de Philosophie Relig., 50 (1959); also “Rûach. Le Souffle dans l’AT,”
ibid., 56 (1962); also La Chair dans l’AT. Bâsâr (1967); V. Maag, “At.liche Anthropogonie in
ihrem Verhältnis z. altorientalischen Mythologie,” Asiat. Stud., 9 (1955), 15–44; also “Alter
Orient,” ibid., 13 (1960), 19–31; F. Michaéli, Dieu à l’image de l’homme (1950); A. Murtonen,
“The Living Soul,” Stud. Or., 23, 1 (1958); G. Pidoux, “L’homme dans l’AT,” Cahiers théol., 32
(1953); also “L’homme dans l’AT,” Anthropologie relig., ed. C. J. Bleeker, Suppl. to Numen, 2
(1955), 155–165; H. W. Robinson, “Hebrew Psychology,” The People and the Book, ed. A. S.
Peake (1925), 353–382; J. Rothermund, “Chr. u. jüd. Menschenbild,” Kerygma u. Dogma, 16
(1970), 199–222; A. Safran, “La conception juive de l’homme,” RevThPh, 98 (1964), 193–207; J.
Scharbert, “Fleisch, Geist u. Seele im Pent.,” Stuttgarter Bibelstud., 19 (1966); O. Schilling,
“Geist u. Materie in bibl. Sicht,” ibid., 25 (1967); W. Schmidt, “Anthropolog. Begriffe im AT,” Ev.
Theol., 24 (1964), 374–388; W. Zimmerli, “Das Menschenbild d. AT,” Theol. Ex., NF, 14 (1949).
Contents: A. ψυχή in the Greek World: 1. ψυχή in Homer; 2. ψυχή in Older and Classical
Usage; 3. ψυχή in the Philosophy of Plato; 4. The Psychology of Post-Platonic Philosophy: a.
Constitution of the Soul; b. Division of the Soul; 5. Popular Ideas of the Post-Classical Age. B.
The Anthropology of the Old Testament: 1. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬a. ́πϳνϳ and Breath; b. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and Blood; c. ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬
and Person; d. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬as Corpse and Tomb; e. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬as Expression of the Will; 2. Flesh and Body:
a. Flesh; b. Bones; 3. Different Parts of the Body as the Seat of Life: a. The Head; b. The Face;
c. The Hand; d. The Foot; e. The inner Organs; 4. The Heart as the Centre of Life and the
Epitome of the Person; 5. The Spirit: a. Origin of the Concept; b. The Outworking in Man; c.
The Creative Activity of the Spirit in Man; d. The Relation to ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and Heart; e. Flesh and
Spirit; 6. The Relational Character of Old Testament Anthropology. C. Judaism: I. Hellenistic
Judaism: 1. Septuagint Works with a Hebrew Original; 2. Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphical
Works; 3. Septuagint Works in Greek; 4. Aristeas and Josephus; 5. Philo. II. ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬/ψυχή in
Palestinian Judaism: 1. Qumran; 2. The Rabbis. D. The New Testament: I. The Gospels and
Acts: 1. ψυχή as Natural Physical Life: a. General; b. The Giving of Life; c. Seeking, Killing
and Saving Life; 2. ψυχή as a Term for the Whole Man; 3. ψυχή as the Place of Feeling: a. Man
as Influenced by Others; b. Man as He Experiences Joy, Sorrow and Love; c. ψυχή in the Sense
of Heart; 4. ψυχή as True Life in Distinction from Purely Physical Life (Mk. 8:35 and par.): a.
Jesus; b. Mark; c. Mt. 10:39; d. Lk. 17:33; e. Jn. 12:25; f. ψυχή as the God-given Existence
which Survives Death; 5. Life as the Supreme Good (Mk. 8:35 f. and par.); 6. ψυχή in Contrast

On C.: Bousset-Gressm., 399–402; H. Hübner, “Anthropolog. Dualismus in den Hodayoth?”

NTSt, 18 (1972), 268–284; D. Lys, “The Israelite Soul acc. to the LXX,” VT, 16 (1966), 181–228;
R. Meyer, “Hellenistisches in d. rabb. Anthropologie,” BWANT, 74 (1937); Moore, I, 485–9; II,
292–5; Volz Esch., 118f., 266–272; Weber, 203–5, 217–223. On D.: F. Barth, “La notion
Paulinienne de ΨΨΞΗ,” RevThPh, 44 (1911), 316–336; E. Brandenburger, “Fleisch u. Geist,”
Wissenschaftl. Monographien z. AT u. NT, 29 (1968); H. v. Campenhausen, “Tod,
Unsterblichkeit u. Auferstehung,” Festschr. L. Jaeger u. W. Stählin (1963), 295–311; O.
Cullmann, Unsterblichkeit d. Seele oder Auferstehung von den Toten?3 (1964); J. Dupont,
“Gnosis,” Univ. Cathol. Lovaniensis Diss. ad gradum magistri in Facultate Theol. consequendum
conscriptae, II, 402 (1960), 151–180; F. P. Fiorenza-J. B. Metz, “Der Mensch als Einheit v. Leib u.
Seele,” Mysterium Salutis, ed. J. Feiner-M. Löhrer, II (1967), 584–632; C. Guignebert,
“Remarques sur quelques conceptions chrét. antiques touchant l’origine et la nature de
l’âme,” RevHPhR, 9 (1929), 428–450; W. Gutbrod, “Die paul. Anthropologie,” BWANT, 67
(1934), 75–9; C. Masson, “L’immortalité de l’âme ou résurrection des morts?” RevThPh, NS, III,
8 (1958), 250–267; B. Reicke, “Body and Soul in the NT,” Stud. Theol., 19 (1965), 200–212; M.
Schmaus, “Unsterblichkeit d. Geistseele oder Auferstehung v. d. Toten?” Festschr. L. Jaeger u.
W. Stählin (1963), 311–337; J. Schmid, “Der Begriff d. Seele im NT,” Festsch. G. Söhngen2
(1963), 128–147; J. N. Sevenster, Het begrip psyche en het NT (1946); also “Die Anthropologie
d. NT,” Anthropologie relig., ed. C. J. Bleeker, Numen Suppl., 2 (1955), 166–177; W. D. Stacey,
“St. Paul and the ‘Soul,’ ” Exp. T., 66 (1954/1955), 274–7; also The Pauline View of Man (1956),
121–7. On E.: “Le origini dello gnosticismo,” ed. U. Bianchi, Numen Suppl., 12 (1967); C. Colpe,
“Die religionsgeschichtl. Schule,” FRL, 78 (1961), Index s.v. “Seele”; A. J. Festugière, “La
révélation d’Hermès Trismégiste, III. Les doctrines de l’âme,” Étud. Bibl. (1953); H. Jonas,
Gnostic Religion (1958), 291–330.

par. parallel.
 to the Body (Mt. 10:28); 7. Lucan Sayings about the ψυχή After Death: a. Lk. 12:4 f.; 9:25; Ac.
2:31; b. Lk. 12:20; c. Lk. 21:19. II. Paul Including Colossians and Ephesians: I. ψυχή as Natural
Life and as True Life; 2. ψυχή as Person; 3. μία ψυχή; 4. Colossians and Ephesians; 5.
Secularity of the Usage. III. Hebrews. IV. The Catholic Epistles: 1. John; 2. James; 3. 1 Peter; 4.
2 Peter. V. Revelation: 1. ψυχή as Physical Life; 2. ψυχή as Person; 3. ψυχή as Life After
Death. VI. New Testament Usage in Distinction from πνεῦμα. E. Gnosticism.

A. ψυχή in the Greek World.

1. ψυχή in Homer.
At the earliest accessible level, namely, Homer, Greek has no words for our
concepts of body and soul. σῶμα (→ VII, 1025, 16 ff.) is simply the corpse; the living
organism is denoted by plur. expressions like μέλεα, γυῖα, or in terms of its appearance
by δέμας or χρώς.1 ψυχή, etym. related to ψύχω “to blow (to cool)” and ψῦχος “cold,”
is on this view the vital force which resides in the members and which comes to
expression especially in the breath. The reference, then, is to the breath-soul. In battle
the ψυχή (life) is hazarded, Hom.Il., 9, 322. This ψυχή leaves man at the moment of
death, escaping through the mouth (9, 408 f.) or, according to another view, through the
wound. This leads to the idea of the blood-soul, cf. 14, 518 f. The soul goes to the
underworld (5, 654) and may sometimes show itself to a living person in a dream prior
to burial of the corpse (23, 106), taking on the appearance of the living man for this
purpose. In the underworld it leads a shadowy existence which has little to do with the
self of man. This self has gone, having become food for the dogs and the birds (1, 3 ff.),
or, in the special instance of Hercules, having been taken up to be with the gods (Od.,
11, 601 ff.). Nothing is expected of the shadowy existence of the ψυχή in the
underworld.2 Neither in life nor death does the ψυχή have anything at all to do with the
intellectual or spiritual functions of man.

plur. plural.
1
The earliest instance of σῶμα for “living human body” is in Hes.Op., 540; χρήματα γὰρ ψυχὴ
τέλεται δειλοῖσι βροτοῖσινin 686 ref. to the life, not the self of man.

Hom. Homer, of Chios (?), the classical Greek epic poet, around whose name were grouped the
older epics of the Ionians in the 9th and 8th centuries B.C., ed. G. Monro and T. W. Allen, 1908
ff.

Il. Iliad.

Od. Odyssey.
2
Naturally Homeric ideas of the ψυχή are not as uniform as this brief survey might suggest.
This is due in part of the different sources of different parts of the extant epics. Thus the
prophetic activity of the soul of the dead Patroclus in Il., 23, 69–92 is not in keeping with ideas
of the ψυχή elsewhere. The cult of heroes, which honours the dead in the tomb, does not,
however, presuppose a separate and significant continuation of the life of the soul in
opposition to Homeric notions. It merely assumes that the recipient of worship has a power
that extends beyond death, so that he can come back to threaten or protect the living and
dispense either malediction or benediction. The δαίμονες which the men of the golden age
became acc. to Hes.Op., 121–126 are not to be thought of as incorporeal souls (→ 615, 12 ff.),
 This sphere is described by several words which either denote specific intellectual or
spiritual activities (μένο· νόος etc.) or the individual organs of these activities (στῆθος, καρδία,
ἦτορ, φρένες, etc.) or both at once (θυμός).3 Like other peoples the Greeks first thought that the
parts of the body were agents of intellectual or spiritual functions either in specific situations
(χεῖρες, πόδες) or permanently (ἦτορ, φρένες).4 But the νόος, cf. νοέω “to perceive,” “to
intend” (→ IV, 948, 15 ff.),5 which one bears in the heart or breast or elsewhere, Il., 3, 63; Od.,
14, 490, or which a god has put there, Od., 18, 136, can become a permanent and integral part of
man, Il., 4, 309; 10, 122. Many combinations among these and other expressions yield a varied
psychological vocabulary which is more specialised than the Hbr. because the vital force and
the activity of thought are in particular linguistically differentiated. There is, however, no
master-concept of the soul.

2. ψυχή in Older and Classical Usage.

Although no link can be found with the usage in Homer, ψυχή did in fact become
the term for this newly found master-concept in the 6th century.6 That it did so is

and the same applies to the heroes who for various reasons are taken up to a place of eternal
and immutable bliss, e.g., Aethiopis in Proclus Chrestomathia, 198 (ed. A. Severyns, Recherches
sur la Chrestomathie d. Proclos, IV, Bibliothèque de la Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de
l’Univ. de Liège, 170 [1963], 88) or Hes.Op., 170, cf. A. Schnaufer, “Frühgriech. Totenglaube,”
Spudasmata, 20 (1970), 103–7.
3
θυμός etym. related to Lat. fumus “smoke,” primarily means in Hom. the ability to move. At
death this leaves the body directly, not through the mouth (Hom.Il., 13, 671), and it does not
go to the underworld. Since θυμός is not just the physiological cause of movement but also the
spiritual impulse to action it can also be the inner man who in self-reflection on one’s own acts
and experiences is the partner in the dialogue which such reflection quite early becomes for
the Gks., e.g., Il., 11, 403; Archiloch. Fr., 105 (ed. G. Tarditi, Archilochus, Lyricorum Graec. quae
exstant, 2 [1968], 122). The same role can be played by the heart, in which physical traces of
spiritual emotions are seen, Hom.Od., 20, 18.
4
The Gks., like other peoples, commonly regard blood as the bearer of the life-force. Through
drinking blood shades in the underworld acquire the power to converse with Odysseus, Od.,
11, 98. The gods as qualitatively different beings do not have αἷμα in their veins but ἰχώρ, Il., 5,
340. Already in the 6th cent. the Pythagorean Hippo attacks the naive equation of αἷμα and
ψυχή, Aristot.An., I, 2, p. 405b, 4. Like other pre-Socratics, e.g., Anaximenes Fr., 2 (Diels, I, 95)
and Diogenes of Apollonia Fr., 4 (II, 60 f.) the Pythagoreans obviously found in air the sub-
stratum of the power of thought, Fr., 40 (I, 462), cf. Aristot.An. I, 2, p. 404a, 16. Acc. to a
common view blood was also the bearer of the emotional life, e.g., Diogenes of Apollonia in
Theophr. De sensu, 39–43.
5
If C. J. Ruijgh. Étud. sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien (1967), 370 f. is right
in associating νοέω and νέομαι “to return (from danger),” then the basic sense of νόος must
be “plan” [Risch].

Hbr. Hebrew.
6
In Hom., of course, the ψυχή is specifically human. Only θυμός, not ψυχή, leaves the
members of an animal at death, Il., 23, 880 etc.
connected with the belief in retribution in the hereafter, which became widespread from
the 7th century onwards.7 Naturally this retribution cannot affect a mere εἴδωλον. The
ψυχή in the underworld has to guarantee the continuity of life in this world and life in
the world to come.8 In close connection herewith the doctrine of the transmigration of
the soul9 is found for the first time among the Greeks in the 6th century; it is a basic part
of Pythagorean ethics. Here the ψυχή is the epitome of the individual. It can be thought
of apart from the body and is indeed of greater worth than this. Already in the oldest
available stratum of Orphic and Pythagorean speculation we find the idea of the
σῶμα/σῆμα, i.e., the body (→ VII, 1026, 29 ff.; 1028, 32 ff.) as the tomb of the soul,
Orph. Fr. (Kern), 8 (Kern, 84 f.); Philolaus Fr., 14 (Diels, I, 413). The scoffing reference
to Pythagoras’ doctrine of transmigration in his younger contemporary Xenophanes Fr.,
7 (Diels, I, 131) offers us the first instance of the new meaning of ψυχή. In the period
around and after 500 B.C. ψυχή is then commonly used as an omnibus term for human
thought, will and emotion and also for the essential core of man which can be separated
from his body and which does not share in the body’s dissolution.
Anacr. Fr., 15 (4)10 says to the beloved: ὅτι τῆς ἐμῆς ψυχῆς ἡνιοχεύεις. Pind. Fr., 133
speaks of the ascent of the immortal soul to the sun and we find expressions like χερσὶ καὶ

7
In lit. we find this first in the so-called Orphic interpolations of Nekyia, Hom.Od., 11, 576 ff.
and Alcaeus Fr., 38 (ed. E. Lobel-D. L. Page, Poetarum Lesbiorum Fr. [1955], 128).
8
How strongly religious thought was concerned about the problem of continuity may be seen
from the myth of the underworld waters of Lethe and Mnemosyne, cf. Nilsson, II, 225–9; also
“The Immortality of the Soul in Gk. Religion,” Eranos, 39 (1941), 1–16.

9
The origin of the idea of the transmigration of the soul has not been explained. It constantly
found adherents in Greece both before and after Plato. It was debated whether the same soul
can come only into human bodies or also into those of animals and plants, Emped. Fr., 117
(Diels, I, 359); Plat.Phaedr., 249b; Plut. Ser. Num. Vind., 31 (II, 567e); Oracula Chaldaica in
Procl.in Rem Publ., X, 620a (II, 336, 29 f.); PhiloSom., I, 139. In the same age we find the first
appearance of shaman-type men in the Gk. world, Abaris, Aristeas, Zamolxis etc., who can
send their souls on trips, cf. Max. Tyr. Diss., 10, 2 f.; Cl. Al.Strom., I, 21, 133, 2, cf. J. D. P.
Bolton, Aristeas of Proconnesus (1962), 142–175.

Orph. Fr. (Kern) Orphicorum Fragmenta, ed. O. Kern, 1922.

Fr. Fragmenta (-um).

Diels H. Diels, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker4, 1922.

Anacr. Anacreon, of Teos, early Greek lyric poet, of the middle of the 6th century B.C., ed. E.
Diehi, in Anthologia Lyrica, I, 1925.
10
Ed. D. L. Page, Poetae Melici Graeci (1962), 184.

Pind.

Pindar, of Cynoscephalae, near Thebes (518–446 B.C.), the most imporrant author of Greek
odes, and preacher of the ideal of nobility still held at the beginning of the 5th century. His
ψυχᾷ, Nem., 9, 39, or μορφὰν βραχύς, ψυχὰν δ᾽ ἄκαμπτος, Isthm., 4, 53 (71) to denote the total
psychophysical person, φίλα ψυχά can then be used in (self-)address (Pyth., 3, 61), and with
many modifications this is an ongoing usage. Whereas up to the 6th cent. we find in Solon. Fr.,
1, 46 (Diehl3, I, 24); Tyrtaeus Fr., 7, 18; 8, 511 a poetic metaphorical use of the word ψυχή12 in
the sense of life or vital force, the usage of Pindar shows that a transition has now been made to
the meaning “soul” in our sense, and this becomes the dominant although not the exclusive
meaning. It is presupposed in the first attempt at a philosophical psychology in Heracl. Heracl.
makes a principle of the phenomenon described already in early Gk. lyric poetry, e.g., Sappho
Fr., 96,13 namely, that the life of the soul is not bound by the limits of space, Heracl. Fr., 45
(Diels, I, 161). He also formulates the insight that the soul has a self-expanding logos, so that
the development of its life, of knowledge, memory etc., is not to be understood as the addition
of quantitatively measurable entities or as the work of powers outside man, Fr., 115 (I, 176).
Finally, he stresses that there is a communication between the souls of men which is
independent of the factual sphere.14 The logos of the soul, however, is not just common to men,
among whom it finds realisation as speech. The order denoted by it extends to all being, Fr., 1
(I, 150) etc. The expression “world soul” is not yet found in Heracl.
Throughout the 5th and 4th centuries both in and outside philosophy the autonomy and
higher worth of the soul are taken for granted → VII, 1026, 18 ff. They are either asserted, like
the precedence of thought over action, Aesch.Sept. c. Theb., 571–596; Simonides Fr., 542, 27–

most important surviving poems are the Epinicia, in praise of victors in the national games, ed.
O. Schroeder, 1930>

Nem. Nemea.

Isthm. Isthmia.

Pyth. Pythia.

Diehl E. Diehl, Anthologia Lyrica Graeca, 1925.

11
Ed. C. Prato, Tyrtaeus, Lyricorum Graec. quae exstant, 3 (1968), 29 and 31.
12
Cf. B. Snell, “Tyrtaios u. d. Sprache d. Epos,” Hypomnemata. 22 (1969), 7–20.

Heracl. Heraclitus, of Ephesus (535–475 B.C.), pre-Socratic philosopher, ed. H. Diels in Die
Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, I, 1922.

Gk. Greek.
13
Ed. Lobel-Page, op. cit. (→ n. 7).
14
On the early stages in lyric speech cf. Snell, op. cit., 19 and cf. also H. Fränkel, Dichtung u.
Philosophie d. früh. Griechentums2 (1962), 432 f., 444–7.

Aesch. Aeschylus, of Eleusis near Athens (525–456 B.C.), the first of the three great Attic
dramatists, ed. U. v. Wilamowitz, 1915; Fragments, ed. A. Nauck in Tragicorum Graecorum
Fragmenta, 1889.

Sept. c. Septem contra Thebas.

30;15 Eur.Hipp., 173; Democr. Fr., 170 f. (Diels, II, 178 f.); Isoc. Or., 15, 180 or they come out
in expressions like πᾶσα πολιτεία ψυχὴ πόλεως, Isoc. Or., 12, 138 or οἷον ψυχὴ ὁ μῦθος τῆς
τραγῳδίας, Aristot.Poet., 6, p. 1450a, 38 f. The causes of man’s wickedness are to be sought
within himself, Democr. Fr., 159 (Diels, II, 175 f.), and moral instruction is a training of the
soul for the contests of virtue, as the inscr, on the statue of the orator Gorgias puts it, Epigr.
Graec., 875a (4th cent. B.C.). Finally we find many new compounds at this period, e.g.,
μεγαλοψυχίη, Democr. Fr., 46 (Diels, II, 156), εὐψυχία, Aesch.Pers., 326, μικροψυχίη, Isoc.
Or., 5, 79, which all presuppose the dominant meaning “soul.” Medicine in the 5th cent. and
later also presupposes the division of man into body and soul, Hippocr. De aere aquis locis, 19,
7 (CMG, I, 1, 2, p. 68), the ψυχή being the seat of all spiritual and moral qualities, ibid., 24 (p.
77 f.). The ψυχή is the self of a man, Eur.Suppl., 160; Ba., 75; Hdt., II, 123, 2; this in no way
contradicts the older sense of “life,” Eur.Alc., 462; Or., 1163; Hdt., I, 24, 2.

15
Ed. Page, op. cit. (→ n. 10), 282.

Eur. Euripides, of Salamis nr. Athens (480–406 B.C.), tragic dramatist and philosopher of the
stage, ed. G. Murray, 1901 ff.

Hipp. Hippolytus.

Democr. Democritus, of Abdera, in the second half of the 5th century B.C., the leading
representative of atomism in ancient philosophy, ed. H. Diels in Die Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker, II, 1922.

Isoc. Isocrates, of Athens (436–338 B.C.), originally a barrister and writer of political pamphlets,
later in connection with the Sophists an outstanding representative of general culture in the
4th century, ed. F. Blass, 1913 ff.

Or. Orati(ones).

Aristot. Aristotle, of Stageiros (c. 384–322 B.C.), with his teacher Plato the greatest of the Greek
philosophers and the founder of the peripatetic school, quoted in each case from the
comprehensive edition of the Academia Regia Borussica, 1831 ff.

Poet. Poetica.

Epigr. Graec. Epigrammata Graeca ex lapidibus conlecta, ed. G. Kaibel, 1878.

Pers. Persae.

Hippocr. Hippocrates, of Cos (c. 460 B.C.), the founder of the scientific medicine of the Greeks.
The authenticity of many of the works handed down under his name is disputed, ed. E. Littré,
1839 ff.; J. Ilberg and H. Kühlewein, 1899 ff.; J. L. Heiberg in Corpus Medicorum Graecorum,
1927.

Suppl. Supplices.

Ba. Bacchae.
3. ψυχή in the Philosophy of Plato.
In the light of what has been said, Socrates’ concentration of all moral effort on
ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τῆς ψυχῆς (Plat.Ap., 30b) and his constantly repeated assertion that profit
and loss are merely that which makes the soul of the individual better or worse are
simply the résumé of a long development. Since man may now be judged exclusively by
the state of the soul, as an individual acting morally he is independent of external events
or the judgment of the world around. Plato starts with this Socratic position but also
comes under other influences in his comprehensive psychology.
a. ἐκὼν ἀέκοντί γε θυμῷ, Hom.Il., 4, 43 and θυμὸς δὲ κρείσσων τῶν ἑμῶν βουλευμάτων,
Eur.Med., 1079 bear witness to the early experience that resolve based on insight into the
situation can come up against spontaneous impulses that have their origin in the soul too.
Trichotomy is the answer to this. λογιστικόν, θυμοειδές and ἐπιθυμητικόν are to be found
together in the soul, Plat.Resp., IV, 439c–441b etc.
b. The different parts of the soul have different worth acc. to ontological categories.
λογιστικόν communicates most strongly with pure being that is accessible only to thought,
while ἐπιθυμητικόν is bound to the sense-world which is a reflection and which does not enjoy
true being. In his life-long struggle for true knowledge, then, man must ensure for λογιστικόν
its due control over the other parts of the soul, cf. the comparison with the charioteer in
Plat.Phaedr., 246a–d. This leads logically to the teaching that moral struggle is a flight from the
world of sense and an approximation to intelligible being, i.e., to God, Theaet., 176b.16
c. Since the soul, or its pre-eminent part, belongs to transcendent being,17 it is not bound by
the finitude of the sense-world. It is pre-existent and immortal. With the help of the Pythagorean

Hdt. Herodotus, of Halicarnassus (c. 484–425 B.C.), the first real Greek historian, described as
early as Cicero as the father of history. His work deals with the conflicts between the Greeks
and the barbarians from earliest times to the Persian Wars, ed. H. Kallenberg, 1926 ff.

Alc. Alcestis.

Or. Orestes.

Plat. Plato, of Athens (428/7–348/7 B.C.), ed. J. Burnet, 1905.

Ap. Apologia.

Med. Medea.

Resp. Respublica.

Phaedr. Phaedrus.

Theaet. Theaetetus.
16
The τέλος formula ὁμοίωσις θεῷ, which became a fixed one in the academic tradition from
the time of Xenocrates, can thus be construed in terms of an asceticism that is hostile to the
body as well as in the more reasonable sense that we must think of God’s nature intellectually
and imitate His goodness, cf. H. Merki, "Ὁμοίωσις Θεῷ," Paradosis, 7 (1952).

17
For Plato, then, only the λογιστικόν of the soul is immortal. Xenocrates Fr., 75 (ed. R. Heinze,
Xenocrates [1892], 188) extends immortality to the whole of the soul. Albinus and Atticus
 teaching about the next world and about transmigration Plato explains this view mythically, e.g.,
Resp., X, 614b ff. But he rejects the Pythagorean def. of the soul as the numerically understood
harmony of the organism, since this contradicts the nature of the soul as being, Phaed., 92a ff.
d. Plato sees the structure of the individual soul in that of the true state as well, which is a
larger model of the soul, e.g., Resp., IV, 435a; 441a. This thought, which presupposes that
man’s nature develops only in the polis, was not so fruitful later as that of the connection
between the individual soul and that of the cosmos, Tim., 30b–31b.18 This doctrine understands
the world as a living and functionally ordered organism. Life, however, means movement,19 and
this is said to be of the ἴδιον of the soul, Phaedr., 245c. The older sense of “life” is thus
constitutive for the concept of the world soul.
Up to later antiquity psychology underwent further development in the individual
philosophical schools. Neo-Platonism was esp. original in this area. Only a few details of the
later development can be dealt with here.20

4. The Psychology of Post-Platonic Philosophy.

a. Constitution of the Soul.
While the Platonists with few exceptions, e.g., Ptolemaeus in Stob.Ecl., I, 378, 1 ff.,
cling to the immortality of the soul as a part of intelligible being, and accept the difficult
process of its temporary union with a material body, for the Peripatetics21 the

return to Plato’s view here, while Iamblichus and Porphyrius follow Xenocrates, cf. Procl.in
Tim. on 41c d (III, 234, 7 ff.).

Phaed. Phaedo.

Tim. Timaeus.
18
For Plato and the Academy the individual soul is not part of the cosmic soul, as in Stoicism,
but it has the same οὐσία even if created later by the demiurge, cf. F. M. Cornford, Plato’s
Cosmology (1937), 57 f. Plut. De Virtute Morali, 3 (II, 441 f.) calls the individual soul a μίμημα of
the world soul.
19
Self-movement as a special feature of the soul remains an important principle in psychology,
cf. Aristot.An., II, 1, p. 412b, 16 f.; M. Ant., V, 19.

esp. especially.
20
Cf. the rich doxography in Stob.Ecl., I, 362, 23–383, 14 (from Iambl.) and Eus.Praep. Ev., 15,
60 f. (Ps.-Plut.Plac. Phil., IV [II, 898c–899b], cf. H. Diels, Doxographi Graeci [1879], 389–392).

Stob. Johannes Stobaeus, named after his home-town Stoboi in Macedonia (5th century A.D.),
author of an anthology of extracts from Greek poets and prose writers, ed. C. Wachsmuth and
O. Hense, 1884 ff., quoted by the volumes (I–IV) and pages.

Ecl. Ecloge.
21
The Peripatetics always shunned both the materialistic psychology of the Stoics and
Epicureans and also the spiritual psychology of the Academy. Thus Dicaearchus Fr., 8 (F.
Wehrli, Die Schule d. Aristot. Dikaiarchos2 [1967], 14 f.) disputes the theory that the soul has its
own οὐσία, while Alex. Aphr.An., I, 126r (I, 19, 6–20); II, 145v (I, 114, 36) contests its
description as σῶμα λεπτομερές (Epicurean) or πνεῦμα (Stoic).
immaterial soul is the principle of the form, life, and activity of the total organism, since
there is no separate intelligible being in Aristotelian ontology → VII, 1031, 11 ff.22 The
Epicureans and Stoics (→ VII, 1032, 16 ff.) think the soul is material like all being,
whether it be made up of especially small and mobile atoms23 or whether it be like
πνεῦμα, fire, a stream of the finest material which flows through the coarser body and is
more compressed in the head and the heart, in the centres of vital force and in the power
of thought.24 This finest matter is the force which gives form and order and life to the
whole cosmos. It may be seen in purity in the fiery stars which move in mathematically-
rational courses. The individual soul is simply a broken off part of the world soul with
which it will be reunited at death. In the Stoics there is a narrower correspondence
between the individual soul and the world soul than in the Academics, who followed
Plato’s Timaeus (→ n. 18). The otherworldly home of the soul in the Platonic myth, the
ὑπερουράνιος τόπος, corresponds to the starry world, which is immanent but which is
still outside true experience. Apart from the fact that the materialistic psychology of the
soul can easily become spiritual, both doctrines lead to the view that the soul and the
cosmos are closely related. Psychology has much in common with astronomy or
astrology.25
b. Division of the Soul.
Platonic trichotomy (→ VI, 395, 9 ff.) is the starting-point of all later divisions. Aristot.An.,
III, 10, p. 433b, 1 ff. etc. has in the strict sense only a division into δυνάμεις and not μέρη. He
expressly ascribes all vegetative and animal functions to the soul, and thus adds these to its
structure along with the forces known from Plato. The rational sphere of the soul is specifically
human, the irrational and impulsive sphere man shares with animals, and the vegetative sphere

22
Aristot.Metaph., VII, 6, p. 1045b, 7 ff. etc.
23
Epic. Ep., I, 63 (Usener): ἡ ψυχὴ σῶμά ἐστι λεπτομερὲς παρ᾽ ὅλον τὸ ἄθροισμα
παρεσπαρμένον, προσεμφερέστατον δὲ πνεύματι θερμοῦ τινα κρᾶσιν ἔχοντι καὶ πῇ μὲν τούτῳ
προσεμφερές, πῇ δὲ τούτῳ.
24
Cf Fr., 773–911 (v. Arnim, II, 217–263). With its view that the soul-pneuma is nourished by
blood Stoicism follows the old idea of the blood-soul, Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysipp. acc. to
Diogenes Babylonius Fr., 30 (v. Arnim, III, 216).
25
For the idea that σῶμα and ψυχή are constitutionally dependent on climate and other
environmental influences cf. Hippocr. De aere aquis locis, 19, 7 (CMG, I, 1, 2, p. 68); 23, 5 (p.
76); 24, 3 (p. 78) etc.; Emped. Fr., 106 (Diels, I, 350); Plat. and the Platonists, Ps.-Plat.Epin.,
987d e, esp. Plot., cf. K. Reinhardt, Art. “Poseidonios,” Pauly-W., 22 (1954), 678 f. In astrology
we then have a determination of the soul by the different constellations acc. to geographical
location, Ptolemaeus Tetrabiblos, II, 2 (ed. F. Boll-A. Boer, Apotelesmatica [1940], 58–61).

An. De Anima.
he shares with both animals and plants, Gen. An., I, 4, p. 741a, 1 etc.26 All understandings
agree27 that the power of thought has the highest worth.28 Stoicism goes so far as to say that all
affections of the soul, even those that are called irrational, are to be regarded as judgments of
the understanding or resultant impulses,29 while Panaetius and Pos., following the ideas of the
Academy and the Peripatetics, recognise the autonomy of the alogical sphere and postulate its
control by the understanding, cf. the relevant polemic against Chrysipp. in Gal., De Placitis
Hippocratis et Platonis, V, p. 463 f.30 The psychology of Middle Platonism uses the distinction
between νοῦς and ψυχή, which is clear in Aristot. but not yet so in Plato,31 to characterise the

Gen. An. De Generatione Animalium.

26
There are comparable differentiations already among the pre-Socratics. Thus the
Pythagorean Philolaus Fr., 13 (Diels, I, 413) locates the power of thought νοῦς in the brain,
emotion ψυχὴ καὶ αἴσθησις in the heart, the power of nourishment and growth in the lower
body and that of reproduction in the genitalia. The word νοῦς (→ IV, 954, 12 ff), which is here
a fixed one in distinction from ψυχή, can be more or less fixed, also in many pre-Socratics, esp.
Anaxag., e.g., Fr., 12 (Diels, II, 38, 4 f.). Thus the way is prepared early for the differentiation of
νοῦς and ψυχή, which is found in part in Plat.Phileb., 30c; Tim., 30b.
27
Cf. the material on Tert. De Anima, 14, 2 in Waszink, 210–215.
28
For the leading organ of the soul, which in almost all schools is the power of pure thought,
the originally Stoic term ἡγεμονικόν came to be used. This can be called the God or daemon
which acc. to an ancient religious view, e.g., Hes.Op., 121 ff., watches over man’s way. Cf.
Xenocrates Fr., 81 (ed. Heinze, op. cit. [→ n. 17]), 191; Pos. in Gal. De Placit. Hippocratis et
Platonis, V (ed. I. Müller [1874], 448, 15 f.); Diog. L., VII, 88 and the comm. of W. Theiler, Kaiser
Marc. Aurel. Wege zu sich selbst (1951), 309 f. on M. Ant., II, 13, 1.
29
In orthodox Stoic teaching human action is explained psychologically as follows. From sense
impressions reason forms an idea φαντασία and from this, in its own act of knowledge, it
reaches a συγκατάθεσις whether it applies to the subject as the morally acting individual (ἐφ᾽
ἡμῖν) and hence whether it has worth or not. There follows an irresistible urge to act, since the
individual tries to do what is of worth and to avoid what is not. The impulse is a ὁρμὴ
πλεονάζουσα on the basis of a wrongly conceived or wrongly evaluated idea. As an impulse it
exceeds all measure, since the aim it seeks does not exist in reality but is wrongly assumed.

Gal. Claudius Galenus, of Pergamon (129–199 A.D.), the most renowned and from the literary
standpoint the most productive of all the physicians of imperial Rome, ed. C.G. Kühn, 1821 ff.;
H. Diels in Corpus Medicorum Graecorum, 1914 f.
30
Ed. I. Müller (1874). In the orthodox view apathy, or freedom from all affections, is the goal
of moral striving. This is the power of right judgment unaffected by errors and the like. In
contrast Platonists and Peripatetics teach metriopathy, the control and direction of intrinsically
legitimate affections by reason. God as pure νοῦς or λόγος is without affections, cf. M.
Pohlenz, “Vom Zorne Gottes,” FRL, 12 (1909). In the imperial period these differences are less
important and the Platonist Plut. can commend apathy in De Curiositate, 1 (II. 515c).
31
For Aristot.An., I, 4, p. 408b, 18 only the divine νοῦς and not the individual soul is immortal.
ladder of descent from transcendence to immanence. The soul has a part in νοῦς, from which it
has proceeded, and it thus belongs primarily to intelligible being. On entering the world of
sense, however, it assumes powers which enable it to work on matter. Thus the νοῦς affects the
ψυχή at a higher level and the ψυχή affects the σῶμα at a lower level, Plut. De Animae
Procreatione in Timaeo, 27 ff. (II, 1026c ff.); Albinus, Didascalius, 4, 5 ff.32 Thus the innermost
core of man is the νοῦς, Plut.Fac. Lun., 30 (II, 944 f.).33 If only the first stage of the descent is
traversed, we have demons, which are ψυχαί without bodies but not purely noetic beings.
Something of the same can happen to the human soul when it ascends after death, Sext.
Emp.Math., IX, 74. A psychological basis is thus found for a widespread popular belief.
Integration of the ψυχή into a hierarchy of being is also found, in Pos., though with no
antithesis of matter and spirit.34 The πνεῦμα, in Stoicism the substance of the ψυχή (→ 613, 27
ff.), becomes in Pos.35 the substratum of the ἄλογος ψυχή, which is distinct from the νοῦς, and

Plut. Plutus.
32
Ed. P. Louis, Albinos, Epitomé (1945). Cf. Xenocrates acc. to Heinze, op. cit. (→ n. 17), IX.

Fac. De Facie in Orbe Lunae.

33
In the allegorical interpretation of myth in Plut.Is. et Os., 49 (II, 371a b) the νοῦς corresponds
to the good Osiris and the ἄλογος ψυχή and σῶμα to the wicked Typhon-Seth. For details cf.
W. Theiler, “Gott u. Seele im kaiserzeitl. Denken. Forschungen z. Neuplatonismus,” Quellen u.
Stud. z. Gesch. d. Philosophie, 10 (1966), 104–123.

Sext. Emp. Sextus Empiricus, originally a physician probably practising in Alexandria (c. 200
A.D.), who summed up the whole development of ancient scepticism in his Pyrrhonic Elements
and in 11 books against the mathematicians, directed against individual sciences and the
dogmatic philosophical schools, ed. I. Bekker, 1842; H. Mutschmann, 1912 ff.

Math. Adversus Mathematicos.

Pos. Posidonius, of Apamea in Syria, (c. 135–51 B.C.), natural scientist, geographer, historian
and philosopher of Middle Stoicism, ed. J. Bake and D. Wyttenbach, 1810.
34
It is open to question whether Plat. and the Platonists derived evil directly from the
antithesis of body and soul or matter and spirit, cf. Festugière, 1–32. In Phaedr., 246a–c Plat.
has a kind of fall of the soul or deviation from its destiny in the fulfilment of ἐνσωμάτωσις. Acc.
to Tim., 30a matter is in chaotic and hence evil movement prior to its fashioning into the
cosmos by the world soul created, by the demiurge, and in virtue of its proclivity to disorder
one can in fact regard it as the source of evil. Middle Platonism, however, was influenced by
Aristot.’s view of ὕλη, which is without quality and hence cannot be the cause of evil. Plut. De
Animae Procreatione in Timaeo, 7 (II, 1015c) traces back evil to the ψυχή, which has a share in
many stages of being, and not to the νοῦς. On the history of the problem cf. E. Schröder,
Plotins Abhandlung ΠΟΘΕΝ ΤΑ ΚΑΚΑ, Diss. Rostock (1916). For Pos. cf. Reinhardt, op. cit. (→
n. 25), 752. Pos. has to take into account the Stoic view that in truth there is no κακά.
35
Cf. Theiler, op. cit. (→ n. 28), 320 and 326.
which M. Ant., V, 33, 4; VII, 16, 3; XII, 26 2 disparagingly calls ψυχάριον, cf. also Ascl., 18
(→ VI, 356). The scale σῶμα, ψυχή, ό ῦς in M. Ant., III, 16, 1, cf. XII, 3, 1 etc., ultimately goes
back to Pos., and with the separation of the νοερόν from the four elements, M. Ant., IV, 4, 3 it
is a spiritualising of the concept of the soul that is fundamentally alien to Stoic psychology.36
Later Peripatetics for their part modified their teaching under the influence of the psychology of
Stoicism. Ptolemaeus De Iudicandi Facultate, 1537 distinguishes two ἡγεμονικά → n. 28. Alex.
Aphrod.An., II, 143v (I, 106, 19 ff.) offers the doctrine of the threefold νοῦς: ὑλικός, ἐπίκτητος
(attained by learning, cf. I, 138r [I, 82, 1]) and ποιητικός. Only the last is divine and if is an
accident rather than a constituent part of the soul, which does not have immortality acc. to the
Peripatetic view.38 In Neo-Pythagoreanism the attempt to emphasise the spiritual leads to the
doctrine of two souls, the first of which, the λογικὴ ψυχή which is equated with νοῦς, comes
from the intelligible world. The ἄλογος ψυχή is again πνεῦμα (→ 615, 16), the material
garment of the λογικὴ ψυχή, which is put on by this in its descent through the astral spheres,
Numenius in Stob.Ecl., I, 350, 25 ff.; Oracula Chaldaica, p. 63, 61.39

M. Ant. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, emperor and philosopher (161–180 A.D.), influenced by
Epictetus and one of the younger Stoics. His Meditations (τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν) in 12 books are the
last significant product of Stoicism, ed. H. Schenkl, 1913).
36
For a full doctrine of hierarchical being cf. Neo-Platonism. Under the influence of Neo-
Pythagorean speculation on numbers the Neo-Platonists view the transition from being to
non-being as a transition from unity to plurality. We thus have the scale ἕν, νοῦς, ψυχή, σῶμα,
for with νοῦς comes the cleavage of original unity into subj. and obj. in the act of thought.
37
Ed. F. Lammert (1952).

Alex. Alexander Aphrodisiensis, of Aphrodisias, peripatetic and author of commentaries on

Aristotle, as also of some independent works (2nd and 3rd centuries A.D.), ed. J. Bruns in
Supplementum Aristotelicum, 1887.
38
Acc. to Alex. Aphr.An., I, 139v (I, 89, 16 ff.) only the divine νοῦς ποιητικός is immortal. Every
other νοῦς dies with the related soul.
39
Ed. W. Kroll, “De oraculis Chaldaicis,” Breslauer philolog. Abh., 7, 1 (1894), cf. O. Geudtner,
“Die Seelenlehre d. chald. Orakel, 1,” Beiträe z. klass. Philologie, 35 (1971), 16–24. Perhaps in
Numenius, as in many Gnostics (→ 656, 23 ff.), the story of the ascent and descent of the soul
through the starry spheres is to be taken lit. and not as the mythical explanation of a
speculatively understood process in the soul, cf. E. A. Leemans, Stud. over den wijsgeer
Numenius van Apamea met uitgave d. fragmenten (1936), 43–9. This can hardly be true of the
myth (deriving from Pos.) in Plut.Fac. Lun., 28 f. (II, 943a–f) which underlies the relation
νοῦσ/ἥλιος, cf. Vett. Val., I, 1 (p. 1 f.), ψυχή/σελήνη and σῶμα/γῆ. Plat.Phaed., 65c–69d and
Plot.Enn., VI, 9, 9 show that myths are told, to illustrate processes in the soul. Naturally
philosophical mythopoeia uses current religious notions so that an unskilled reader can
understand them religiously as the impartation of supernatural knowledge. Philosophical
systematising, too, often takes into account prevailing religious views. Thus the immortality of
the individual soul does not fit in with Stoic physics and yet Cleanthes teaches that all ψυχαί,
and Chrysipp. that those of the σοφοί, will have individual existence after death up to the next
ἐκπύρωσις that closes an epoch, Diog. L., VII, 157.
 The total picture shows that in the philosophical language of the Hellenistic-Roman
period ψυχή denotes the totality of the functions of mind and soul but that in virtue of
its distinction from νοῦς, ψυχή undergoes a certain devaluation, since is can no longer
denote pure spirituality.
The wealth of psychological theories in post-class. medicine is connected at all pts. with
philosophy and naturally a special interest is shown in the organic relation of intellectual
functions. Opinions about the corporeality of the ψυχή differ sharply, cf. the polemic in Gal. De
Naturalibus Facultatibus, I, 12 (Kühn, II, 26–30) against the so-called methodical school. The
fact that a corpse seems heavier than a living body is claimed as an argument both for and
against the corporeality of the soul.40

5. Popular Ideas of the Post-Classical Age.

Popular ideas correspond in large part to what we now mean by soul. The ψυχή is
the impalpable essential core of man, the bearer of thought, will and emotion, the
quintessence of human life.
The stylist Ps.-Demetr. De Elocutione, 227 says that a letter ought to be the εἰκὼν τῆς
ψυχῆς, i.e., the nature of the sender. A good Ethiopian has a black body but a white soul acc. to
a burial inscr.41 and the faithful wife is a ψυχὴ φιλανδροτάτη, Epigr. Graec., 547, 14 (1st/2nd
cent. A.D.). One must have a rich ψυχή, says the comic writer Antiph. Fr., 327 (CAF, II, 134);
χρήματα are only the wings of life, which corresponds to the ἔξω χορηγία of Peripatetic ethics.
One can sacrifice to the gods ἁπλῇ τῇ ψυχῇ, Ditt. Syll.3, III, 1042, 12 (2nd cent. A.D.), or do
something ὅλῃ τῇ ψυχῇ, so already Xenoph.Mem., III, 11, 10, cf. ἐκ πάσης ψυχῆς, Epict.Diss.,

class. classical.
40
Cf. Waszink, 157–9 on Tert. De Anima, 8, 3.

Ps.-Demetr. Pseudo-Demetrius. Demetrius of Phaleron, peripatetic, brought Greek learning

from Athens to Alexandria 308/7 B.C. He is not the author of the work which has been handed
down in his name (Περὶ ἑρμηνείας, On Oratorical Expression), but it probably dates from c. 100
A.D., ed. L. Radermacher, 1901.

41
Ed. W. Peek, “Griech. Grabgedichte,” Schr. u, Quellen d. Alten Welt, 7 (1960), 420 (3rd cent.
A.D.).

Antiph. Antiphanes, of Athens, significant comic dramatist of the 4th century B.C., ed. T. Kock in
Comicorum atticoram Fragmenta, II, 1884.

CAF Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta, ed. T. Kock, 1880 ff.

Ditt. Syll. W. Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum2, 1898 ff.;3, 1915 ff.

Xenoph. Xenophon, of Athens (c. 430–354 B.C.), pupil of Socrates, author of various historical,
philosophical and scholarly works, ed. E. C. Marchant, 1900 ff.

Mem. Memorabilia Socratis.

Epict. Epictetus, Phrygian slave of Hierapolis in the days of Nero (50–130 A.D.), freed at the
imperial palace, Stoic of the younger school and preacher of ethics tinged with religion. From
III, 22, 18, or be bound to others μιᾷ ψυχῇ, Dio Chrys. Or., 36, 30. Marital fellowship extends
to outward goods βίος to σῶμα and ψυχή,42 Ditt. Syll.3, II, 783, 33 (1st cent. B.C.). A magical
defixion embraces χεῖρες, πόδες, γλῶσσα, ψυχή, ibid, III, 1175 (3rd cent. B.C.). σὴ ψυχὴ
ἐπίσταται means “you know very well,” BGU, IV, 1141, 23 f. (1st cent. B.C.). καθαρὰ ψυχή is a
pure conscience or good disposition, BGU, IV, 1040, 21 (2nd cent. A.D.), and ἔχω κατὰ ψυχήν
means “to have in view,” Pap. Societ. Archaeol. Atheniensis, 62, 17 f. (1st/2nd cent. A.D.).43
Artemidor.’s book of dreams, which circulated widely, distinguishes ἴδια σώματος like eating
and sleeping from ἴδια ψυχῆς like joy and sorrow, Onirocr., I, 1 (p. 3), and assumes that ideas
like the relation of the soul to the cosmos, II, 60 (p. 155), its ascent to heaven, II, 68 (p. 160)
and its trips during physical sleep, V, 43 (p. 262) are well known. That souls after death go to
the hereafter, to heaven, the aether or the like, to a place of punishment or bliss, is an ancient,
Eur.Suppl., 533, and widespread, Epigr. Graec., 433 (2nd cent. A.D.); Gr., VI, 1031 (2nd/3rd
cent. A.D.),44 but not undisputed view, Callim. Epigr., 13; IG, IX, 2, 640.45 The satires on the
underworld in Luc. presuppose a cleavage here. That moral significance attaches only to the
state of the soul is taught not merely by philosophy. Astrology promises that it can free the soul,

his lectures his pupil Arrian collected 8 books of diatribes which have been preserved, ed. H.
Schenkl2, 1916.

Diss. Dissertation.

Dio Chrys. Dion, of Prusa in Bithynia (c. 40nd;120 A.D.), later called Chrysostomus, the most
important representative of the so-called Second Sophistic school in the Roman Empire, ed. H.
v. Arnim, 1893 ff.
42
This division corresponds to the Peripatetic teaching on goods which was adopted by Middle
Platonism, Cic. De Orat. II, 342 (cf. Stob.Ecl., II, 130, 15 ff.).

BGU Ägyptische Urkunden aus den Kgl. Museen zu Berlin, 1895 ff.

Pap. Papyrus, shortened to P. when specific editions are quoted.

43
Ed. G. A. Petropulos, ΠΡΑΓΜΑΤΕΙΑΙ ΤΗΣ ΑΚΑ∆ΗΜΙΑΣ ΑΘΗΝΩΝ, Ι (1939).

Onirocr. Oneirocriticum.
44
R. Lattimore, Themes in Gk. and Lat. Epitaphs2 (1962), 44–54.

Callim. Callimachus, of Cyrene (c. 310–240 B.C.), typical representative and acknowledged
master of Hellenistic poetry, called by Ptolemy II to direct the library in Alexandria. There is no
single edition, but for individual pieces, cf. Liddell-Scott, XVIII.

Epigr. Epigrammata.

IG Inscriptiones Graecae, ed. Preussische Akademie d. Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1873 ff,

45
ibid., 74–8.

Luc. Lucianus, of Samosata in Syria (120–180 A.D.), best-known, though renegade,

representative of the Second Sophistic School, rhetorician and lively satirist of his epoch, ed. C.
Jacobitz, 1836; W. Dindorf, 1858.
 and hence man as such, by setting forth the rules determining physical events, Vett. Val., V, 9
(p. 220, 21). Human freedom is freedom of the soul and its consciousness and decisions. The
ψυχή is the most worthwhile thing in man, Menand.Mon., 843.46 ψυχή can still mean “life.”47
σῶσαι πολλὰς ψυχάς means “to save many human lives,” P. Tebt., I, 56, 11 (2nd cent. A.D.) or
P. Oxy., VII, 1033, 11 (4th cent. A.D.). The expression ἐπιβουλευθεὶς μὲν εἱς τὴν ψυχήν
denotes an attempt on the life, Achill. Tat. VIII, 3, 1. Whether πᾶσα ψυχή “everyone” adopts
this sense or is a term for man acc. to his most important element it is hard to say, for the ideas
overlap. παραβάλλομαι τῇ ψυχῇ in Diod. S., 3, 36 means “to hazard one’s life,” cf. the
honorary inscr. ψυχῇ καὶ σώματι παραβαλλόμενος καὶ δαπάναις χρώμενος ταῖς τοῦ ἐκ βίου,
Ditt. Syll.3, II, 762, 39 f. (1st cent. B.C.). Later combinations with ψυχή in the post-class. age are
all based on the meaning “soul.” cf. μακρόψυχος “patient,” Preis. Zaub., I, 4, 2902 (4th/5th
cent. A.D.) alongside the older μακρόθυμος and μακροψυχέω, P. Greci e Lat, IV, 299, 11 (3rd
cent. A.D.).

Dihle
B. The Anthropology of the Old Testament.
1. ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬.

Vett. Val. Vettius Valens, later Greek astrologist (2nd century A.D.), ed. W. Kroll, 1908.

Menand. Menander, of Athens (343–290 B.C.), recognised master of the new Attic comedy, ed.
T. Kock in Comicorum Atticorum Fragmenta III, 1888; C.A. Jensen. 1929.

Mon. Monostichi.

46
Ed. S. Jaekel, Menandri Sententiae (1964).
47
Cf. the use of the words ἔμψυχοσ/ἄψυχος in non-philosophical speech. The beast is ἔμψυχον
as a living being, P. Giess., 40, II, 22 (2nd/3rd cent. A.D.), cf. Thuc. VII, 29, 4, and the slave is def.
as ὄργανον ἔμψυχον, Aristot.Eth. Nic., IX, 13, p. 1161b, 4; but the beast is also ἄλογον, an
irrational being, as already Plat.Prot., 321b, later used only for the horse, P. Oxy., I, 138, 29
(7th cent. A.D.).

P. Tebt. The Tebtunis Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell, A. Hunt and others, 1920 ff.

P. Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. B. Grenfell and A. Hunt, 1898 ff.

Achill. Tat. Achilles Tatius of Alexandria (4th. century A.D.), sophist and Christian, the last
novelist of antiquity, ed. G. A. Hirschig, in Erotici Scriptores, 1856.

Diod. S. Diodorus Siculus, of Agyrion in Sicily, in the days of Augustus, author of a popular
history of the world in 40 books in his Historical Library, ed. F. Vogel, 1888.

Preis. Zaub. K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae Magicae, 1928 ff.

P. Greci e Lat Papyri Greci e Latini, Pubblicazioni della Società Italiana, 1911 ff.

Dihle Albert Dihle, Cologne (Vol. 9).

 The Hbr. term for ψυχή is ‫ ;נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ψυχή is also used twice for ‫רוּח‬
ַ at Gn. 41:8; Ex. 35:21,
once for ‫ ַחיִּ ים‬ψ 63(64):2, and 25 times for ‫ ֵלב‬2 K. 6:11; 1 Ch. 12:39; 15:29; 17:2; 2 Ch. 7:11;
9:1; 15:15; 31:21; ψ 20(21):3; 36(37):15 vl.; 68:20, 32; Qoh. 7:21; Prv. 6:21; 15:32; 26:25; Is.
7:2, 4; 10:7; 13:7; 24:7; 33:18; 42:25; 44:19; Jer. 4:19. In the trend toward uniformity one may
see an attempt at systematisation and also evidence that the three Hbr. words were so close that
they could be viewed as interchangeable. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is as hard to define as it is to translate48 owing to
its fluid and dynamic aspect.

a. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and Breath.

The root ‫נפשׁ‬49 means “to respire,” “to breathe.” This physical aspect may be seen in ‫נפשׁ‬
“to breathe” “to draw breath,” and also in ‫“ נשׁף‬to breathe heavily,” Ex. 15:10, ‫“ נשׁב‬to blow,”
Is. 40:7 and ‫“ נשׁם‬to breathe with difficulty,” Is. 42:14. ‫ נפשׁ‬occurs only three times as a verb,
once concretely “to draw breath,” when physically exhausted, 2 S. 16:14, and twice in
connection with the Sabbath rest, Ex. 23:12; 31:17, Yahweh being the subj. in the latter v. Since
the Sabbath is the gt. regulator of time, which consists alternately of rest and activity, breathing
with its similar alternation can denote the life which is constantly threatened and constantly won
again in the cosmos and in man.50 The deciding mark of the living creature is breathing, and its
cessation means the end of life. Hence the root ‫ נפשׁ‬in the form of the noun ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, which occurs
755 times in the Hbr. Bible, denotes “life” or “living creature,” the special sense of “breath”
being expressed by ‫ ְנ ָשׁ ָמה‬, although often this shares the development of ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬,51 Dt. 20:16;
Jos. 10:40; 11:11, 14; 1 K. 15:29; Ps. 150:6; Is. 57:16. One might say that ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬always includes
‫ ְנ ָשׁ ָמה‬but is not limited to it. In 1 K. 17:17 lack of ‫ נְ וָ ָמה‬causes the departure of ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, which
returns when the prophet gives the child breath again, for ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬alone is what makes a living
creature into a living organism. The fluid form of breath opens up various possibilities of usage

48
There are three recent monographs on ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬. J. H. Becker, Het begrip nefesj in het OT (1942)

analyses all the passages in which the word occurs and divides them into groups: a. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬as
life, b. as goal of life, c. as individual and personal pron., d. as someone, e. as a living creature.
Lys Nèphèsh in his historical section surveys the concept of the soul in antiquity and then in a
chronological and statistical section offers a division acc. to literary genres. More attention
should be paid to his exeg. observations than to the historical deductions from them.
Murtonen starts with the sense of life in orientation to something. In our view, this study,
which sticks to the linguistic data and, stresses the functional aspect of ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, is the best
starting-point for further investigation.
49
How the letters in the root relate to one another may be seen in the schema in Becker, op.
cit., 100, which is based on Mandelkern and Ges.-Buhl.
50
Lys Nèpèsh, 121.

51
The root ‫ נשׁם‬occurs 26 times in the OT, 24 as noun, and means the “breath” which God
blows into man or the breath in man (LXX πνοή) which is always viewed as God’s gift to man.
Animals are excluded, cf. T. C. Mitchell, “OT Usage of nešama,” VT, 11 (1961), 177–187.
which sometimes stress the fluidity and sometimes try to be more concrete. Thus the meaning
“neck,” “throat,” which ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬can have in some passages (→ n. 52), is an attempt to localise at a
specific and visible place the expression of life.52 Always, however, this is a derived sense and
in no Hbr. text does it express the original meaning. Jon. 2:6 is not ref. to water that reaches up
to the neck but to the chaotic element which threatens life, so that there is equation with ‫ ֶפּה‬or
with expressions that suggests drowning. Is. 5:14; Hab. 2:5; Qoh. 6:7; Ps. 63:5; Prv. 13:2 allude
to fervent desire rather than to a part of the body. The link with breath is very plain when death
is def. as a departure of the ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬. Yet one should not conclude that the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is an immaterial
principle which can be abstracted away from its material sub-structure and which can lead an
independent existence. The departure of the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is a metaphor for death; a dead man is one
who has ceased to breathe. The alternation of breathing corresponds to the fluid nature of the
terms life and death in the OT. Life and death are two worlds which cannot be sharply
differentiated.53 When, e.g., sickness and anxiety are said to be a constriction of the ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, Nu.
21:4; Ju. 10:16, this means that they are manifestations of the world of death. The concrete
sense may also be seen in the combination of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and, ‫“ נפח‬to breathe out,” Jer. 15:9; Job
11:20; 31:39.

52 Cf. L. Dürr, “Hbr. ‫ == נֶ ֶפשׁ‬akk. napǐtu == Gurgel, Kehle,” ZAW, 43 (1925), 262–9. None of
the instances adduced by Dürr necessitates the sense of “throat.” When neck is meant we find
‫ ַצוָּ אר‬, Is. 8:8; 30:28. ‫ ָבּ ֵתּי הנֶּ ֶפשׁ‬in Is. 3:20 is contested but it can hardly mean “houses on
the neck,” as Dürr contends (268), nor little perfume flasks that sweeten the breath, for ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬
never means “perfume.” The content suggests magical devices to protect the life from danger,
cf. in Ez. 13:18–20 the magical practices of prophetesses to gain control of human lives
‫ נְ ָפשׁוֹת‬so as to give them life or death. Things are rather different in Accad. Kunuk kišadi
“seal on the neck” is equivalent to kunukku napipštika “seal of the throat.” Ugaritic is par. to
the OT. Closest to the sense “throat” is bnpšh par. bgngnh “what is inward,” Baal, II, VII, 48 (G.
R. Driver, “Canaanite Myths and Legends,” OT Stud., 3 [1956] 100 f.) == II, AB, VII, 48 (J.
Aistleitner, “Die myth. u. kult. Texte aus Ras Schamra,” Biblioth. Orient. Hungarica. 82 [1964],
45) == 51, VII, 48 (C. H. Gordon, “Ugaritic Textbook,” Analecta Orient., 38 [1965], 173); ṣat
npšh “what comes from his ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬,” Keret, II, I, 35 (Driver, 40 f.) == II, K I–II, 35 (Aistl. 99) ==

125. 35 (Gordon, II, 192) npšh lḷm tpṭ “he opened his ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬to the bread” Keret II, VI, 11

(Driver, 44 f.) == II, K VI, 11 (Aistl., 103) == 127, 11 (Gordon, 194). In these texts, however, npšh
and brlth, which in the last ref. is par. to npšh, mean the desire for food or sexual satisfaction
rather than the throat.

OT Old Testament.
53
Modern research gen. accepts this view in relation to the thought of Israel, cf. J. Pedersen,
Israel Its Life and Culture, I–II (1926), 453 and C. Barth, Die Errettung vom Tode in d.
individuellen Klage- u. Dankliedern d. AT (1947), 67.
 b. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and Blood.
The relation between ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ and blood is probably along other lines which are
independent of the relation between ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and breath. Basic to both, however, is the idea
of the body as a living organism. When breath and blood leave the body, then every
form of life disappears.54
The three texts which most clearly illustrate the connection between ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and blood take us
into the ritual sphere. In the prohibition ‫א תא ֵֹבלוּ‬ ֹ ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר ְבּנַ ְפשׁוֹ ל‬in Gn. 9:4 ‫ ָדמוֹ‬is an
explanatory gloss which is designed` to stress that the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is to be sought only in the blood.
Lv. 17:11 confirms that the seat of the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is in the blood: The rather different formulation in
v. 14 corresponds to the LXX. With his double statement that the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is the blood and that it is
in the blood the preacher of the Law is warning against a magical understanding of blood.
Blood, can work atonement only so long as the vital force ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is in it. This is also the pt. in Dt.
12:23, although here the ref. is to eating rather than to expiation. Attempts to find a connection
between blood and, breath, e.g., breath as the steam of fresh blood, must be abandoned. In the
above texts ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬has nothing whatever to do with a breath-soul or a blood-soul;55 it simply
denotes the vital force. There is a more likely connection with blood in expressions like “to pour
out” the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in Lam. 2:12; Ps. 42:4; 1 S. 1:15; Job 30:16, though ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬might be more
appropriately understood as “tears.” The emptying of the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in Ps. 141:8; Is. 53:12 and the

54
Blood plays no part in the OT creation stories. The Bab. creation myth calls the blood of the
vanquished god an essential constituent of the human body, Enuma elǐ, VI, 35 (J. B. Pritchard,
Ancient Near Eastern Texts rel. to the OT2 [1955], 68), but this feature does not occur in the
Sumerian texts. The Islamic tradition, like that of Israel, speaks of the fashioning of man out of
mud, Koran, Sura 6, 2; 15, 26; 23, 12–14. Only in Wis., which was influenced by Hellenism, do
“scientific” aspects come to the fore. Here man arises out of a mixture of male sperm with
female menstrual blood, 7:2. The relation of sperm to blood save rise to speculation in Gk.
philosophy, esp. among the Stoics. Because it is spuma sanguinis, Diog. v. Apoll., Fr., 6 (Diels, II,
62); Aristot.Gen. An., I, 19, p. 762b, 1–13, the sperm has a pneumatic element. For other ref. to
the relation between blood, soul and life cf. Rüsche Blut, 57–307. In the OT blood is mentioned
only in legal and cultic connections. Exceptions are Ps. 72:14 and 1 Ch. 11:19, where it is par. to
‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬.
55
Rüsche Blur, 319–340 and before him M. Lichtenstein, “Das Wort ‫ נפשׁ‬in d. Bibel,” Schrift d.
Lehranstalt f. d. Wissenschaft d. Judt., IV, 5–6 (1920) find the first stage of OT anthropology in
the localisation of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in the blood. Later breath became its seat and this led to the idea of
the steam of blood, which is found in the works of Hom., e.g., Il., 23, 880; Od., 10, 163 but does
not actually occur in the Bible. Lichtenstein’s rendering of Dt. 12:23: “For the blood is what we
to-day call soul” (25) imports into the OT an idea that is more attractive than convincing. Cf.
also C. F. Jean, “Tentatives d’explication du ‘moi’ chez les anciens peuples de l’Orient
méditerranéen,” RHR, 121 (1940), 109–127.
use of ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬‫ ָדּם‬as par. in Ps. 72:14; 2 S. 23:17, cf. 1 Ch.
and 11:19 strongly favour a
connection between ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and blood even outside the ritual sphere.

c. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and Person.
‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is the usual term for a man’s total nature, for what he is and not just what he
has. This gives the term priority in the anthropological vocabulary,56 for the same
cannot be said of either spirit, heart, or flesh. The classical text in Gn. 2:7 clearly
expresses this truth when it calls man in his totality a ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ ַחיָּ ה‬. Perhaps in view of its
over-logical formulation this passage never became normative for the OT as a whole. It
should be noted that it expresses the external aspect of a man rather than the modalities
of his life.57 The word ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬developed in two main directions which correspond more to
structures of thought than to a chronological sequence. The two directions might be
defined in terms of form and movement. The ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is almost always connected with a
form. It has no existence apart from the body. Hence the best translation in many
instances is “person” comprised in corporeal reality. The person can be marked off and
counted, Gn. 12:5; 46:18; Jos. 10:28; 11:11. Each individual is a ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, and when the
texts speaks of a single ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬for a totality, the totality is viewed as a single person, a
“corporate personality.”58 Hence ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬can denote what is most individual in human
nature, namely, the ego, and it can become a synonym of the personal pronoun, Gn.
27:25: “that my ‫( נֶ ֶפשׁ‬I) may bless thee,” and Jer. 3:11: “Unfaithful Israel has justified
its ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, i.e., has shown itself to be righteous.”
d. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬as Corpse and Tomb.
The accent on the person allowed the term to be retained even with reference to the
person in its least mobile state and under what is naturally its least vital aspect. The

56
Murtonen, 11, cf. 76 offers the following def. of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬which is applicable both here and in all
periods: “the living and active being of its possessor.” Yet he seems to overstress the collective
sense of ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬. If the people has a ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬this is not because the totality is greater than the
individual, true though this is in part, but rather because the people is viewed as an individual.
The ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is always seen in its individual manifestation and physical restriction. That the Bible

speaks of ‫ן־א ָדם‬

ָ ‫ ֶבּ‬but never ‫ ֶבּן־נֶ ֶבשׁ‬is perhaps a pointer in this direction.
57
The two main definitions of bibl. anthropology, ‫ַחיָּ ה‬ ‫ נֶ ֶבשׁ‬and ‫ֹלהים‬
ִ ‫ ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬have this in
common, namely, that they view man in his being rather than his having. Again, they both see
man in his autonomy and also his dependence. They denote a person, but the terms ‫ ַחיָּ ה‬and

‫ֹלהים‬
ִ ‫ ֱא‬bring out the theonomous aspect of OT anthropology as well.
58
This is the expression used by H. W. Robinson, “The Hebrew Concept of Corporate
Personality” in J. Hempel, Werden u. Wesen d. AT, ZAW Beih., 66 (1936), 49–61.
lifeless corpse is either a ‫ֵמת‬ ‫( נֶ ֶפשׁ‬Nu. 6:6; 19:13) or simply a ‫( נֶ ֶפשׁ‬Lv. 19:28; 22:4;
Nu. 5:2; 9:6, 10; Hag. 2:13).
That the ref is to the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬of a dead man and not to a dead ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬may be seen from the full
statement in Nu. 19:13: ‫“ נֹגֵ ַע ְב ֵמת ְבּנֶ ֶפשׁ ָה ָא ָדם ֲא ֶשׁר יָ מוּת‬Wosoever toucheth a dead
man, i.e., the body of any man that is dead.” In the Bible ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ref. only to the corpse prior to its
final dissolution and while it still has distinguishing features. When at a later date outside the
Bible ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is used for “tomb” the point is that the individual is in some way present after
death.59 Acc. to the OT the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬has no existence apart from the individual who possesses it, or,
better, who is it. It never leaves him to pursue an independent life of its own. Even less is it a
force outside the individual that works variously in life and death. The inhabitants of sheol are
never called ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬.60 Belief in the survival of the dead in the underworld where they may be
either in peril or in bliss is not to be explained by animistic notions but by the attempt to do
justice to the mystery of death and the presence of a resting-place for the dead.61

59
The use of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in this sense expands in post-bibl. Hbr., as in Talmudic texts like b.Erub.,
53a; 55b; b.Sheq., II, 5. We also find the expression outside Israel in Syria, Canaan, Palmyra and
Nabatea, v. M. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris f. semitische Epigraphik, I (1902), 91a D. 4 (p. 215) and C.
F. Jean-J. Hoftijzer, Dict. des Inscr. sémitiques de l’Ouest (1965), s.v. ‫ ;נפש‬H. Donner-W. Röllig,

Kanaan. u. aram. Inschr., I2 (1966), 128 and 136, cf. II2 (1968), 132 f., 135 f. (here ‫)נאפש‬. In
most cases the use of ́πϳνϳ in this sense can be explained from the development of the Semitic
word. In some instances one might ask whether ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬might not be the transl. of an original
ψυχή in the sense of “butterfly,” for in view of the latter’s transformation the Gks. often
depicted it on tombs as a symbol of life and immortality, cf. B. Lifschitz, “Der Ausdruck ψυχή in
d. griech. Grabinschr.,” ZDPV, 76 (1960), 159. At any rate we find this meaning for ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬only at
a later time and it is to be associated with the development of more precise ideas about the
survival of the individual after death. The supposed Ugaritic par. (→ n. 52) are better explained
in terms of “need,” “appetite.” At most in ard bnpšny Baal III* C 20 (Driver, op. cit., 78 f.) == III
AB C 20 (Aistleitner, op. cit., 48) == 129, 20 (Gordon, op. cit., 196) there might be an allusion to
the grave of Mot.

60
Murtonen, 3, 12 etc. takes a critical view of M. Seligson. “The meaning of np̌ mt in the OT,”
Stud. Or., 16, 2 (1951). For Seligson ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is a “mysterious potency” which influences man from
without. It works in life but more mysteriously in death. In the attempt to explain the OT
concept along other lines than that of the modern soul this thesis pays too little regard to the
Semitic usage which connects ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬generally with the breath or breathing.

61
A view that differs from that of Israel may be found in the inscr. of King Panammuwa of
Sam’al from the middle of the 8th cent. B.C., Donner-Röllig, op. cit. (→ n. 5), 214, cf. ibid., II,
214–223. This Aram. king, who put up a statue to Hadad, expresses the wish: “May the ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬
of Panammuwa eat and drink with Hadad,” line 17, 22. The ref. here is not to the tomb but a
 e. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬as Expression of the Will.
The aspect of movement triumphed over that of form. This is certainly more in
keeping with the original sense of the term. The ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is manifest in orientation to an
object, whether this be the elemental realities of hunger and thirst on the one side (Dt.
12:15, 20 ff.; 1 S. 2:16; Mi. 7:1; Ps. 107:9; Prv. 6:30; 10:3; 12:10; 23:2; 25:25) or the
lofty aspiration of yearning for God on the other. When it is restricted to movement, the
‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is never located in a single organ but can dwell in various parts of the organism,
and these can sometimes be used as synon. for it.
We find ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬with ref. to the sex drive in Gn. 34:3, 8; Jer. 2:24, the hatred that fills an
enemy in Ps. 27:12; 41:2; Prv. 13:2, pain and sorrow, 1 S. 1:10; 30:6; Ez. 27:31; Job 27:2, the
will, Gn. 23:8. It is not surprising that the ́πϳνϳ reaches its full expression in supreme striving
after God, so that man is ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬esp. in the relation to God,62 Is. 26:9; Ps. 63:1; 84:2; 119:20, 28;
130:5; 143:6, 8. The vocative form ‫ נַ ְפ ִשׁי‬in Ps. 42:5, 11; 43:5; 62:5; 103:1 f., 22; 104:1, 35;
116:7; 146:1 is a kind of question that the petitioner addresses to himself, to his vital force
which is now to come to its full intensity, or to his responsibility before God, which means that
religiously the individual attachment is no less strong than is the collective.63 Man does not turn
to his conscience. Before God, who is the only true source of life, he gathers up all his strength,
and before the divine One he finds his own oneness. When the goal is reached, the tension
between yearning and having relaxes, cf. Ps. 131:2: “I have brought my ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬to silence, it has
become like a weaned child.”64

2. Flesh and Body (→ VII, 105, 14 ff.; 1044, 13 ff.).

The significance which is given to the body in ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ carries with it a certain
antithesis to the flesh. Hence ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬can sometimes denote the whole man as well as
‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬.
a. Flesh.

possibility of survival is expressed. In contrast cf. Nu. 23:10; Ju. 16:30, which ref. to the death
of the ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬. It should not be forgotten that in the Panammuwa inscr. what is at issue is the
survival of a king who already in life, and then also in death, has an unusual life-potency.

synon. synonym.
62
Murtonen, 50.

63
The Gk. transl. of the OT tried to do justice to the many senses of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬Thus we often find
the personal pronoun for it, Am. 6:8; Ps. 105:22; Est. 4:13, or ἀνήρ in Gn. 14:21; Prv. 16:26;
28:25, ἐμπνέον in Jos. 10:28, 30, 35, 37, 39; 11:11, “hands” in Ps. 41:2; Prv. 13:4, the “arm” in
Ἰερ. 28:14 (51:14), the “head” in Is. 43:4, cf. the basic study Lys Soul LXX.

64
As H. A. Brongers, “Das Wort ‘NP̌’ in d. Qumranschr.,” Rev. de Q., 4 (1963), 407–415 has
shown, Qumran has the same mutiple use of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬as the OT. Only ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ ‫“ ֵה ִקים ַעל‬to
pledge oneself by oath to something,” Damasc. 16:4, 7 (20:2, 4f.); 1 QH 14:17 seems to be
new, but the way is prepared for it in Est. 9:31 and Nu. 30:2–15.
 In some texts ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬has a very material sense, e.g., “edible flesh” in Lv. 7:19; Nu. 11:4, 13;
Dt. 32:42; Is. 22:13; Prv. 23:20; Da. 10:3; Job 31:31. ‫ָבּ ָשׂר‬ is used 104 times with ref. to
animals and 169 times with ref. to men; later texts contain more ref. ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬means the whole
body and may have at times what is perhaps the original sense of “skin.”65 We naturally find it
in proximity to ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, although the individual aspect is stronger in the latter. Thus ‫ָכּל־נֶ ֶפשׁ‬
means “all individuals that can be counted” and ‫ל־בּ ָשׂר‬
ָ ‫ָכּ‬ “every living thing.” Like ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬,
‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬is connected with the blood, Ps. 50:13; Dt. 12:23; Lv. 17:11. But we find the pairing
“flesh and blood” for the first time only in Sir. 14:18.66 Later it means “human” as distinct from
God, Gr. En. 15:4; T. Ber., 7, 18 (Zuckermandel, 16), or it is used to denote relationship, which
is in the OT is expressed by ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬alone, Gn. 29:14; 37:27; Ju. 9:2, perhaps also Gn. 2:23 f. In
what is still a material sense ‫ ָב ָשׁר‬can then mean the “male member,” Ez. 23:20; 16:26; Ex.
28:42; Lv. 15:2 f. When we read of the circumcision of the flesh in Gn. 17:11; Ez. 44:7 it is not
immediately evident whether we again have this restricted sense. When used for the whole man
‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬is often synon. with ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬67 Ps. 84:2; 119:120; Job 4:15; 21:6; Prv. 4:22, and it can denote
concentration on a goal.68

65
That this might be the original sense is suggested by the Arab. bashara. Ps. 102:6: “My bones
cleave to my ‫שׂר‬
ָ ‫” ָבּ‬is surely ref. to the skin. If ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬is the flesh covered by the skin, this
might explain the use of the same root in the sense “to proclaim good tidings,” the common
denominator being that of outward manifestation, so W. Gesenius, Thesaurus philolog. criticus
Linguae Hebr. et Chaldaeae Veteris Test., I (1835), s.v. ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬: ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬caro, in qua cernitur
hominis pulchritudo, and E. Dhorme “L’emploi métaph, des noms de parties du corps en hébr.
et en akkad.,” Rev. Bibl., 29 (1920), 475 and 481, and finally R. W. Fischer, A Study of the
Semitic Root BSR “to bring (good) tidings,” Diss. Columbia (1966). But one must be careful
about drawing semantic conclusions from etym.
66
The expression “flesh and blood” has not yet been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But we find
it a few times in Mandaean writings, cf. Lidz. Ginza R., 10, 30; 193, 35; 247, 19; L., 437, 39.

Gr. Greek Enoch. containing 32 chapters of the former in a MS discovered, 1886–7.

T. Tosefta (Strack, Einl., 74 ff.), ed. G. Kittel-H. Rengstorf, 1933 ff.

67
Another word for flesh is ‫שׁ ֵאר‬
ְ . Like the Arab. ta’r it means “blood,” or “bloody flesh,” Ex.
21:10; Ps. 78:20, 27. It is used for relationship, denoting a specific relative, whereas ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬is

more gen., Lv. 18:6 (‫שׂרוֹ‬

ָ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫) ְשׁ ֵאר‬, 12; 20:19; 25:49. it is also used for man in gen. along with
‫ ָבּ ָשׁר‬Prv. 5:11, ‫ ֵלב‬Ps. 73:26, ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬Prv. 11:17. It is hard to detect any distinction between ραέ̓̀
and ρχ̀Β̀ in the OT.
68
ρχ̀ΒᾺλΒ̀ never means Israel alone but always Israel along with other peoples. The expression
is most common in P, which connects it with sin in Gn. 6:12 f., v. A. R. Hulst, “Kol basar in d.
priesterl. Fluterzählung,” Oudtest. Stud., 12 (1958), 28–68.
 When ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬is not associated with ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬however, it is used for man in his weakness
and corruptibility. That man is flesh means that he must perish like a plant. Is. 40:6.
Limited to flesh, he sees that his days are few, Gn. 6:3, for the purely vegetative element
prevails. Confidence reposed in the flesh is thus of no help. If the flesh does not stand in
relation to God it is merely weakness and corruptibility, Jer. 17:5; Is. 31:3. The final
result of this tendency is that the flesh becomes the evil principle which is in opposition
to God and which overcomes man’s better inclinations. This kind of dualism, however,
is never found in the OT69 and would deny the very foundations of OT anthropology. So
long as the flesh is an organism which receives life from the spirit, it is connected with
longing for God and the praise of God, Ps. 145:21. It is important, then, that man should
direct the way of the ‫ ָבּ ָשׁר‬in such a manner that he is not brought to destruction, Gn.
6:12. A dualistic view is found for the first time in Wis. 8:19; 9:15, where under Greek
influence the flesh is the antithesis of the soul and spirit.
b. Bones.
We should not fail to note that in death the flesh undergoes complete destruction,
whereas it is possible to think of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and especially ‫רוּה‬ ַ as having another existence
apart from that in the body. For the Israelite, then, special importance attaches to that
part of the body which withstands decay the longest, i.e., the bones. The bones ‫ֲע ָצ ִמים‬
are the solid part of the body which supports the other parts of the building like a
framework. The special care with which they are treated after death might express a
hope of restoration to life again, 2 K. 13:20; Da. 12:2; Is. 66:14 and esp. Sir. 46:12;
49:10. The bones rather than the soul stleep in the grave. The concept of resurrection
that lies behind Ez. 37 accords a special place to them. They are often given a function
that is very similar to that of the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and the ‫ ָבּ ָשׁר‬: “My ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬shall be joyful in
Yahweh, and all my bones shall say, Yahweh, who is like unto thee?” (Ps. 35:9 f.). The
image of the bones is also used to show how very violent emotions can shake even that
which is usually the most solid part of the human body, and how they can thus threaten
life itself, Is. 38:13; 58:11; Jer. 23:9; Ps. 6:2; 31:10; 32:3; 51:8; 102:4; Job 4:14; 30:17
etc. Finally mξϳ̓ϳ́ , like ‫ →( נֶ ֶפשׁ‬620, 21 ff.), can denote the ego, man’s true being, or the
substance of inorganic things, Ex. 24:10; Gn. 7:13; Ez. 24:2.
The same development takes place in regard to ‫ גֶּ ֶרם‬which is rare in bibl. Hbr. (it is used in
a transf. sense in 2 K. 9:13), but which took on the sense of “ego” or “self” in Aram., Syr., and
later Hbr.

69
Is. 10:18: ‫שׂר‬
ָ ‫ד־בּ‬
ָ ‫ְר ַע‬ ‫ ִמנֶּ ֶפשׁ‬hardly intends a dualism of soul and body. The two words are
related synthetically rather than antithetically. That is, they are basically synon. and both
denote the vital force that seeks external manifestation. If, as O. Sander, “Leib-Seele-
Dualismus im AT,” ZAW, 77 (1965), 329–332, tries to show, ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬means here the soul-organ of

nourishment and ‫שׂר‬

ָ ‫ ָבּ‬that of reproduction, this has little bearing on our present study.
bibl. biblical.

Aram. Aramaic.

Syr. Syriac.
3. Different Parts of the Body as the Seat of Life.
While the flesh, blood and bones, in virtue of their presence throughout the
organism, provide the material sub-stratum for a description of the person in its totality,
other parts of the human body, even though they are obviously localised, have a
significance which extends beyond their exact position in the body. For according to
Hebrew anthropology man is not the sum of the elements that form the body. The
totality can be concentrated in a part. For this reason some writers speak of a scattering
of consciousness,70 though this is undoubtedly exaggerated, for it would mean that the
Israelites were unable to think of human reality except in a very empirical way. It is
beyond question, however, that on the basis of the fluid transition from the collective to
the individual, and in a desire to see human life in its dynamism, the Israelites
contemplated life in its manifestation, and viewed the body in its movement rather than
its form. The part of the body which displays the greatest potency at a given moment is
often regarded as the seat of life in the absolute.
a. The Head (→ III, 675, 1 ff.).
One part in which life is concentrated is the head ‫ ראֹשׁ‬This is why hands are laid on it in
blessing, Gn. 48:14; Dt. 33:16; Prv. 10:6; 11:26. Punishing someone for a transgression is called
bringing his blood upon his head, Jos. 2:19; 2 S. 1:16; 3:29; Ez. 33:4; 1 K. 2:44. When Achish
wants to convey to David his trust in him he says: “I will make thee keeper of my head” (1 S.
28:2), i.e., the guardian of my life and person. The expression “the white hairs of someone will
go down into sheol,” Gn. 42:38; 44:29; 1 K. 2:6, 9, is based on the idea that the life of an
individual is concentrated in the head. In Da. 2:28; 4:2, 7, 10; 7:1, 15 the head is the seat of
knowledge, though everywhere else in the OT knowledge is related to the heart.

b. The Face (→ VI, 771, 1 ff.).

On the principle that the expression is more important than the form, Hebrew
psychology attaches great significance to the face. The exclusive use of the plur. ‫ָפּ ִנים‬
brings out the multiple role of the face. The difference in nuances and possibilities of
expression reflects exactly the total life attitude, Jer. 30:6; Is. 13:8; Jl. 2:6: Na. 2:11.
The face can express the whole range of emotions from severity, Dt. 28:50; Is. 50:7 to
mildness and approval, Prv. 15:3; Qoh. 7:3. This polarity of the face led men to think that they
could influence it to bring about a change of disposition, cf. the expression ‫“ ִח ָלּה ָפּ ִנים‬to
soften the face.” Construed with the prep. ‫ ְבּ‬and ‫ ְל‬, ‫ ָפּ ִנים‬is identical with the personal pronoun,
esp. in statements about God, Ex. 20:3; Dt. 5:7, so that the face of Yahweh has almost a
hypostatic character, Dt. 4:37; Is. 63:9. The face itself changes acc. to the different organs which
animate it. Clarity of the eyes (→ V, 376, 8 ff.) is a sign of enhanced vital force, e.g., after
eating, 1 S. 14:27. Less material influences, like God’s Law, can also cause it, Ps. 19:8. The
eyes can express envy, Prv. 23:6: 28:22, pride, Ps. 18:27; Prv. 6:17, and force, Ezr. 9:8. The eye

part. participle.
70
Cf. H. W. Robinson, “Human Nature and Its Divine Control,” Inspiration and Revelation
(1946), 72, and for justifiable criticism Johnson, 83. The Israelites had a much more definite
view of the unity of consciousness than the imagery suggests. The common use of the personal
pronoun ‫ָאנ ִֹבי‬ ‫ ֲא ִני‬from the earliest texts onwards is a proof of this.
is then synon. with‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬esp. when viewed in relation to another, Job 24:15; Jer. 32:4; 34:3.71
The forehead usually expresses arrogance and strength, Jer. 3:3; Ez. 3:7. The neck ‫ ע ֶֹרף‬is the
seat of pride, Ex. 32:9; 33:3, 5; 34:9; Dt. 9:6, 13; 31:27. These forms of expression are
determined in part by observation of bodily postures, but they all take on a metaphorical sense.
The nose ‫ ַאף‬dual ‫ ַא ַפּיִ ם‬is the sign and seat of wickedness, Ps. 10:4, and esp. of anger, which
is represented as strong blowing, Ez. 38:18, before it becomes an emotion, Prv. 14:17; 16:32.
The verb ‫“ ָח ָרה‬to glow,” which often characterises anger, expresses vividly the dynamism of
the emotion, which as long as it lasts pushes other aspects of being into the background.

c. The Hand (→ IX, 426, 9 ff.).

The hand ‫ ָרד‬often also the palm‫ ַכּף‬or finger ‫ ֶא ְצ ַבּע‬is the seat of power. The comparable
expression ‫יָ ִדי‬
‫שׁ־ל ֵאל‬
ְ ‫ ֶי‬Gn. 31:29; Dt. 28:32; Neh. 5:5; Prv. 3:27; Mi. 2:1, is not, however, the
reminiscence of a divine spirit ‫ ֵאל‬which animates the hand. The strength of the right hand (→
II, 37, 20 ff.) is greater than that of the left, Gn. 48:8–22; Qoh. 10:2. Hands are laid on to
convey blessing, Nu. 27:18–20. The hand is the organ which takes up a matter and executes it.
To give power to someone is to “strengthen the hands,” Ju. 9:24; 1 S. 23:16; Ezr. 6:22; Is. 35:3.
In man hand expresses the will and the means to carry it out. In God it is the means by which
He works in creation and history.

d. The Foot (→ VI, 626, 5 ff.).

The foot ‫ ֶר ֶגל‬can also express power, although less so than the hand, cf. 1 S. 23:22 where
Saul tries to find out where the feet of his opponent David are. The foot that is planted on the
neck of the enemy, Jos. 10:24: cf. 2 S. 22:39, is also evidence of the power of this part of the
body. A man with normal strength stands on his feet, and he can do this esp. when he is on solid
ground, e.g., a rock, Ps. 31:8; 40:2; 1 S. 2:9. But often the foot is to be construed in a purely fig.
sense, as when the feet slip, Ps. 94:18, stumble, Job 12:5; Ps. 73:2, do evil, Prv. 1:16; Is. 59:7,
or are caught in a net, Ps. 9:15; Lam. 1:13: Jer. 18:22.

e. The Inner Organs.

The inner organs which are not seen but whose significance is fairly well understood
also serve to express certain qualities of human nature. The high estimation of the
entrails ‫ ַר ֲח ִמים ֵמ ֶעח‬rests primarily on physical sensation. Violent grief or great joy
can affect certain organs, the bowels, liver, reins, and heart, so that the results can be
viewed as the cause, such organs being regarded as the seat of the emotions.
Sympathy dwells in the bowels. Since ‫ ֶבּ ֶטן‬and ‫ ֶר ֶחם‬the “womb” is where life begins, it
can naturally be used for life as a whole. In Ps. 44:26 ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and ‫ ֶבּ ֶטן‬are par. In Prv. 18:20 ‫ֶבּ ֶטן‬
is similar to the personal pron. and in Prv. 2:18 the words of the wise are kept in it. The word
‫ ֶק ֶרב‬denotes the inward parts as the gen. centre. It does not ref. so much then to a specific place
but is used for all the inner processes within man, often in contrast to those that are external, Jer.

71
In Ps. 31:9 ‫ ַעיִ ן‬, ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and ‫ ֶבּ ֶטן‬occur together. The two last words are an amplification
which is designed, to show that everything connected with the origin and force of life can be
concentrated in the eyes.

pron. pronoun.
 31:33; Ps. 64:6. The deepest emotions and impulses have their dwelling in the reins ‫ ְבּ ָליוֹת‬.
They are so strongly anchored there that the reins can play the part of conscience and instruct
man about God, Ps. 16:7. The loins ‫ ָמ ְת ַניִ ם‬, ‫ ֲח ָל ָציִ ם‬denote the power that dispenses life, Gn.
35:11; 1 K. 8:19 and they can sometimes be used for the whole person, Job 31:20. There is
undoubtedly a connection between the reins and the girdle which covers them and which as the
chief article of clothing can express the whole person. In Israel the reins seem to play a more
important role than the liver ‫ ָבּ ֵבד‬72 although this is the centre of life for the Assyrians and
Arabs. Expressions like Lain. 2:11: “My liver is poured upon the earth,” show, however, that
the term can sometimes be used for ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬.

4. The Heart as the Centre of Life and the Epitome of the Person.
The heart ‫ ֵלב‬, ‫ →( ֵל ָבב‬III, 609, 31 ff.) is often mentioned along with the inner organs, Jer.
11:20; 17:10; Ps. 26:2. Nevertheless it holds a special place, for it is the most common of all
anthropological terms (850 instances).73 In contrast to ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and ‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬whose physical relations
are vague, the heart is localised exactly. It is the more important because it can represent life in
its totality. The relation between it and ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬might be stated as follows. The ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is the soul in
the sum of its totality in its manifestation, whereas the heart is the soul in its inner worth.74
Although the Israelites had only a rudimentary knowledge of physiology,75 they had a fairly
accurate idea of the important role of the heart in the human organism. The heart, like breathing,

72
One may assume that the Hbr. ‫ ָבּבוֹד‬often replaces an original ‫ ָבּ ֵבד‬textual criticism does

not rule this out. A fairly sure instance is Gn. 49:6, where it is par. to ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬In the Ps., where

‫ ָבּבוֹד‬is a theologically pregnant term, the Masoretic reading may be retained, cf. 7:5; 16:9;
30:12; 57:7; 108:1. ‫ ָבּבוֹר‬is here what gives man his importance, which is usually denoted by
heart. We have, then, an estimation of man that does not rest on the correspondence
between spiritual experiences and parts of the body, though cf. F. Nötscher, “Heisst kabod
auch ‘Seele’?” VT, 2 (1952), 358–362.
73
F. H. v. Meyenfeldt, Het hart (leb, lebab) in her OT (1950), takes up the question of etym. and
comes to the conclusion that gt. caution is needed in def. ‫ ֵלב‬. Derivation from a root “to be
firm,” “to be fat,” “to move,” seems to be importing what is said about the heart into etym.
74
Pedersen, op. cit. (n. 53), I–II, 104.
75
H. Kornfeld, “Herz u Gehirn in altbibl. Auffassung,” Jahrbücher f. jüd. Gesch. u. Lit., 12 (1909),
ascribes too much knowledge to the Israelites when he writes: “OT teaching is based on the
fact that everything spiritual is mediated through the blood and that this works primarily on
the heart and vessels. The heart acquires ability to react through an accession of blood, and
this shows itself in an inexplicable pulsation of the heart not caused by the nerves.” As is well
known, the brain has no part in OT physiology and psychology. The word ‫ מ ַֹח‬which is the later
term for the brain, occurs in the OT only once at Job 21:24, where it denotes the marrow of
the bones; the bones are the important thing here and they have no connection with the
brain.
can denote the ebb and flow of life. But the death of the heart need not mean the end of life, as
may be seen from the story in 1 S. 25, where Nabal’s death comes only 10 days after his heart
died. A purely physical use of the term is fairly rare, Ex. 28:29 f.; 1 S. 25:37; 2 S. 18:14; 2 K.
9:24; Hos. 13:8; Na. 2:8; Ps. 37:15; 38:10; 45:5; Cant. 8:6. One may add to this list those
passages which speak of the heart as the centre of vital force in a biological sense, Gn. 18:5; Ju.
19:5, 8, or in which the heart is strengthened by nourishment, Ps. 22:26; 102:4; 104:15. The
twofold aspect of the heart as an active and yet concealed part of the body makes it a
psychological organ in which all life can concentrate and can also remain. It is the place where
the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is at home.76 The heart is the point where all impressions from outside meet, pain, 1 S.
1:8; Ps. 13:2, and joy, 1 S. 2:1; Ps. 16:9; Prv. 15:13. What man sees and esp. what he hears
enters the heart. In the OT, then, ‫ ֵלב‬is closest to what we call conscience,77 e.g., 1 S. 25:31 (→
VII, 908, 21 ff.). The act. role of the heart is even greater, however, than its receptive role. The
heart is a spring, Prv. 4:23. The ways of life have their origin there, and it is the task of life to
guide them aright. The heart must first keep what it has received. Memories, and esp. the divine
commandments, are written on the tablets of the heart. Since these commandments make a man
pious and intelligent, piety and understanding reside in the heart. This is the most common use.
An intelligent man is a man with a heart, Job 34:10. When Job wants to show that he is not
inferior to his friends in understanding, he cries out: “I have a heart as well as you,” Job 12:3.
The insane man has no heart. To make someone harmless, one takes from him his intelligence
and ability to act, i.e., one steals his heart, Gn. 31:20; 2 S. 15:6. Wine and whoredom take away
the heart, i.e., affect the judgment, Hos. 4:11; Prv. 6:32. For the heart as the seat of
understanding there are many analogies in Egypt. The role of the heart in the historical novel
and wisdom lit. might well be traced to Egypt. influences.78 The idea of the heart as a kind of
other soul or external soul probably comes from Egypt too.79 In the OT we find this idea in Ju.
16:17: “He (Samson) told her all his heart,” and 1 S. 9:19, where Samuel tells Saul that he will
disclose the secret of his heart. The heart is a specifically human organ that differentiates man
from animals. The heart of animals, which is mentioned in 2 S. 17:10; Job 41:16, is purely
physical and is not intelligence. That the animal does not have intelligence is shown by the way
in which Da. 4:13, cf. 7:4, says that the heart of Nebuchadnezzar was changed into that of a
beast and then by the behaviour of Nebuchadnezzar. The heart, however, does not merely record

76
G. F. Oehler, Art. “Herz,” RE1, 6 (1854–68), 16.

77
The LXX never transl. ‫ ֵלב‬by συνείδησις (→ n. 94). The only instance of this in Qoh. 10:20

corresponds to Hbr. ‫“ ַמ ָדּע‬knowledge.”

lit. Literature.
78
In many Egypt. texts the heart is the organ with which man can receive and grasp divine
inspirations, for it is always open to the divine will. For details cf. S. Morenz, Ägypt. Religion,
Die Religionen d. Menschheit, 8 (1960), 66–9, 134–142; A. Piankoff, Le “coeur” dans les textes
égypt. depuis l’Ancien jusqu’à la fin du Nouvel Empire (1930): H. Brunner. “Das Herz als Sitz des
Lebensgeheimnisses,” Archiv f. Orientforschung, 17 (1954/56), 140 f. The Book of the Dead,
esp. c. 125, adds to the texts illustrations in which the heart, the quintessence of body, soul
and will, is set on the scales of Osiris and Maat.
79
The heart is a kind of alter ego in the familiar story of Elisha and Gehazi. Elisha’s heart goes
with Gehazi when the latter is at a distance, 2 K. 5:26. But it might be that the expression is
ironical and does not reflect any precise notion.
 and keep impressions which it receives. It also forges plans80 by which the impressions are
changed into acts. The verb ‫ ָח ַשׁב‬of which the heart is often the subj., denotes act. thinking
which is translated into action at once. The creative function of the heart is plain in the
expression ‫ יֵ ֶצר‬in the classical passage Gn. 6:5: ‫יֵ ֵצר ַמ ְח ְשׁבֹת ִלבּוֹ‬. But these inventions of
the heart lead to no lasting result. To speak out of one’s own heart is to deviate from the truth,
as in the case of false prophets, Nu. 16:28; 24:13; 1 K. 12:33; Neh. 6:8; Ez. 13:2, 17. The heart
can fulfil its function only when God enables it to do so. By nature the heart of man is not
absolutely pure, Ps. 101:4; Prv. 11:20; 17:20. It inclines to falsehood, is divided, ‫ ְבּ ֵלב וָ ֵלב‬Ps.
12:2; 1 Ch. 12:34, and proud, Ps. 131:1; Prv. 16:5; 18:12; Ez. 28:2; Prv. 22:15. The heart can
cover itself with a layer of fat, Is. 6:10; Ps. 119:70 and become as hard as a stone, Ez. 11:19;
Zech. 7:12. But God is concerned about the heart. He examines it and tests it, Ps. 17:3; Jer.
12:3; 1 Ch. 29:17. He weighs it, Prv. 21:2; 24:12. He knows it as it really is, 1 K. 8:39; Ps.
33:15; Prv. 15:11. He makes it pure and firm and causes it to be one with Him, 1 K. 8:61; 11:4,
or to be one ‫ ֶא ָחד‬as God is one, Ps. 86:11; Jer. 32:39; 1 Ch. 12:39. The heart is not just the
organ that is indispensable to life. By God’s action it can become the principle of a new life.
The circumcision of the heart, Lv. 26:41; Dt. 10:16; 30:6; Jer. 4:4; 9:25 → VI, 77, 17 ff., and
the changing of a heart of stone into a heart of flesh and blood, Ez. 11:19; 36:26; Ps. 51:10,
express the fact that the new creation begins with the heart.81 The movement towards God
‫שׁוּשׁ‬, which the prophets continually ask from the human will, also begins in the heart, Jer.
3:10; 29:13 etc.

The description of man as ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and concentration on the heart do not correspond to

two different anthropologies. They are two tendencies within one and the same picture
of man. The first views man from the standpoint of his vegetative life and his exterior.
The second views him in terms of his inner worth. The dynamism of the anthropology
demands a centre, a conscience, which allows man to find himself and to grow beyond
himself.
5. The Spirit (→ VI, 359, 37 ff.),
The life of the organs and of their corresponding psychological functions is effected
by the spirit ‫רוּח‬
ַ .
a. Origin of the Concept.
Without ‫רוּח‬ַ there is no life and the source of life is outside man. These two
principles lie behind all biblical statements about the ‫רוּח‬
ַ . The expression suggests that
the origin of the concept is to be found in the physical world. The stem ‫ רוח‬is perhaps

80
Meyenfeldt, op. cit. (→ n. 73), 146.

81
In the demand for love of God the heart takes precedence of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬This shows that love
comes from within and that it is not an impulse but something considered, Dt. 4:9, 29; 6:5;
10:12; 11:13; 13:4; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10; Jos. 22:5; 23:14; 1 K. 2:4; 8:48. Jer. 32:41 speaks of the
love which comes from God and which manifests the same structure.
an onomatopoeic word82 which represents the rushing of the wind just as ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬suggests
breath, and it might be interpreted as a particular instance of the general life-force.
In many passages the only possible transl. of ‫רוּח‬
ַ is “wind” or “breath of wind,” esp. in
Jer., Ez., Job and Ps. (→ VI, 360, 12 ff.). Wind has twofold significance. Being fleeting and
inconstant, it can be a symbol of vanity, Job 16:3; Jer. 5:13; Hos. 8:7; Qoh. 1:17: 2:26; 4:4 etc.
But it is also a life-giving power since it brings rain-bearing clouds. God uses this power in His
revelation, 2 S. 22:11; Gn. 8:1; Ex. 10:13: 14:21; 15:8, 10, perhaps also Gn. 1:2, where the
transl. “mighty wind” is often preferred to the rendering “Spirit of Elohim.” In texts like Hos.
13:15; Is. 40:7; 59:19 wind is both a natural phenomenon and also the breath of God. When the
word is used in Is. 31:3 to express the uniqueness of the divine nature, the physical aspect
disappears and a transf. use emerges. In this case ‫רוּח‬ ַ means power and invisibility. The
concept moved into anthropology from cosmology and theology and it never lost contact with
its material origin.

b. The Outworking in Man.

In the oldest passages in which ‫רוּח‬
ַ is used with reference to man it denotes a
power which comes down from God on specific individuals, not to give them life, but to
give them a life-force which is beyond the ordinary and which enables them to do
especially mighty deeds, Ju. 13:25; 14:6; 15:14. In 1 S. 10:6, 10; 19:20 the Spirit impels
to prophecy. The great prophets, however, seldom ascribe their calling to the Spirit,
Hos. 9:7; Mi. 3:7. The Messiah is distinguished from ordinary mortals by the fact that
he has a superabundant measure of the Spirit, Is. 11. From outside, but not from God,
comes the spirit which is a kind of demonic being, which God can use, but which can
also oppose Him, 1 S. 16:14; 18:10; 1 K. 22:21 ff. Perhaps we have even here a
reminiscence of the heavenly spirits which are all united in Yahweh. Even when the
Spirit is referred to as a power that works within man, this work is still spoken of as if
there were possession by a demon. Even more strongly than ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, ‫רוּח‬ ַ is characterised
by dynamism. One might say that ‫רוּח‬
ַ is the condition of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and that it regulates its
force. Without ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ an individual dies, but without ‫רוּח‬
ַ a ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is no longer an
authentic ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬.

When Samson is dying of thirst, the spirit returns when he has drunk and he revives, Ju.
15:19. The same applies to a man who has fasted for three days, 1 S. 30:12. Faced by the
magnificence displayed by Solomon, the Queen of Sheba has no more ‫רוּח‬ַ 1 K. 10:5. She is not
‫רוּח‬
dying of weakness but she has been shaken in spirit. ַ is vital force esp. in passages which
have an anthropological emphasis. God breathes the ‫רוּח‬
ַ into man’s nostrils when He creates
him, Gn. 2:7; 6:3, 17; 7:22, where we find the fuller expression which combines J and P:
‫ת־רוּח ַחיִּ ים‬
ַ ‫ ִנ ְשׁ ַמ‬.
c. The Creative Activity of the Spirit in Man.

82
Gesenius, op. cit. (→ n. 65), III (1842), s.v. ‫רוּח‬
ַ finds an element of breathing in ‫רוּח‬
ַ as in
‫פּוּח‬
ַ and ‫נוּה‬
ַ and esp. rustling in ‫רוּח‬
ַ cf. Lys Ruach, 20.
 ‫רוּה‬
Theַ is the breath of life without which there can be no life in any sphere of creation,
Ps. 104:29; Nu. 16:22; 27:16. In the last two ref. ‫ל־בּ ָשׂר‬
ָ ‫ֹלהי ָהרוּחֹת ְל ָב‬
ֵ ‫ ֱא‬83 means that the
flesh can exist only through the vivifying spirit. The Spirit is no longer the extraordinary power
which is reserved for a privileged few. It is the indispensable creative power of life, as the
combination with ‫ ְנ ָשׂ ָמה‬shows, Is. 42:5; Job 4:9; 27:3; 33:4; 34:14. When ‫רוח‬ ַ is used for
specific feelings, these are always feelings which express extreme intensity or extraordinary
weakness, e.g., grief, 1 S. 1:15; impatience, Ex. 6:9. The spirit of fornication in Hos. 4:12; 5:4,
of falsehood in Mi. 2:11, of jealousy in Nu. 5:14, and of sleep in Is. 29:10 all denote an
irresistible feeling by which man is controlled and which takes his will captive. The stimulating
role of the spirit comes out in the expression “to awaken the ‫רוּח‬
ַ .” Hag. 1:14; 1 Ch. 5:26; 2 Ch.
21:16; 36:22; Jer. 51:1. Man has ‫רוּח‬
ַ and the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬has him, is a succinct formulation of the
matter.84 ‫רוּח‬
ַ with ref. to man is never used for the personal pronoun, not even in the later texts
in which it takes the place of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬Is. 26:9; Job 7:11; Zech. 12:1; Qoh. 3:21; 11:5. Nor is ever
related to a specific physical organ. As its nature demands, it is always spiritual.

d. The Relation to ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and Heart.

The fact that ‫רוּה‬

ַ takes over the functions of ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬ does not involve a shift in
anthropological orientation along the lines of spiritualising or dualism.85 In many passages we
find ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬where one would normally expect heart, Is. 29:24. This is esp. clear in Is. 40:13,
where LXX transl. νοῦς the common equivalent of ‫ ֵלב‬. Heart and spirit occur together in Ex.
35:21; Ps. 34:18; 51:17; 78:8, but here the parallelism does not efface the special nuances of the
two terms, for the heart expresses inwardness and the spirit motivating power. Nevertheless the
distinction has almost been obliterated when there is ref. to the thought which rises up to the
spirit in Ez. 11:5; 20:32 and to that which enters the heart in Jer. 3:17; 7:31; 44:21; Is. 65:17.
In later texts one may discern a tendency to psychologise the ‫רוּח‬ ַ . It is hard to say at what
point in history this shift took place. Some have found a decisive turning-pt. in Dt. 2:30,86 where
‫רוּח‬
ַ is an independent reality which Yahweh hardens. A more promising theory is that the

83
This very difficult expression seems orig. to be expressing the fact that the vital elements
which come from God are multiple. LXX offers a different explanation: κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν
πνευμάτων καὶ πάσης σαρκός. It probably sees in πνεύματα the heavenly spirits.
84
Köberle, 210.

85
In many passages ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and ‫רוּח‬
ַ are simply interchangeable. The same qualities have their
seat partly in the one and partly in the other. Thus impatience is shortness of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in Nu. 21:4;

Ju. 16:16 and ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in Ex. 6:9; Job 21:4. Patience is length of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in Job 6:11 and ‫רוּח‬
ַ in Qoh.
7:8. Bitterness has its seat in ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in 1 S. 1:10; 22:2; 30:6; Job 3:20; 27:2, ‫רוּח‬
ַ in Gn. 26:35.
86
Lys Ruach, 349 thinks Dt. 2:30 is a decisive point in development. When God hardens the
spirit and heart of a man, ‫רוּח‬
ַ is no longer a potentiality which is subject to change. It is the
personal and decisive centre of the will which characterises man in contrast to lower
creatures.
 development takes place in wisdom circles as these are reflected in Qoh. Yet there can be no
question of a separate anthropology. The nature of man can never be traced back to ‫רוּח‬
ַ . Nor
can it be maintained that man becomes a spirit when his body decays. The use of spirit for the
dead lies outside the OT field, cf. Lk. 24:39. Even in death man remains a ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬i.e., either flesh
which is given life by the ‫רוּח‬
ַ or lifeless flesh.
e. Flesh and Spirit.
The antithesis of flesh and spirit is found occasionally in the OT, Gn. 6:1–8; Is.
31:3. It is not, however, the antithesis of two principles but of man’s weakness and
God’s strength.87 These two are not irreconcilable, for the God who has made man of
corruptible matter also does all that is needed to transfer something of His strength to
man. Flesh and spirit are incompatible only when flesh forgets to trust in the God who is
Spirit and trusts in itself, Jer. 17:5 ff.; 2 Ch. 32:8. In the eschatological age all tensions
will be overcome, yet not in the sense of a radical transformation of human nature
which will replace the flesh by spirit and make man a spiritual being. Since spirit is
common to God and man and is the element in man which is most immediate to God,
one might expect that it would play the chief role in the relation between God and man.
We do indeed find a specifically religious use of spirit in a few passages, Ps. 31:5;
34:18; 51:17; Is. 61:1; 66:2; Prv. 16:2; Is. 29:24, but when the reference is to the
decisive manifestations of piety, such as fear of God or love of God, heart and ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬
have the decisive part. The passages which mention spirit show that OT anthropology
views man less according to his nature and more in his relation to God as this is worked
out in the given situation.
6. The Relational Character of Old Testament Anthropology.88
The following conclusions may be drawn from our survey.
a. In principle OT anthropology is the same as that of other Near Eastern peoples.
Terms like ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and ‫ ֵלב‬have the same meanings in Accadian, Ugaritic and Hebrew.
Outside the Bible, too, the metaphorical use of parts of the body shows that man is
regarded as a psycho-physical being whose life can manifest itself by extension or
concentration in all parts of the body. The OT has nothing strictly new to say about
human nature. No purely scientific interest may be seen in the OT or elsewhere; this
first emerges under Hellenistic influence, cf. Wis. 7:1–2. The specific qualities of the
God of Israel are what invest biblical anthropology with a distinctive coherence which
non-biblical world anthropology does not have. The one God who is not only the

87
The use of ‫רוּח‬
ַ to epitomise all expressions of human life does not offer favourable soil for
dualism. For the ‫רוּח‬
ַ is that which is common to God and man and which thus links them
together. The seeds of dualism are not to be found in man’s nature. But the decision of the will
can bring it about that either flesh or spirit gains the upper hand and a new orientation can be
given to human nature therewith.
88
In spite of many variations OT anthropology is basically the same throughout. The dynamism
which characterises it is not opposed by the static elements which occur at points, e.g., the
important role of the bones and of outward form. These must be taken into account if one is
to understand how the dynamism leads to the union of body and spirit. Thus the OT speaks of
resurrection and not of an eternal life in an invisible world.
 Creator but also the Lord of history, directing it to a specific goal, gives to what is said
about man a unity of structure and thrust. In the sight of God, who is believed in as a
living person, man is a Thou who is fully free and responsible. For this reason,
undoubtedly, the collectivist element could never restrict the significance of the
individual in Israel, not even in the earliest period.
b. Older distinctions between dichotomy and trichotomy must be abandoned so far
as OT anthropology is concerned. Israelite anthropology is monistic. Man is always
seen in his totality, which is quickened by a unitary life. The unity of human nature is
not expressed by the antithetical concepts of body and soul but by the complementary
and inseparable concepts of body and life.
c. The OT never views man as an abstraction. He is always set in a specific
situation. Hence the interest is more in the individual man than in human nature in
general. Apart from the traditions about primal history and the wisdom books, where
one might speak about a humanism based on the unity of the human race, man is always
evaluated as an individual or as the member of a people in its historical role. The name,
which is more important for OT man than features which are shared in common with
other men, expresses the fact that man, and indeed each man, has his own special
history.
d. The life of OT man is not simply marked by its various stages from birth by way
of growth and aging to death. Life is constantly threatened and a counter-thrust is found
only in contact with the source of life, i.e., with God. The common metaphor of breath
and breathing (→ B1a), which is the undergirding substructure of the anthropological
vocabulary, presents life as an ongoing exercise of breathing in which both the manner
of breathing and also the quality of the air breathed in are both important. Above all
human breathing is dependent on the breath of God, Job 34:14 f. If God ceases to
breathe into man, which can happen any moment, life stops, Ps. 104:29. It would be
wrong to deduce from this that OT anthropology is pessimistic, for the end is viewed as
completion and hence as a victory for life in its supreme potency.89
e. The relational aspect of anthropology may be seen in the expression “image of
God” (→ II, 390, 10 ff.). For the representative function which this implies can be
discharged by man only through constant relationship to his divine original. Imago dei
and ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ ַחיָּ ה‬are very close together, since both rest on the connection with God and
with a divine task. There finally stands behind all that the OT says about man the
assertion and the belief that man is really alive only in the situation of choice in which
he fulfils what he is.
Jacob
C. Judaism.
I. Hellenistic Judaism.
1. Septuagint Works with a Hebrew Original.

89
Life in its supreme potency is naturally the life of God. In face of God’s victory, whether this
be denoted by preservation of the chosen people or by re-creation of the world, the limitation
of human life can hardly be a problem, and when it is, it finds its solution in a new emphasis on
the life of God, Ps. 73:26; Job 19:25; → II, 843, 8–849, 2.

Jacob Edmond Jacob, Strassburg (Vol. 9).

 In the transl. Gk. of the LXX ψυχή corresponds mostly, although not exclusively, to ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬90
Only in individual cases can one decide whether the choice of the word is due primarily to its
association with vital force or with soul as the seat of the spirit or mind. In Nu. 35:11; ψ 22:3
and the prayer of Elijah to the Lord that He would take his soul from him in 3 Βας. 19:4 the
former applies, but in Dt. 11:18; 18:6; Prv. 19:15 f. the latter. Both can he correctly expressed
by ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬or ψυχή. But there is the following distinction. In class. and post-class. Gk. (→ 616, 22
ff.) both meanings are connected with the common idea of the soul as an immaterial or at least
invisible essential core of man that can be thought of as distinct from the body. It gives worth
and duration to the human self beyond the limits of physical existence. This idea is in every way
alien to the OT. If ‫ →( נֶ ֶפשׁ‬618, 12 ff.), the most common term for man’s vitality, can denote
spiritual passion and action of every type, this is only a particularly broad understanding of the
life principle and there need be no idea of an antithesis of body and soul.91 This distinction is
blurred by the lexically incontestable equation of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and ψυχή, although it comes out in
many passages. In Is. 10:18 and ψ 62:2 the total man is denoted by the double expression
ψυχή/σάρξ, but in Gk. this undoubtedly suggests that the two are in juxtaposition The Hbr. has
‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬/‫ ָבּ ָשׂר‬, and as a later text like Qoh. 5:5 shows, these words indicate only a slight
distinction of meaning and not one that embraces the antithesis of body and soul. The
comparable expresion καρδία/σάρξ, Hbr. ‫ ֵלב‬/‫ ָבּ ָשּׂר‬. in ψ 83:3 corresponds exactly to a simple
‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in the same verse. Cf. also ψ 72:26: σάρξ/καρδία == ‫ ְשׁ ֵאד‬/‫ ֵל ָבב‬Hbr. ψ 15:10 is simply
saying in the Hbr. that God will keep the life of the psalmist and not deliver him up to the realm
of the dead. In the Gk. the ψυχή will not stay in Hades. It is thus presupposed that the ψυχή will
be separate from the body and will spend some time in the underworld. Something of the same
applies in Job 7:15 and Ἰερ. 38(31):12, where the Gk. can be more easily understood than the
Hbr. in terms of the beliefs in the soul and the resurrection current in later Judaism (→ 637, 5
ff.). A similar difference in ideas is indicated when a λω in Gk. script is wrongly interpreted as
“my soul shall live to him” (‫ )לוֹ‬instead of “he hath not sustained my soul, i.e., me, in life”
(‫א‬
ֹ ‫)ל‬.92 When used to denote the bearer of intellect and intention ψυχή naturally does not
correspond to the Hbr. ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, e.g., ψ 103:1, nor to several other words93 in the psychological
vocabulary of Hbr., which is rich if undifferentiated (→ B 5d) as compared with Gk., cf. ‫ ֵלב‬,
‫רוּח‬
ַ .94 On the other hand ψυχή and καρδία are transl. variants for ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬in Dt. 12:20 A. ψυχή,
following genuinely Gk. and idiomatically fixed usage (→ 617, 25 ff.), can also denote living
creatures, e.g., ἀριθμὸς ψυχῶν “census” in Ex. 16:16 or πᾶσα ψυχή “everybody,” cf. ψυχαὶ δὲ

transl. transitive.
90
Hatch-Redp., s.v. ψυχή.
91
Sander, op. cit. (→ n. 69) with bibl. [Bertram].
92
[Bertram].
93
Hatch-Redp., s.v. νοῦ, καρδία, πνεῦμα.
94
Thus the reins are called in to help describe the phenomenon of conscience in ψ 15:7 (→ n.
77; VII, 908, 11 ff.) and the heart in ψ 4:5.
 πολλαὶ … ἕθανον, Aristoph.Thes., 864 f. In such cases we are always to think of the no. of
living people rather than moral individualities. The Israelites as well as the Gks. were
acquainted with the ancient idea that the blood is the carrier of the life-force (→ B 1b). One may
see this from the Gk. text of the OT, e.g., Gn. 9:5; Lv. 17:11.

2. Apocalyptic and Pseudepigraphical Works.

The conceptual differentiation of body and soul as we find it in Gk. thought, and as it
sometimes crops up in the LXX in deviation from the Hbr. (→ C I 1), is very common in the
non-canonical writings whether these were composed in Gk. or are by chance preserved in a Gk.
version. Naturally we first find expressions which correspond to customary OT usage, e.g., ἡ
ψυχή μου, “I” etc. in Apc. Abr. 11 (p. 23, 11); 17 (p. 28, 6); Jub. 17:18; 26:13, or “my soul is
anxious,” Test. Sol. 1:4, or “to do something with all one’s soul and heart,” Jub. 1:15; S. Bar.
66:1, cf. Dt. 4:29, or the equation of soul and life in 1 Macc. 9:2; 2 Macc. 14:38; Jdt. 10:15; S.
Bar. 51:15 etc. Here and in what follows ψυχή is either attested for a Gk. version or is to be
presupposed for one that is not extant. Other passages show better what ideas are associated
with the word. When the soul is scandalised by non-observance of circumcision it means the
inner man, 1 Macc. 1:48; in this book the psychological meaning predominates by far.95 Vit. Ad.
27 distinguishes between the soul as the moral and spiritual self of man and his breath as the
vital force. “The soul lives on after death,” Ps.-Phocylides, 105 ff.,96 whether it returns to God,
Apc. Esr. 7:3 (p. 32); 6:4f. (p. 31), directed or received by angels, Test. A. 6:5 f.; Test. Iobi. 52
f.,97 or whether it must go to hell or the underworld, S. Bar. 21:23; Apc. Est. 4:12 (p. 28);
Sophonias Apc.98 1:1ff. (p. 111). At any rate it parts from the body and the ascent of the latter is
a special distinction for the patriarch Abraham, Test. Abr. B 8 (p. 112, 15 f.). After death

Aristoph. Aristophanes, of Athens (c. 446–385 B.C.), the main representative of the older Attic
comedy, who reached his height during the Peloponnesian War, ed. V. Coulon and H. van
Daele, 1923 ff.

Thes. Thesmophoriazusae.

no. number.

Apc. Abr. Apocalypse of Abraham.

Test. Sol. Testament of Solomon.

95
Cf. the expression “circumcision of the heart” or “spirit” in Jer. 4:4; Col. 2:11; Thomas Ev.
Logion 53, ed. A. Guillaumont et al. (1959).

Vit. Ad. Vita Adae et Evae, Latin work from the Jewish-Christian group of writings on Adam
(Schürer, III, 396 ff.), ed. W. Meyer, 1878.
96
Ed. A. M. Denis, Fr. Pseudepigr. Graeca, Pseudepigr. Veteris Test. Graece, 3 (1970).

Test. A. Testament of Asher.

97
Ed. S. P. Brock, Test. Iobi, Pseudepigr. Veteris Test. Graece, 2 (1967).
98
Ed. G. Steindorff, “Die Apk. Eliae, eine unbekannte Apok. u. Bruchstücke d. Sophonias-
Apok.,” TU, 17, 3 (1899).

Test. Abr. Test. of Abraham.

 judgment awaits souls with either reward or punishment, ibid., 9 (p. 113, 22 ff.). This applies
only to the souls of men, for those of animals stay in a special place and will be witnesses for
the prosecution at the judgment, Slav. En. A 58:4–6. We also find the idea that body and soul
will be reunited for the judgment, Apocr. Ez. (→ n. 96) Fr., 1 (p. 121, 5, cf. 122, 9 f.). In a
conjuration of the dead, in contrast to the story of the witch of Endor in 1 S. 28:14 ff., cf. Is.
14:9, the soul of the dead appears, Jannes and Mambres 1 (Riessler, 496). Magicians can steal
human souls, Slav. En. 10:5, and the soul can leave the body for a time, Paral. Jerem. 9:11ff.
Religious and moral qualities, and hence human responsibility, belong to the sphere of the
soul, Jud. 18:4; Ps.-Phocylides (→ n. 96), 50, 228. The soul is white or black. Test. Isaac99 Folio
17, and like the body it can be castigated in penitence. Test. Jud. 19:2 f. How widespread is the
idea that the body and soul are twofold may be seen from the fact that, directly or indirectly
under the influence of philosophical anthropology, thought is given to the distribution of the
functions of the soul to members of the body, Apc. Sedrach 9 ff.,100 as also to the ensouling of
the embryo, Apc. Esr. 5:13 (p. 30). That the psychologising of religious and moral ideas comes
almost naturally in later Judaism with the formulation of thinking in Gk. may be seen from a
comparison of 1 QS 3:13ff., Test. Jud. 20:1 f. and Test. A. 1:3 ff. To the two spirits or angels
which stand by man and influence his deeds correspond two πνεύματα in his soul or even two
διαβούλια of the soul. As things now stand we cannot say for certain what is the origin of the
common separation of body and soul in Judaism.

3. Septuagint Works in Greek.

a. In Wis. the ideas connected with ψυχή are wholly Gk. The body/soul antithesis
dominates religious and moral thinking (→ VII, 1047, 1 ff.). The body is a burden for the soul
or for its noblest part, the νοῦς or λογισμός, 9:15.101 Well-being of soul is more important than
that of the body. Unfruitfulness and childlessness, which in the OT are punishments from God,
are μετ᾽ ἀρετῆς better than the reverse, 3:13f.; 4:1. This is esp. true in relation to the hereafter in
which the soul lives on and reaps reward or punishment, 3:1. Only ignorant sinners think that
death ends all, 2:1ff. An ascetic motivation is thus clear, 8:21. Yet unlike Gnostic texts (→ 656,
17 ff.), Wis. never says that the soul is or contains a truly divine constituent. The whole man is
God’s creature, even though he is destined for immortality as the image of his Creator, 2:23.
Thus Solomon, who proclaims this teaching, can say of himself that God has given him a ψυχὴ
ἀγαθή and a σῶμα ἀμίαστον, 8:19f., but that in answer to his prayer a divine σοφία or
πνεῦμα—on the identity of the two cf. 1:6—has come into his soul as a supernatural gift, 9:4;
10:16. Such a gift cannot come into a bad ψυχή, 1:4. The τνεῦμα, whose nature and work are
expressly described in 7:24ff., is not, then, an original part of man’s being as it is in Gnosticism.
It comes into the souls of some ὅσιοι as an emanation ἀπαύγασμα, ἀπόρροια, of God; this is

Slav. En. Slavic Enoch, ed. St. Novakovitsch, 1884.

Apocr. Apocrypha.
99
Trans. W. E. Barnes, TSt, II, 2 (1892), 150, 21 f.

Test. Jud. Testament of Judah.

100
Ed. M. R. James, TSt, II, 3 (1893), 133–5.
101
Aristob. Fr. 4 acc. to Eus.Praep. Ev., 13, 12, 5 (p. 192, 9 f.) has changed the allegedly Orphic
v. οὐδέ τις αὐτὸν/εἰσοράει θνητῶν, αὐτὸς δέ γε πάντα ὁρᾶται, Fr. (Kern), 247, 11 f. (vl.) into
οὐδέ τι αὐτὸν εἰσοράα ψυχῶν (vl.) θνητῶν, νῷ δ᾽ εἰσοράαται.
 how we have prophets and friends of God (→ 167, 12 ff.).102 The hierarchy
πνεῦμα/ψυχή/σῶμα rests on a purely theological base, unlike the par. series νοῦσ/ψυχή/σῶμα
of philosophical anthropology, which rests on a distinction of the ontic qualities of parts or
forces of the soul. The hierarchy is common in Jewish lit. even earlier, Apc. Abr. 10 (p. 21, 14
f.); Eliae 36:17ff. (p. 97). On Philo → 635, 11 ff. νοῦς or λόγος, however, can replace πνεῦμα.
This shows the proximity of philosophical terminology and gives rise to difficulties in the exact
interpretation of some passages.103
b. 4 Macc. reproduces popular philosophical psychology which cannot be restricted to a
single school → VII, 1047, 12 ff. Along with ψυχή in the familiar sense of “life” we find the
psychological doctrine of the πάθη with which the λογισμός has to deal, 1:20ff. We also find
the Platonic trichotomy (→ A 3a), 3:2ff. In 14:6 the ψυχή is in the organism the centre of
consciousness and feeling, while in 15:25 it is the vehicle of intellectual functions and in 15:4 of
what we call character: Brothers are like one another in μορφή and ψυχή.

4. Aristeas and Josephus.

The works thus far mentioned cannot all be dated nor assigned to specific groups in
Judaism. Nor can we be sure of their original wording nor completely purge them of Chr.
additions. Yet it may be said that on the whole they express a uniform picture of the nature and
destiny of the soul whose preciseness increases the closer the text is to authentically Gk. modes
af expression. The same applies to Ep. Ar. (→ VII, 1050, 7 ff.) and Jos. (→ VII, 1056, 21 ff.)
Both authors have a modest philosophical training and both write for Jews and non-Jews,
although their periods are two centuries apart, Jos.Ant., 3, 260 uses the equation of blood with
ψυχή and πνεῦμα in Moses to explain the Jewish ritual of slaughtering. We find here a
differentiated psychological terminology in which πνεῦμα means what Posidonius understood
by it → 615, 16 ff.104 In Aristeas we find the common σῴζω τὴν ψυχήν “to save the life,” 292,
cf. also ψυχῆς καθαρὰ διάθεσις, virtue in philosophical def. In such an expression purity as a
102
On the idea of the friend of God cf. E. Dirlmeier, “ΘΕΟΦΙΛΙΑ—ΦΙΛΟΘΕΙΑ,” Philol., 90 (1935),
57–77.
103
The use of this hierarchical series in Wis., which runs counter to Gnostic ideas, shows how
carefully we must handle the label Gnostic even when there is an obvious kinship of themes.
But cf. A. Adam, “Die Ps. d. Thomas u. das Perlenlied als Zeugnisse vorchr. Gnosis,” ZNW Beih.,
24 (1959), 31–3, who thinks that the Wis. insertions are evidence of pre-Chr. Gnosticism.

Ep. Ar. Epistle of Aristeas, apocryphal Jewish account of the origin of the LXX (2nd or 1st
century B.C.), ed. P. Wendland, 1900.

Jos. Flavius Josephus, Jewish author (c. 37–97 A.D.) in Palestine and later Rome, author in
Greek of the Jewish War and Jewish Archaeology, which treat of the period from creation to
Nero, ed. B. Niese, 1887 ff.

Ant. Antiquitates.
104
It may be noted that there are two ref. to the transmigration of souls in Jos. in Bell., 3, 362
f.; 6, 34 ff. But this is a distinction rather than a fatal bondage to the mortal body, since the
souls of the brave first go up to heaven and then come back into the bodies of worthy men.
Both passages reflect the tradition of military addresses and hence they cannot be used as
evidence of the views of the author.

def. Definitiones.
 matter of the mind is attributed to the soul in distinction from the body. The same emphasis on
the disposition as opposed to cultic or other achievements may naturally be found in the OT
prophets, but not on the basis of an intellectual antithesis between body and soul.

5. Philo.
Philo (→ VII, 1051, 31 ff.)105 deserves a special place as the only known author in Hell.
Judaism with extensive philosophical training. His use of ψυχή is to be explained by his use of
the vocabulary of various philosophical schools. If this is inconsistent, it is based on wide
reading.
He is acquainted with the Platonic division of the soul into 3 parts (→ VII, 1052, 18 ff.),
Spec. Leg., IV, 92, with Aristot.’s division into 8 parts, Agric., 30 f., and also with the simple
division into a superior rational part and a subordinate irrational part, Leg. All., I, 24; Fug.,
69.106 In a popularisation of Stoic ideas, but also in acc. with contemporary medical theories, he
identifies the lower part with the blood, Det. Pot. Ins., 79–85 and the upper with the νοῦς, which
he calls ψυχή τις ψυχῆς, Op. Mund., 66, cf. Rer. Div. Her., 54 ff., and which he compares to the
eye of the body, Op. Mund., 66. The οὐσία of the soul or its νοῦς or λογισμός is the divine
πνεῦμα. Philo uses this term from the basically materialistic psychology of Stoicism both
spiritually after the manner of the Platonic-Stoic syncretism of his day and also theologically.
He has in mind the immaterial, Deus Imm., 46, fiery, Fug., 133, ἀπόσπασμα θεῖον which is
made up of αἰθήρ, Leg. All., III, 161 ff., cf. Rer. Div. Her., 283, and which is the divine spirit
itself taking up its dwelling in the ψυχή as λογικόν, Virt., 218, to cure it of the passions, Som.,
I, 12. Whereas in the passages thus far mentioned the words νοῦσ—πνεῦμα—λογικὸν ψυχῆσ—
λόλοσ—λογισμόσ—ἡγεμονικόν mean essentially the same thing after the manner of

105
On Philo cf. Leisegang Indices, s.v. ψυχή and the bibl. in → VII, 1051, n. 318; 1052, n. 320,
Merki, op. cit. (→ n. 16), XV, and H. Hegermann, “Die Vorstellung v. Schöpfungsmittler im hell.
Judt. u. Urchr.,” TU, 82 (1961), XI–XV.

Spec. Leg. De Specialibus Legibus.

Agric. De Agricultura.

Leg. All. Legum Allegoriae.

Fug. De Fuga et Inventione.

106
Naturally Philo knew in detail the philosophical doctrine of the emotions, as may be seen
from the discussion of remote areas like the doctrine of εὐπάθεια or προπάθεια.

acc. accusative.

Det. Pot. Ins. Quod Deterius Potiori insidiari soleat.

Op. Mund. De Opificio Mundi.

Rer. Div. Her. Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres sit.

Deus Imm. Quod Deus sit Immutabilis.

Virt. De Virtutibus.

Som. De Somniis.
 philosophical syncretism, Philo can also rank λόγος and νοῦς as the Gnostics did, Migr. Abr., 3
f., the λόγος being the receptacle of the νοῦς.
Philo agrees with philosophical speculations that only through the highest part of the soul
can man have union with God, Poster. C., 27, cf. Aristobul. (→ n. 101). On the other hand Philo
stresses that all parts of the soul share in the rise of sin, Conf. Ling., 22. Here the philosophical
and Gnostic idea of the kinship of the soul to God gives place to the OT idea of an unbridgeable
gulf between them which is manifested in sin. It is worth noting that in Leg. All., I, 82 ff.
ecstatic union with the Most High is not an ἔργον τῆς ψυχῆς but a gift of grace.
That angels and demons are ψυχαί, Gig., 16 was an idea common to both Gks. and Jews at
this time (→ 475, n. 29; 615, 11 ff.). Philo agrees with philosophical cosmology when he speaks
of the ψυχή of the world as a living organism governed by rational laws, Aet. Mund., 50 etc. (→
VII, 1054, 16 ff.).

Dihle
II. ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬/ψυχή in Palestinian Judaism.
In the Hbr. works of post-bibl. Judaism, as in the OT, ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬denotes the vital element in
man, his breath, his life-force, his ego.
1. This Jewish usage, which was influenced by the OT, may be seen in the Qumran texts.
‫ כל נפש אדם‬is “each living man,” Damasc. 11:16 (13:26), ‫“ כל נפש חיה‬every living
creature,” 12:12f. (14:12f.). As ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬man experiences sorrow and persecution. The ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬comes
into need, 1 QH 5:12, and is smitten by bitternesses: ‫ מרורי נפשי‬1 QH 5:12, cf. 5:34, 39; 1
QpHab 9:11. Enemies seek the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬of the righteous, Damasc. 1:20 (1:15); 1 QH 2:21, 24, 29
etc. But God saves the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬of the righteous by protecting it from the devices of the wicked,

Migr. Abr. De Migratione Abrahami.

Poster. C. De Posteritate Caini.

Conf. Ling. De Confusione Linguarum.

Gig. De Gigantibus.

475, n. The historical background is clearest in Plut.Fac. Lun., 28–30 (II, 943a–945e): Souls
loosed from the body rise up to the moon, where demons dwell, and then sink back, or,
purified as sheer νοῦς, they rise up to the sun. The νοῦς is as far above the ψυχή as this is
above the σῶμα, 28 (II, 943a). The underlying idea of successive stages as the elements
become increasingly immaterial is still to be found in Philo. Thus birds are less subject to
weakness than land or sea creatures, Cher., 89. Air is between earth/water on the one side
and aether on the other, Som., I, 144 f., where we also find. Plut.’s theory about the moon.
Plut.Fac. Lun., 5 (II, 921 f.). On this whole subj. cf. E. Schweizer, “Die Elemente der Welt Gl. 4:3,
9; Kol. 2:8, 20,” Beiträge z. Theol. d. NT (1970), 155–161.

Aet. Mund. De Aeternitate Mundi.

Damasc. Damascus Document, a Hebrew work discovered in 1910, partly admonitory and
partly legal (Halacha) in content, possibly originating in Hasmonean or Roman times, ed. S.
Schechter, 1910.
setting it in the bundle of life, and helping it, 1 QH 2:7, 20, 23, 32, 34 f.; 5:13, 18; 7:23; 9:33
etc.107 As a vow is made in prayer to love God with the whole ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, 1 QH 15:10, so the ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬
belongs wholly to God. ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬does not mean the soul as one part of man but the whole man
living his life in responsibility. Often ‫ נַ ְפ ִשׁי‬simply means the ego. Thus when God is confessed
to have saved and kept the ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, this means: Thou hast redeemed, freed, and helped me, 1 QH
2:7, 20, 23, 28; 3:19; 1 QS 11:13 etc. When it is said that the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is troubled, 8:32, or reflects,
9:7, or rejoices, 9:8; 11:7, the ref. is again to the suffering, thinking, or acting I. Often ‫ נַ ֶפשׁ‬or
‫ נַ ְפשׁוֹ‬can simply be used for a reflexive, so ‫ יקים … על נפשו‬in 1 QS 5:10, “he should pledge
his soul, i.e., himself,” cf. also Damasc. 16:1 (19:14), 4 (20:2), 7 (20:5), 9 (20:6), 1 QH 14:17.
2. In Rabb. works (→ VI, 376, 28 ff.) we find on the one hand a continuation of OT
usage.108 ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬denotes the living man in thought, decision, and action. The ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬, which is in the
blood acc. to Dt. 12:23 (→ B 1b), is the vital force, Gn. r., 14, 9 on 2:7. ‫נפש‬ ‫ כל‬ref. to “every
living thing,” bBer., 44b, Bar.; ‫ דיני נפשות‬means “capital trials” where life and death are
involved, Sanh., 4, 5; b.Sanh., 2a. To destroy the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is to slay the life, while to uphold the
‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬is to preserve the life, Sanh., 4, 5.109 There is ref. to the ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬as the seat of thought and
decision in, e.g., jTaan., 3, 1 (66b, 60 f.), where it is said of the scribal college ‫מכיון שנתנו‬
‫בית דין נפשן לעשות כמי שעשוי‬. “as soon as the scribal college directs its thoughts to
doing something, it is as though it were already done.”

On the other hand, the Rabbis, under Hellenistic influence, also develop an
anthropology that goes beyond what we find in the OT, contrasting the body and the
soul in a way that is not found in older Judaism → VI, 377, 32 ff.; VII, 116, 31 ff.110 If
107
We nowhere read of the immortality of the soul nor is there any clear ref. to the
resurrection of the dead, though cf. Delcor, passim. Jos.Bell., 2, 154 f. says that the Essenes
taught that souls come from the rarest ether and return to their heavenly home after life on
earth.

Rabb. Rabbis,

108
With ‫נפשׁ‬
ֶ , ‫רוּח‬and ‫ נֶ ָשׁ ָמה‬are also used for the soul of man with no clear distinction
between the terms → VI, 376, 32 ff.

Gn. r. Genesis rabba (Bereshit rabba), Midrash on Genesis (Strack, Einl., 209 ff.).

Sanh. Sanhedrim Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate On the court of justice and its procedure
(Strack, Einl., 51 f.).

b. Babylonian Talmud when before tractates from the Mishnah.

109
Cf. Str.-B., I, 749 f.

Taan. Taanit, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmud tractate Fasts (Strack, Einl., 43).

110
Meyer, passim.
according to earlier views the soul of man was created with the body, R. Simai has the
later formulation (c. 210): “All creatures which were made from heaven, whose soul
and body is from heaven and his body is from earth,” S. Dt., 306 on 32:3. From this it is
deduced that when man keeps the Law and does the will of the Father in heaven he acts
like the higher creatures, but when he does not he acts like the lower creatures.111 The
soul, which is of heavenly origin, dwells on earth like a guest in the body112 and gives
man the strength to keep the divine commandment. It receives new powers from heaven
in order that man may do this. “In the hour when man sleeps it (sc. the soul) rises up and
creates for him (sc. man) new life from above,” says R. Me’ir (c. 150), Gn. r., 14, 9 on
2:7.113 The influence of Greek ideas about the immortality of the soul (→ A 3c), which
is esp. strong in Hellen. Judaism (→ 633, 14 ff.), may be seen already in the statements
of the Tannaites and is even more evident in those of the Amoraeans. Pre-existence as
well as a heavenly origin is now ascribed to the soul → VI, 379, 12 ff. R. Levi (c. 300
A.D.) can thus say that souls dwelt already with God before he created the world. He
deliberated with them and then did the work of creation, Gn. r., 8 on 1:26.114
In Rabbinic statements which thus set the soul and the body in antithesis, however,
there is no disparagement of the body. According to the OT legacy man is seen as a
unity → 631, 14 ff. At the moment of death the soul leaves the body (4 Esr. 7:78)115 but
at the resurrection of the dead the reawakened body is reunited with the soul.116 It is as a
whole, body and soul, that man is responsible to God. At the Last Judgment the body
cannot blame on the soul sins which have been committed nor can the soul blame them
on the body.
Both are responsible, as Rabbi (c. 150 A.D.) shows in a parable. When a blind man had put a
lame man on his shoulders and both had taken the fruits of another’s garden, the owner told the
lame man to ride on the blind man and he judged both together. So God will fetch the soul and
bring it into the body and will then judge them both, b.Sanh., 91a b.117

R. Rabbi.

c. circa.
111
Cf. Str.-B., II. 430; Meyer, 27; → VII, 118, 2 ff.
112
Hillel (c. 20 B.C.) told his pupils he was going to do a work of love, and when asked whether
he had a guest every day he said: “Is not then my poor soul a guest in the body? Today it is
here and tomorrow it is not here.” Lv. r., 34, 3 on 25:25. Cf. Str.-B., I, 654 f.; Meyer, 49 → VI,
380, 16 ff.
113
Meyer, 51; → VII, 118, 16 ff.
114
Cf. Str.-B., II, 342.

115
On funerary inscr, we repeatedly find the wish ‫נפש‬ ‫“ נוח‬rest to his soul.” Cf. CIJ, I, 569,
611; II, 892, 900, 1096, etc. → VI, 376, 22 ff.; 378, 35 ff.
116
Cf. Volz. Esch., 118 f., 266–272.
117
Cf. Str.-B., I, 581; Moore, I, 487 f.; II, 384 with other parallels.
 Lohse
D. The New Testament.
I. The Gospels and Acts.
1. ψυχή as Natural Physical Life.
a. General.
In Ac. 20:10 ψυχή is the life which remains in Eutyches. 27:22 says in good118 OT
style that there will be no loss of life. 27:10 refers to the danger not merely to the ship
and cargo but also to the ψυχαί of the passengers. The plural shows already that ψυχή
can individualise very strongly. In Mt. 6:25 ψυχή is parallel to σῶμα → VII, 1058, 13
ff. The life needs food as the body needs clothes.119 Animals, too, have a ψυχή → 653,
32 ff.
b. The Giving of Life.
In Mk. 10:45 we read of the διδόναι of the ψυχή as a ransom for many, → I, 373, 1
ff.; IV, 341, 34 ff.120 According to Greek and Jewish usage121 ἑαυτόν or σῶμα may be
used instead in this sense, → II, 166, 11 ff. As compared with ζωή (‫ ) ַחיִּ ים‬ψυχή (‫)נֶ ֶפשׁ‬
is more concretely the life bound up with flesh and blood.122 It also denotes the
individual ego. Yet there is no sharp differentiation in usage, → II, 849, 4 ff. John
always has τιθέναι as the verb, Jn. 10:11, 15, 17;123 13:27f.; 15:13; 1 Jn. 3:16 → VI,
496, 5 ff.; VIII, 155, 29 ff. This can mean “to risk” as well as “to give.”124 If Jesus’
sacrifice of life leads to that of His disciples too, it is said only of Jesus that He has the

Lohse Eduard Lohse, Kiel (Vol. 6), Göttingen (Vol. 7–8), Hanover (Vol. 9).
118
Haench. Ag.15, ad loc.
119
The parallelism is so non-Gk. that Just.Apol., 15, 14–16 omits the ref., H. T. Wrege, “D.
Überlieferungsgesch. d. Bergpredigt,” Wissensch. Untersuchungen z. NT. 9 (1968), 119. Yet the
linking of the body and clothes is non-Jewish and ties in with the Gk. view of the body,
Dautzenberg, 92–6.
120
C. K. Barrett, “The Background of Mk. 10:45,” Festschr. T. W. Manson (1959), 1–18 thinks
the link with Is. 53 is insecure and understands the saying mainly in terms of Da. 7 and Jewish
martyr theology: Like the Son of Man Israel is justified and exalted only by martyrdom in the
Syrian persecution. The vicarious nature of martyrdom is a common idea that is obviously
rooted in Is. 53, E. Schweizer, “Erniedrigung u. Erhöhung bei Jesus u. seinen Nachfolgern,” Abh
ThANT, 282 (1962), 21–52.
121
With ἐαυτόν in 1 Macc. 6:44 we find τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν in 2:50. For other Jewish ref. → n.
123. Gk.: Eur.Phoen., 998: ψυχήν τε δώσω τῆσδ᾽ ὐπερθανεῖν χθονός, Dion. Hal.Ant. Rom., V,
65, 4: τὰ δέ σώματα καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς … ἐπιδιδόντες, cf. 2 Macc. 7:37; with παραδίδωμι cf. also
Herm.s., 9, 28, 2; Eus.Hist. Eccl., VIII, 6, 4; with ἐπιδίδωμι Jos.Bell., 2, 201; cf. also → VII, 1058,
25 f. Eth. En. 108:8; W. Popkes, “Christus Traditus,” AbhThANT, 49 (1967), 19, 38, 86–8.
122
Barth, 317 f.
123
Jewish par. in P. Fiebig, “Die Mekhilta u. d. Joh.-Ev.,” Angelos, 1 (1925), 58 f.
124
Bultmann J., on 10:11. Cf. Popkes, op. cit., 88, n. 248; on the OT, 19.
power to take His life again. Here, then, “life” is close to “soul” → 650, 38 ff.125 What
is again meant is the individual life which is possible after death, and not a carrier
different from the life itself. In Ac. 15:26 παραδίδωμι means expenditure of resources
which does not lead to death and probably does not expressly include the risk of
martyrdom.126 Finally Rev. 12:11 speaks of those who do not love their ψυχή unto
death, and in Ac. 20:24 Paul bears witness that he does not hold his life dear but will
complete his course and ministry.127 ψυχή is added at Lk. 14:26 as compared to Mt.
10:37 in order to embrace everything that can make up earthly life and that must be
hated for the sake of Jesus. In these passages life is always linked to the individual; it is
my life.
c. Seeking, Killing and Saving Life.
In Mt. 2:20 ψυχή is the life of the child Jesus which His enemies are seeking. In Lk.
12:20 (→ 647, 14 ff.) it is that of the rich farmer which is required by God. There is
criticism here of a purely this-worldly view of the life which is loaned by God.128 Mk.
3:4 is given a place of emphasis in the Gospel. The power of Jesus and His victory over
demons have proved His lordship over sin and the Law.129 The problem of the Law is
now focused on the question of doing good or evil, of saving life or taking it.130 The
neighbour and his salvation are thus set up as the true criterion. The reply of Jesus’
opponents is a decision for death (3:6). Here, too, the ψυχή is physical life (→ 637, 19
ff.), although naturally in individual terms. In accordance with OT ideas abandoning the
sick means taking their lives. Because the bearer of the ψυχή is not mentioned one can
hardly render it “everyman” along the lines of OT statutes.131 But it is clear that there is
no neutral zone, only life or death, good or evil. The earthly life is taken so seriously
that in sickness it is not worth calling real life at all. The mere movement of the heart or
drawing of breath is not enough. Life has content here as the full life which God
intended at creation. It is not just a formal concept. We can easily see, then, why in the
last resort life can properly be called this only when it is lived in God’s service and to
God’s praise, so that the question of greater or smaller physical powers or the degree of
health is a subsidiary one. It might be asked whether Mk. 3:4 does not have in view the
whole existence of man and not just his physical life, although this is plainly the

125
Dautzenberg, 110–113.
126
Cf. Str.-B., II, 537, 740; Dautzenberg, 99 f.
127
The construction is difficult, but not a slip (so Pr. Ag., ad loc.); Haench. Ag.15, ad loc.: “I do
not regard my life as worth talking about,” seems to be on the right track.
128
Dautzenberg, 90.
129
Cf. S. Schulz, “Mk. u. d. AT,” ZThK, 58 (1961), 193 f.; E. Schweizer, “Die theol. Leistung d.
Mk.,” Beitr. z. Theol. d. NT (1970), 29.
130
In the par. Mt. 12:11 f. the question is more concrete cf. Lk. 14:5: Who will not rescue an
animal that has fallen into a well on the Sabbath? Here, too, curing sickness is compared to the
saving of physical life from death. Much weaker is the comparison to watering cattle on the
Sabbath in Lk. 13:15 f.
131
So Dautzenberg, 154–6, who takes Mk. 3:4 like Ac. 2:43 → 639, 22 ff.
 primary meaning.132 This is certainly true in the addition to Lk. 9:56. The correction of
the vengeful disciples by the Son of Man who has come to save the ψυχαί of men and
not to destroy them undoubtedly has the physical life in view but the positive
formulation shows that more is intended than mere protection against natural
disasters.133 This is fully brought out if Lk. 19:10 is seen as a prototype, for here seeking
and saving are plainly understood as a summons to faith. Yet physical life and the life of
faith cannot be sundered in the way that they so easily are in our thinking. The call to
faith is a call to the true life given and intended by God. Salvation is always salvation
from anything that might hamper the development of this life, whether it be death and
sickness or unbelief and sin. This may be seen from a comparison of Mk. 3:4; Lk. 9:56;
19:10 and from the choice of ψυχή for the life of the I in both spheres—a life which is
always thought of corporeally.
2. ψυχή as a Term for the Whole Man.
ψυχή is in the first instance the physical life. Thus there can be reference to the
slaying, giving, hating, and persecuting of the ψυχή. ψυχή is limited and threatened by
death. Yet the ψυχή cannot be separated from man or beast. This shows that what is at
issue is not the phenomenon of life in general but the life which is always manifested in
an individual man. Hence πᾶσα ψυχή is used as in the OT (→ 632, 37) for “everyman”
(Ac. 2:43 → D II 2) and yet Ac. 3:23, where it is contrasted with π͂σα σάρξ (→ VII, 106,
17 ff.; 129, 18 ff.), shows that it is to be taken in an individualising way.134 The
distinction from σάρξ and the relation to the equally individualising σῶμα also find
expression in the fact that ψυχή can be used in numbers (→ 632, 38 ff.), Ac. 2:41; 7:14
(based on Gn. 46:27 LXX);135 27:37.136 Mt. 11:29 promises rest to those who accept the
yoke of Jesus. The expression comes from Jer. 6:16.137 ψυχαὶ ὑμῶν is thus an OT
expression (→ 620, 21 ff.) for ὑμεῖς (cf. Gosp. of Thom. 90 → n. 95) with an
implication of subjection to death. One may ask, however, whether Mt. does not mean

132
With Loh. Mk. against V. Taylor, The Gospel acc. to St. Mark (1952), ad loc., though not, of
course, in such a way that the charge against his enemies that they wanted to kill Him is
contained in it, but at most along the lines of 2:27 with its question whether the Sabbath and
the Law were not given by God to man’s salvation. This is naturally the theological point of the
question, though the saying can still carry a ref. to the true I of man, since the purely physical
life probably symbolises the reality which is not yet denoted by ψυχή.
133
Since the ref. here is to the healthy man σῴζω (in contrast to Mk. 3:4) cannot ref. merely to
the maintaining of this condition and so ψυχή must have the more comprehensive sense of
man’s existence before God → 642, 25 ff.
134
This is a mixed quotation from Dt. 18:19 and Lv. 23:29 in which ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ὅ ἐὰν … is
equated with πᾶσα ψυχή, ἥτι. Pr. Ag. on 3:22; cf. Dautzenberg, 155 for Jewish material.
135
The numbers also correspond to the LXX, cf. Haench. Ag.15, ad. loc.
136
αἱ πᾶσαι ψυχαί altogether, cf. Bl.-Debr. § 275, 7.

137
F. Christ, “Jesus Sophia,” AbhThANT, 57 (1970), 106. LXX replaces ‫גּוֹע‬
ַ ‫“ ַמ ְר‬place of rest” by
ἁγνισμό, but εὑρίσκω ἀνάπαυσιν is common in the LXX. Possibly Gn. 8:9 LXX had some
influence, Schl. Mt., ad loc. and esp. Dautzenberg, 134.
 rather more by it. If one remembers the great significance of the reinterpretation of the
Law and the strong orientation to coming judgment in Mt.,138 ψυχή probably means for
him already the self of man which lives before God and will one day have to give an
account to Him at the Last Judgment.139 If this is naturally implied already in the OT, it
is first made explicit and given emphasis in Mt. Yet Mt. does this in a way which differs
completely from what we find in the Greek world, where the soul finds rest when it is
liberated from the body (→ 611, 15 f.),140 for here the unity and totality of man are
upheld. It is in his physical acts in obedience that man will find God’s rest. Here,
however, is the problem, for if the physical life is seen as God’s gift, can it still be
separated from the life with God which takes shape in, e.g., prayer, praise and
obedience, and which fashions a union with God that does not come to an end with
physical life?
3. ψυχή as the Place of Feeling.
a. Man as Influenced by Others.
The adversaries of Paul ψυχαί (Ac. 14:2). According to Ac. 15:24 the ψυχαί of the
brethren in Antioch are led astray by different words. Here ψυχαὶ ὑμῶν is parallel to
ὑμεῖς as ταράσσω is to ἀνασκεύαζω,142 so that the participial clause only develops more
precisely what is said already with ἐτάραξαν ὑμᾶς ψυχή is the man who can be moved
inwardly. In distinction from πνεῦμα (→ VI, 392, 26 ff.; 435, 12 ff.) it is the man as
such, whether pagan or disciple. The OT affinity to heart (→ 626, 29 ff.) may easily be
combined with this usage. This applies in Jn. 10:24: “How long dost thou hold our
ψυχή in suspense?”143 Here there is a slight shift of sense to the degree that the ψυχή is
the place where decision is made for or against Jesus. This means that the object
towards which the psychical movement or decision is orientated determines the
character of the ψυχή more closely. This is plainer in other passages. Man can be
moved, of course, toward the good as well as the bad. Thus Paul and Barnabas
strengthen the ψυχαί of the disciples to stand fast in faith, Ac. 14:22. Here, too, ψυχή
can simply be the man himself as one who can be influenced or moved in thought or
feeling. But each time the question arises whether the ψυχή is equally the locus of faith
as it is of confusion or stimulation, of joy or sorrow. In other words, is faith to be
viewed simply as a psychological matter like joy, sorrow, or perplexity?
b. Man as He Experiences Joy, Sorrow and Love.
The quotation in Mt. 12:18 speaks of the ψυχή of God which takes good-pleasure in
His servant. This is probably to be understood in terms of active divine decision (→ II,
740, 13 ff.; 741, 19 ff.). In Lk. 12:19 the ψυχή is addressed in soliloquy, → 633, 5 ff.144

138
G. Strecker, “Der Weg d. Gerechtigkeit,” FRL, 823 (1971), 158 f., 235 f.
139
Cf. W. Michaelis, Das Ev. nach Mt., II (1949), ad loc.
140
Cf. esp. Jos.Bell., 7, 349 (→ VII, 1057, 9 ff.); O. Bauernfeind-O. Michel, “Die beiden
Eleazarreden,” ZNW, 58 (1967), 270 f.
142
Pr.-Bauer, s.v.; Bau. Ag., ad loc. We have here LXX speech and careful Greek.
143
Cf. the par. Jos.Ant., 3, 48: οἱ δ᾽ ἦσαν ἐπὶ τὸν κίδυνον τὰ ψυχὰς ἠρμένοι, “courageous,”
“ready for danger,” but not ψ 24:1; 85:4, cf. Bultmann J., ad loc.
144
Par. in H. Thyen. “Der Stil d. jüd.-hell. Homilie,” FRL, 65 (1955). 89 f.; 97–100; also without ὦ
Charito, De Chaerea et Callirhoe, III, 2, 9, ed. R. Hercher, Erotici Scriptores Graeci, II (1859); cf.
It has goods, can take its ease, can eat, drink and be merry. The reference is interesting
because both physical and psychical activities are included,145 although with an
emphasis on the property and on eating and drinking. The following verse shows that a
decision is made which affects the value of the life before God, → D I 7b. We have here
a negatively assessed selfsatisfaction.146 A positive assessment may be seen in the hymn
in Lk. 1:46, which is heavily influenced by the OT and in which the ψυχή is a subject of
praise of God. Typically ψυχή is found alongside πνεῦμα here;147 stress is thereby laid
on the fact that such activity of the ψυχή is ultimately the gift and work of God148 →
VI, 415, 13 ff.
The ψυχή is also the locus of sorrow, Mk. 14:34 == ψ 41:6. Jn. 12:27 has
τετάρακται for this (→ 640, 14 ff.), which shows that the καρδία is not basically
differentiated, Jn. 14:1, 27.149 ψυχή should not be overtranslated, since originally ψ 41:6
shaped the formulation.150 The saying in Mk. 12:30 (quoting Dt. 6:5),151 which demands
love with all one’s soul and heart, is a perfect parallel. ψυχή here is close to strength of
will. This is more strongly so in Mt. 22:37 and par. (→ II, 140, 2 ff.), where the
Hebrew-Rabbinic instrumental understanding dominates with ἐν, than it is in the LXX
version in Mk. 12:30, where the ἐξ stresses inwardness. But the fact that Mk. can leave

τὴν ψυχὴν βαπίζομαι fig. of the passion of love, ibid., III, 2, 6. On the OT with its address “my
soul” cf. Dautzenberg, 85.
145
As in Judaism, Dautzenberg, 18 f., 85.
146
For details on the piety of poverty which is the background of this assessment, ibid., 90 f.
147
ψ 34:9: ἡ δὲ ψυχή μου ἀγαλλιάσεται ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ, is obviously identical with ἐγὼ δὲ ἐν τῷ
κυρίῳ ἀγαλλιάσομαι in Hab. 3:18. For the interchanging of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬and ‫רוּח‬
ַ cf. also 11 QPsa Col.
27:4, 28:5 (DJD, IV, 48 f.; cf. 92 and 55).
148
The distinction made by A. Plummer, The Gospel acc. to St. Luke, ICC (1896), ad loc.
between the seat of the religious and the seat of the emotional life has something in its favour,
but the two overlap. The catena (Kl. Lk., ad loc.) shows that πνεῦμα and ψυχή mean the same.
They are not, however, immaterial parts of man in contrast to the body. The idea that the
ψυχή is the total living creature and πνεῦμα == ‫רוּח‬
ַ is the life-principle (A. R. C. Leaney, The
Gospel acc. to St. Luke [1958], ad loc.) does not fit in too well with this passage.
149
Cf. ψυχή in 12:27 and Dautzenberg, 132; cf 16:6, 22
150
Cf. Gn. 41:8; ψ 30:10; 54:5; Lam. 2:11; Bultmann J. on 12:27. As against F. W. Grosheide,
Comm. on the First Ep. to the Corinthians (1953), on 1 C. 15:45 it must be stated that ψυχή is
also used of Christ here. The oddness of the usage suggests that it comes from the OT but also
shows how little ψυχή as such contains the character of the divine. That the context gives the
term a religious turn (Dautzenberg, 132) may be granted, but this is secondary and is not
native to ψυχή as such.
151
In Dt. heart and soul are the true centre of the person which determines a man’s conduct,
Haench Ag.15 on 4:32; Dautzenberg, 114–123.
 out ψυχή in v. 33 shows how little what is distinctive is seen in it. Ac. 4:32 is to be
adjudged similarly. This says of the community that it was καρδία καὶ ψυχή μία, which
corresponds to both Greek and OT usage.152 On the other hand only ψυχή occurs in Lk.
2:35 with its metaphor of the sword of sorrow that pierces the ψυχή (→ VI, 995, 12
ff.).153
c. ψυχή in the Sense of Heart.
ψυχή thus denotes the man who can be influenced by others and who is exposed to
joy and sorrow but who can also praise God and love Him. The last use, which brings
the word very close to καρδία (→ 640, 18 ff.), is found only when OT formulations are
adopted. We are thus brought back to the question whether the man who is open to
emotional movements and who can be affected and swayed by joy and sorrow is also
open as such to love God and to praise Him. Is he moved by God in the same way as he
is by other men? Is the praise of God an emotional movement on the same level as
pleasure in eating and drinking? Is love for God an expression of the will like any
other?
4. ψυχή as True Life in Distinction from Purely Physical Life (Mk. 8:35 and par.).
The saying appears in four different forms154 at Mk. 8:36 and par., Mt. 10:39; Lk. 17:33 and
Jn. 12:25. On the negative side ἀπόλλυμι “to destroy,” “to lose,” is always used,155 but on the
positive side there is fluctuation between σῴζω (Mk. 3:35 and par.), εὑρίσκω (Mt. 10:39),
ζωογονέω and περιποιέομαι (Lk. 17:33), φυλάσσω εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον and φιλέω (Jn. 12:25).
The two latter show that ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ, with the addition καὶ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου in Mk., is not
original.

a. Jesus.
The original form of the saying might well have been: “He who would save his
ψυχή will lose it, He who loses his ψυχή will save it.”156 Both the reference to

152
Acc. to Aristot.Eth. Nic., IX, 8, p. 1168b 7 f. μία ψυχή == κοινὰ τὰ φίλων. In 1 Ch. 12:39 ‫ֵלב‬
‫ ֶא ָחר‬is transl. by ψυχὴ μία.
153
The fig. is realistically used of war in Sib., III, 316, cf. with ref. to Israel Ez. 14:17; cf. 2 Βας.
12:10.
154
In analysis cf. C. H. Dodd, “Some Johannine ‘Herrenworte’ with Par. in the Synoptic
Gospels,” NTSt, 2 (1955/56), 78–81; Dautzenberg, 52 f.
155
Except in the second member of Jn. 12:25, where we find μισέω (cf. Lk. 14:26).
156
Since εὑρίσκω fits in the second member (→ II, 769, 38) and not the first, this seems to be
secondary interpolation based on the relation of losing and finding. It would be different if a
Hbr. original stood behind it, so that ὁ εὑρών in Mt. 10:39 would only be a transl. variant based
on reading ‫מוֹצא‬
ֵ “lead out,” “deliver” in Ps. 135:7 as ‫מ ֵֹצא‬, H. Grimme, “Stud. z. Hbr. Urmt.,”
BZ 23 (1935/36),263 f. But since this is impossible for Aram. the hypothesis is improbable
unless one opts for an original Hbr. on other grounds. In textual criticism of Lk. 17:33 cf. B.
Rigaux, “La petite apoc. de Luc.,” Biblioth. Ephemeridum Theol. Lovaniensium, 27 (1970), 425,
n. 46. Cf. also J. Jeremias, Nt.liche Theol., I (1971), 36.
preserving the ψυχή157 and also the positively assessed losing of the ψυχή show that
primarily the reference is to what is commonly called life, i.e., physical life on earth.158
The promise that life will be saved, however, shows that what is in view (→ 639, 5 ff.;
639, 29 ff.; 651, 2 ff.) is true and full life as God the Creator made and fashioned it.
This at least leaves open the possibility that God has destined it for more than the span
which is limited by death. Jesus is thus telling man that he will achieve full life only
when he no longer clings to it but finds it in loss or sacrifice. The saying thus goes a
step further than the logion about the fowls of the air and the lilies in Mt. 6:25–34.
These are models for freedom from nervous clutching to life but they do not illustrate
the offering up of life. The religious life does not differ from natural life, but it is this
life as it is experienced by the man who is freed from trying to preserve it. It is thus a
released and liberated and open life which God and neighbour can penetrate and yet not
disrupt it but instead fulfil it.159
Hence the saying does not correspond to the Rabb. saying in b.Tamid., 32a: “What should
man do that he may live? Let him kill himself. And what should man do that he may die? Let
him enjoy life,”160 for here the stringency of asceticism corresponds to good living. Nor can it
be equated with Epict.Diss., IV, 1, 165, which with ἀποθνῇσκων σῴζεται ref. to Socrates, who
kept his reputation and his character as an example, not his σωμάτιον (→ VII, 1036, 25 ff.).161
Neither of these contains the paradoxical and liberating statement that man finds precisely what
he is ready to give up and lose, not something different from it. Both involve a call to man to
achieve something higher by asceticism.

b. Mark.
Mk. groups the saying with the discipleship saying in v. 34 (→ VII, 577, 21 ff.) and sets it
in the immediate context of the first intimation of the passion of the Son of Man. Jn. 12:24–26
shows that this arrangement is old. It stresses the fact that this giving of life is possible only as
one follows Him who gave His own life for all. He, then, is the new centre. Two impressive
metaphors offer illustration in v. 34. Only he who says a basic No to his own self is able to give
his life; there is no explicit or exclusive ref. to martyrdom here (→ VII, 579, 16 ff.). The

157
In Mt. 10:39 this is implied only by the preceding v. 37.
158
It may even be said that affirmation means limitation in finding life, E. Fuchs, Zur Frage nach
d. historischen Jesus2 (1965), 358 f.***
159
One may say with Wellh. Mk., ad loc. that ψυχή has no adequate equivalent since it means
soul, life, and self, but the word is not really ambivalent and it does not hint at the supreme
value of the soul, Taylor, op. cit. (→ n. 132) on 8:35 and 36f. The ψυχή is this creaturely life
when it is lived in the freedom which God intended, Cf. P. Doncoeur, “Gagner ou perdre sa
ψυχή,” Recherches de Science Relig., 35 (1948), 116–9; Dautzenberg, 77, 90, 161 def. it as
concrete existence reaching out to life in this world as well as in the world to come.
160
Incorrectly quoted in Kl. Mk., ad loc. Cf. Sir. 14:4: ὁ συνάγων ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, i.e.,
mortifying it, but this is merely a wisdom saying claiming that the avaricious man heaps up
riches only for his descendants.
161
J. B. Bauer, “ ‘Wer sein Leben retten will …’ Mk. 8:35 par.” Festschr. J. Schmid (1963), 7–10
ref. to the cohortatio in military speeches and gives several examples, but neither formerly nor
materially are these very close.
grouping with the prediction of the passion and resurrection of the Son of Man shows already
that the saying of Jesus will retain its validity even beyond physical death. This is not a new
statement, for the original implied it to the degree that Jesus understood life as the life which is
lived from the hand of God, according to the purpose of God, and therefore in the presence of
God.

This means that death is not stronger than this life, for the point is that man will find
his life only in giving it and it will be preserved by God even though the loss of physical
life is entailed. Death is not a frontier which makes God’s truth untrue. Resurrection is
the final actualisation of the fact that man receives his life wholly as a gift from the
hands of God. The addition “for my sake (and the gospel’s)” shows that only orientation
to Jesus and not to the soul can lead to this.162
c. Mt. 10:39.
That the paradoxical saying was found to be difficult is shown by the changing of the verb
in the positive side. εὑρίσκω163 is also put in the second member in Mt. 16:25. Mt. is hereby
stressing the fact that the ψυχή which Jesus has in view is not just given to man from the outset.
Only when he is ready to lose it (→ I, 395, 5 ff.) does he attain to it. ὁ εὑρών in the first
member in Mt. 10:39 is hard to understand and seems to be a mechanical adjustment. At the end
of the missionary address and after v. 28 (→ D I 6), Mt. in 34–7 is perhaps thinking of the
martyr’s death, so that the ψυχή which the victim will find is eternal life.

d. Lk. 17:33.
ζῳογονέω can denote God’s act of deliverance from death but it can also have the simple
meaning “to leave alive” (→ II, 873, 30 ff.).164 περιποιέομαι (→ n. 86) occurs in Gn. 12:12; Ex.
1:16 etc. as the opp. of “to kill” in the sense “to leave alive.” In Gn. 36:6 it means “to win” with
‫ נַ ְפשׁוֹת‬as obj., transl. σώματα, not ψυχάς, in the LXX. In Ez. 13:19 it has ψυχάς as obj. (opp.
“to kill”) with a ref. to superstitious practices designed to save men from death. It might be,
then, that Lk. is simply using LXX expressions without affecting the sense. Yet if we think of 1
Th. 5:9; Hb. 10:39 and esp. Lk. 21:19 (→ D I 7c) and the strongly eschatological context of Lk.
17:20 ff., it seems likely that the originally act. sense of the verb influences Lk. and that the
primary sense of ψυχή, then, is eternal life. The connection with v. 32 shows that he loses his
true life who looks back on life like Lot’s wife and cannot detach himself from it (9:62),
whereas he wins life truly who gives it up (→ 642, 21 ff.). The apoc. context carries a ref. to the
time after the parousia.

e. Jn. 12:25.
The formulation here shows the influence of Lk. 14:26, an extension of Mt. 10:37 taken
with the saying at Mt. 10:39. φιλέω (q.v.) and μισέω (q.v.) emphasise even more strongly man’s

162
Dautzenberg, 61. We have here the opp. of a doctrine of the immortality of the soul in
which the soul is regarded as a continuous possession of man even if on the basis of God’s gift.
Cf. → 655, 29 ff.
163
A favourite word in Mt., Dautzenberg, 62.
164
3 Βας. 21:31: τὰς ψυχὰς ἡμῶν.

opp. oppositum.

obj. object.
 total participation. In direct connection with v. 24 the saying relates primarily to Jesus Himself.
This means that loss of life165 comes to a climax in physical death. Only v. 26 makes it plain that
the statement applies to the disciples too, cf. 15:13–21; 1 Jn. 3:16. The fact that either way the
ref. is to both earthly and eternal life is expressly underlined by the juxtaposition of ἐν τῷ
κόσμῳ τούτῳ and εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Yet the two spheres are not just distinct, for the ψυχή is
kept to eternal life. It is thus the true life which is already lived in this aeon if the disciple lives
where his Master is, seeking the centre of his life, not in himself, but in the One who has gone
before him.

Two delimitations must be made. The awakening to eternal life is not a magical
change, for the believer already has ψυχή. Again, the ψυχή is not an immortal soul, for
otherwise we should not be called upon to hate it. ψυχή is the life which is given to man
by God and which through man’s attitude towards God receives its character as either
mortal or eternal (→ 638, 4 ff.). In Jn. there can be no question of possession. Life is
kept by God for eternity only in the lasting sacrifice of life and in permanently living by
the gift of God. Hence we never read of the ψυχὴ αἰώνιος or ἀθάνατος, only of the
ψυχή which is given by God and kept by Him to ζωὴ αἰώνιος.
f. ψυχή as the God-given Existence which Survives Death.
In all variants of the saying, then, ψυχή is the life which is given by God and which
is no other than physical life. This life in its authenticity, however, is viewed as one that
is given by God and is thus lived before Him. One might translate ψυχή by self or ego
so long as it is not forgotten that this ego or self is lived only in the body. If σῶμα, in
opposition to the Hellenists in Corinth, maintains the concrete corporeality of the self
from which one may not escape into mere spirituality (→ VII, 1063, 17 ff.), ψυχή is a
guarantee that human life is not just health or wealth, but is the life that is constantly
given by God, that cannot then be limited by death, but is life as God intended it. Here,
then, the Greek division into body and spirit, into a bodily and earthly life on the one
side and a heavenly and spiritual life on the other, is plainly overcome.
5. Life as the Supreme Good (Mk. 8:35 f. and par.).
The saying might originally have been secular: Wealth does not protect from death
and life is the highest of goods.166 This would apply only to v. 36, since v. 37 seems to
be moulded by Ps. 49:7 f.167 In the first instance, then, ψυχή means physical life. But we
must realise how imprecise the expression is when no other life is known. For physical
life is existence itself, the self, or being. Ps. 49, the teaching of Jesus, and even more
clearly the combination with v. 35 in Mk. define the ψυχή more closely as the life
which is lived before God and Ps. 49 also teaches that death cannot be a final negation
of it. Of this true life which is lived before God it is then stated that man finds it, not by
gaining the whole world, but by being a disciple of Jesus, v. 34. Life, then, is not just a
natural phenomenon. Man lives it. If he is not aware of this, and regards life only as a
natural phenomenon, he interprets it in a definite way, namely, in such sort that he
misses what ought to be his life. Nor can there be any substitute for it. He has already

165
Cf. the pres. ψυχή is undoubtedly life in 10:11, 15, 17 too, Bultmann J., ad loc.
166
Hom.Il., 9, 401: οὐ γὰρ ἐμοὶ ψυχῆς ἀντάξιον. But cf. Sir. 26:14, where ψυχή denotes the
person, i.e., the woman.
167
Since S. Bar. 51:15 has a variation on v. 36b, 37 the possibility of Jewish tradition cannot be
ruled out.
 lost his life.168 ψυχή, then, is more than being physically alive. It is not completely
different from this. As this, it is that in which the human self expresses itself. Lk. 9:25
can thus put ἑαυτόν for τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ (→ 646, 27 ff.).169 This is already true in this
world and is primarily understood with this reference. But in the faithfulness of God it
also applies beyond physical death. In Mk. this is given emphasis by the connection
with v. 38.170 What happens now will one day be brought to light in the judgment. The
coming of the Son of Man and His witness for or against man will make it plain that the
orientation of earthly life to the κόσμος ὅλος or to God will have validity for God. Yet
even here the ψυχή is not just a future, eternal life nor is it a part of man that is thought
of in isolation from the body. It is life lived in the body which can lose itself or find
itself, and which will be unmasked as such, and consummated by God, in the Last
Judgment. Thus judgment makes it plain whether a man lives by God’s gift. His ψυχή,
then, is not a substance which survives death; it is life by God’s action, the event of
fellowship with God which will come to its fulfilment through the judgment.
6. ψυχή in Contrast to the Body (Mt. 10:28).
Mt. 10:28 presents God as the One who can destroy both body and ψυχή in
Gehenna. In this regard he is contrasted with man, who can kill the body alone and not
the ψυχή.
That God has power to cast into Hades and to take out of it is an OT concept.171 Wis. 16:13–
15 also says that man can only kill but has no power over the πνεῦμα that has departed or the
ψυχή that has been taken away.172 Rabbis agree that God can kill both in this aeon and in that
which is to come.173 Even more precisely we find in 4 Macc. 13:13–15 a summons not to fear
him who only seems to kill. God is the Giver of ψυχαί and σώματα, and there awaits evil-doers
a more serious conflict of the ψυχή and the danger of eternal torment. The doctrine of the
immortal soul is plainly intimated here.174

168
Not “suffer harm in soul” (Luther), cf. Kl. Mk., ad loc. Gk. par. speak of care for the soul or its
suffering in contrast to wealth, fame, or the body, Plat.Ap., 29d e; Isoc. Or., 2, 46. Cf. H.
Hommel, “Herrenworte im Lichte sokrat. Überlieferung,” ZNW, 57 (1966), 8 f.
169
J. H. Moulton, Gram. of NT Gk., Prolegomena (1906), 87.
170
Stressed by ἀπολέσας in Lk. 9:25 (cf. v. 24a), Dautzenberg, 81, while ζημιωθῆναι simply
denotes loss, not punishment in the judgment, ibid., 75.
171
Dt. 32:39; 1 S. 2:6; Tob. 13:2. Cf. Jm. 4:12; R. Schütz, Les idées eschatologiques du Livre de la
Sagesse (1935), 189 f.
172
There is hardly any thought of resurrection or eternal life, Schütz, op. cit., n. 171; K.
Siegfried in Kautzsch Apkr. u. Pseudepigr., but cf. P. Heinisch, Das Buch d. Weisheit (1912). 306.
The statement that one cannot escape God’s hand (v. 15) brings us close to the idea that the
πνεῦμα that has departed and the ψυχή that has been taken away are in God’s hand.
173
Acc. to Dt. r., 10, 4 on 31:14 (Wünsche, 106) no being has power over the soul after death if
it rests under the throne of glory in heaven. Str.-B., I, 581; Schl. Mt., ad loc.
174
4 Macc. 14:6. Yet the addition τῆς εὐσεβείας, which is to be taken adj., suggests that
immortality is for the righteous and not self-evidently for all men. Cf. Str.-B., IV, 1036–1043.
 In Mt. 10:28, however, the reference to God’s power to destroy the ψυχή and σῶμα
in Hades is opposed to the idea of the immortality of the soul175 → VII, 1058, 15.176 For
it is again apparent that man can he thought of only as a whole, both ψυχή and σῶμα.
This view of man comes up against the undeniable fact that men are killed, e.g., in the
persecution of the community. As Mk. 8:35 ff. (→ D I 4 f) already maintains, however,
the ψυχή, i.e., the true life of man as it is lived before God and in fellowship with God,
is not affected by this. Only the σῶμα (→ VII, 1058, 15 ff.) is killed here. God alone
controls the whole man, ψυχή as well as σῶμα. It can hardly be contested that Greek
ideas have influenced the formulation → 613, 5 ff. Nevertheless the saying is to be
understood in terms of the development indicated and its point is that man can end only
the life which is in some way limited by the earthly σῶμα and which is not, then, life in
the true sense. As man does not really control his life, since sickness and sin already
threaten it, and it is thus death rather than life,177 so it is not in the power of man to end
it. Here again ψυχή is ultimately life in the authenticity which God intended and which
has still to be regarded as bodily life even in hell. Thus man can be presented only as
corporeal, but what affects the body does not necessarily affect the man himself, for
whom a new body has already been prepared by God, → VII, 1060, 16 ff.178
7. Lucan Sayings about the ψυχή after Death.
a. Lk. 12:4 f.; 9:25; Ac. 2:31.
The most striking feature is the reconstruction of Mt. 10:28. Lk. obviously wants to
avoid the statement that man cannot kill the soul and he leaves out the more precise
reference to the body and soul in punishment in Gehenna.179 We find confirmation of
this in 9:25, where he edits the ζημιωθῆναι τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ of Mk. 8:36, since this
might be misconstrued as the punishment of the soul after death. Further confirmation
may be seen in Ac. 2:31 (→ VII, 124, 32 ff.), where in distinction from ψ 15:8—11,
which is quoted in Ac. 2:25–28, he avoids the ref. to the ψυχή not being left in Hades,
and says instead that the σάρξ of Jesus did not see corruption.180 Similarly Lk. 16:22 f.
(→ I, 148, 8 ff.) and 23:43 presuppose that immediately after death man as a whole will
either be in the torments of Hades or in Paradise. The resurrection appearances are also
175
Schmaus, 321 f. P. Bratsiotis, “Das Menschenverständnis d. NT” in C. H. Dodd. Man in God’s
Design according to the NT (1952), 23 defends this even in Jesus.
176
Logically one might ref. v. 28a to the intermediate state when man is without a body and
28b to the time after the resurrection, Dautzenberg, 149 f. as opp. to → VII, 1058, 17 ff. But it
is very doubtful whether the dogmatic idea that God will put the soul back in the body and
then judge both (→ 637, 5 ff.) is presupposed.
177
Lk. 15:32: “He … was dead, and is alive again.”
178
Strictly man is thought of as necessarily living in the body, but living as a body might ref. to
either the old body or the new. R. Laurin, “The Concept of Man as a Soul,” Exp. T., 72 (1960),
133 warns against a dichotomous understanding.
179
K. Köhler, “Zu Lk. 12:4, 5,” ZNW, 18 (1917/18), 140 f. even thinks that v. 4b from τὸ σῶμα on
is not part of the original text of Lk.
180
Lk. interprets ψυχή in the Ps. as person and the stress on σάρξ is designed to show that this
mast be regarded as bodily.
portrayed with great bodily realism in Lk., the risen Lord being distinguished from a
shade.181 This all points in the same direction → VI, 415, 19 ff. Lk. is obviously
teaching the corporeality of the resurrection as distinct from the Hellenistic survival of
the soul, although the time of the resurrection is not clear.182 The weighty role of
judgment in the summons to repentance, which demands the resurrection of both the
just and the unjust (Ac. 24:15), competes with the older understanding of resurrection as
a salvation blessing which leads to a life in heaven similar to that of the angels and
which is granted only to believers, Lk. 20:35 f.183 The former is obviously characteristic
only of Ac., whereas in the parallel to Mt. 10:28b σῶμα as well as ψυχή is avoided in
relation to the condemned in hell, as is also the idea of going into hell with hands, feet,
or eyes.184
b. Lk. 12:20.
This saying is simply to the effect that the rich farmer must die. Yet it might be
asked whether the ψυχή is not already viewed here as a loan which God demands back
from him, → VI, 378, 9 ff.; 392, 7 ff.185 Even this, of course, would mean only that man
is responsible for the life that God has given him and must one day present it to God for
judgment.
c. Lk. 21:19.
One might ask whether κτήσεσθε τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν does not simply mean the
preservation of earthly life.186 But after v. 16b, and in replacement of Mk. 13:13: “He
that endures to the end shall be saved,”187 the saying is probably to the effect that those
who hold out in persecution will find true and authentic life. This goes beyond the
181
Only Lk. 24:39 speaks of flesh and bones, which go with the soul in the OT → 623, 26 f. Mt.
28:18 uses the typical προσελθών with the verbum dicendi and thus makes a heavenly
appearance of the risen Lord into an earthly encounter. It is, however, the risen Lord who
appears on earth and there is no further ref. to His corporeality.
182
Apart from Lk. 16:22 f.; 23:43, Ac. 7:55 also presupposes immediate dwelling with Christ
after death. On the other hand the day of Judgment is a fut. event for all, Ac. 17:31; cf. Lk.
17:22 ff.; 19:11: Ac. 10:42; H. Conzelmann, “Die Mitte d. Zeit,” Beiträge z. hist. Theol., 175
(1964), 101 f.; J. Dupont, “L’après-mort dans l’oeuvre de Luc,” Rev. Théol. de Louvain, 3 (1972),
3–21.
183
V. 35 alters the Marcan original and v. 36 limits the life of divine sonship (→ VIII, 390, 10 ff.)
to the children of the resurrection. In itself, then, resurrection is a salvation blessing, cf. the
use of the term in Jn. (apart from 5:29), Paul and Rev., although materially Paul and Rev.
presuppose a resurrection to Judgment.
184
Lk. omits the whole section Mk. 9:42–50. Lk. 17:1 f. comes from a different tradition.
185
3 Βας. 19:4: λαβὲ δὴ τὴν ψυχήν μου ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ. Cf. also Wis. 15:8; PhiloRer. Div. Her., 129.
Very weak, too, is Cic.Rep., I, 3, 4, where the return of life (vita) to nature is simply
unavoidable death.
186
Considered as a possibility by Kl. Lk., ad loc.
187
Lk. alters the wording because the τέλος is further away from the persecutions that began
already prior to the Jewish War.
 passages already adduced (→ D I 4) to the degree that the ψυχή is now something that
one only attains to. If it might be inferred from the other sayings that true life is simply
given when it is orientated to God and does not seek itself, ψυχή here is plainly
understood as eternal life. On the other hand this saying, too, steers clear of the idea that
Lk. rejects (→ lines 5 ff.), namely, that of an immortal soul which man does not attain
to only in the future.
II. Paul Including Colossians and Ephesians.
Worth noting in Paul is the rare use of ψυχή in comparison with the OT.188 Paul
does not think in such strongly Greek terms that he can adopt the Hellenistic idea of the
soul189 nor in such strongly non-Greek terms that he can ignore the fact that in Greek
culture ψυχή means something different from ‫נֶ ֶפשׁ‬.
1. ψυχή as Natural Life and as True Life.190
The quotation in R. 11:3 speaks of the attempt on the ψυχή of Elijah. Paul himself
bears witness in Phil. 2:30 that Epaphroditus hazarded his ψυχή for the sake of Christ’s
work when he was near to death. In 1 Th. 2:8 Paul says of himself and his fellow-
workers that they would give not only the Gospel but their own ψυχαί for the
community, → 638, 6 ff. Here the reference is not so much to the giving of physical life
in death as to the giving of that which constitutes life, e.g., time, energy, and health.191
Similarly the apostle writes concerning Prisca and Aquila in R. 16:4 that they sacrificed
themselves to the uttermost for his ψυχή. Here again we are probably to think of the
fuller sense of life,192 so that the point is, not that they kept the apostle from death, but
that they tried to make for him the good and healthy life that was needed for his work.
According to 2 C. 12:15 Paul was ready to offer up himself for the ψυχαί of the
community. Again this obviously does not mean that he wanted to preserve them from
physical death but rather that he wanted to impart to them the true and authentic life
which is given its fulness by God and lived in responsibility before Him. It is physical

188
OT has ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬756 times, Paul has ψυχή 13 times including OT quotations: Stacey View, 121–
7; Gutbrod, 75; Schmid, 134 f. The proportion, however, is much the same throughout the NT,
Sevenster Begrip, 12.
189
ψυχή does not occur in 2 C. 5:1–5, cf. J. N. Sevenster, “Some Remarks on the γυμνός in 2 C.
5:3,” Festschr. J. de Zwaan (1953), 210 f.; U. Luz, “Das Geschichtsverständnis d. Pls.,” Beitr. z.
evang. Theol., 49 (1968), 366–9. Nor does it occur in 1 C. 5:3–5; 15:38–49; 2 C. 12:2 f.; Phil.
1:21–23; 2:6–11; 3:8–10, i.e., in all statements about Christ’s pre- and post-existence, life after
death, and ecstatic experiences, cf. Stacey View, 121–7, also Paul, 274, n. 1 (Bibl.); E. Hatch,
Essays in Bibl. Greek (1889), 30 stresses the different usage in Philo.
190
Cf. Bultmann Theol.6, 204–6.
191
Acc. to C. Masson, Les deux Ep. de S. Paul aux Thess., Comm. du NT, 11a (1957), ad loc. 1 Th.
2:8 is par. to 2 C. 12:15, while Dib. Th., ad loc. suggests the good side of the inward man and
compares Col. 3:23; Eph. 6:6; Jos.Ant., 17, 177.
192
Not, however, in the sense of the religious life that is to be saved from condemnation, nor
in that of the psychological personality, nor of course with a ref. to a “part” of Paul. The sense
is close to that of physical life. Cf. Mi. R.13, ad loc.
 life, but this life as God intended it to be in truth.193 In all these instances ψυχή with
personal pronoun or genitive of person means little more than the pronoun or the
personal indication alone. At the very most it merely indicates a specific perspective.
2. ψυχή as Person.
πᾶσα ψυχὴ ἀνθρώπου in R. 2:9 is not stressing the fact that God will judge the
soul;194 it is simply a way of referring to individuals → 617, 25 ff.; 632, 37 ff.195 The
πᾶσα ψυχή of R. 13:1 is to be taken in the same way. Both phrases come in traditional
Jewish contexts.
In 2 C. 1:23, however, ψυχή almost replaces the πνεῦμα of R. 1:9 → VI, 435, 18 ff.
It does, of course, correspond to the Hebrew use of ‫ נֶ ֶפשׁ‬for the reflexive pronoun →
620, 21 ff.,196 but in context what is obviously meant is the self that is aware of being
responsible to God, as in R. 1:9.
3. μία ψυχή.
Phil. 1:27 has μία ψυχή (→ 617, 2 ff.) as a parallel to ἓν πνεῦμα, → VI, 435, 3 ff.
Here, in accordance with traditional usage, ψυχή is the locus of emotional movement,
of the psychological life → 640, 34 ff.197 Anthropological trichotomy can hardly lie
behind this.198 We simply have rhetorical variation in which ἓν πνεῦμα perhaps lays
stronger emphasis on the unity that is given by God199 while μία ψυχή describes the task
that is to be achieved. If it is true that in Paul πνεῦμα can be parallel to ψυχή in the
believer,200 there is no thought of a soul that is regenerated through the Spirit and

193
When Barth, 324 speaks of the ψυχή that is tied to the σάρξ as distinct from the originally
equal πνεῦμα, and of the freeing of this ψυχή only by Christ, he is right so long as we do not
think of parts of man. Yet πνεῦμα means primarily God’s Spirit and only secondarily that of the
man endowed with God’s Spirit, while ψυχή is primarily the life which is given by the Creator,
which is responsible to Him, and which will be led by Him to true freedom, so that we can
never read strictly of God’s ψυχή → 640, 31 ff.; n. 212.
194
M. J. Lagrange, Saint Paul. Ep. aux Romains, Ét. Bibl. (1950), ad loc.
195
Cf. also Lv. 4:27; Nu. 15:27; Mi. R.13, ad loc.; O. Kuss, Der Römerbr. (1959), ad loc.
196
J. Héring, La seconde ép. de S. Paul aux Corinth., Comm. du NT, 8 (1958), ad loc.; E. B. Allo, S.
Paul. Seconde ép. aux Corinth., Ét. Bibl. (1956), ad loc. compares with Mt. 5:36 “to swear by
one’s head,” although the ἐπί here hardly means the same as the ἐν there.
197
Not a higher part of man, Dib. Ph., ad loc., cf. also Ltzm. R., Exc. 7:14–25.
198
So Loh. Ph., ad loc. who explains the absence of σῶμα by the use of ἓν σῶμα only
collectively for the community as Christ’s body. Cf., however, τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι in 2 C. 12:18,
where it is supplemented by τοῖς αὐτοῖς ἴχνεσιν. (μία) καρδία is par. in Ac. 4:32 → 641, 17 ff.
On the Gk. background → 617, 2 f. and W. Theiler, Review of P. Merlan, Monopsychism,
Mysticism, Metaconsciousness, in Gnomon, 37 (1965), 22 f.
199
P. Bonnard, L’ép. de S. Paul aux Philipp., Comm. du NT, 10 (1950), ad loc. thinks the ref. is to
the Holy Spirit.
200
Ltzm. R. on 8:11.
 gradually detached from the flesh.201 That ψυχή as such bears no intrinsic qualification
may also be seen from the fact that in distinction from the Greek world202 πνεῦμα is
always the opposite of σάρξ, or νοῦς in the unbeliever, but never ψυχή203 → VI, 428, 10
ff.; VII, 126, 22 ff.; 132, 20 – 134, 13.
In all these passages ψυχή may be neutrally man’s physical life, or positively the
healthy and strong physical life which is pleasing to God, or the person, or its
intellectual and spiritual faculties. On the other hand, it is never assessed negatively. On
1 C. 15:45; 1 Th. 5:23 → 662, 20 ff.; VI, 435, 9 ff.204
4. Colossians and Ephesians.
Here we find the expression ἐκ ψυχῆς, Col. 3:23; Eph. 6:6;205 → 641, 12 ff. ψυχή is
not what is intrinsically pure and good nor does it belong to the sphere of the carnal and
sinful.206 It is to be taken in a purely neutral sense.
One can hate ἐκ ψυχῆς, Test. G. 2:1, and love κατὰ τὴν ψυχήν, Test. B. 4:5. One can obey
and reverence God ἐν πάσῃ or ὅλῃ ψυχῇ, Sir. 6:26; 7:29, and sin ἀπὸ ψυχῆς, 19:16. ψυχή, par.
δύναμις, describes man’s total commitment, although with ref. to his powers of soul rather than
his physical powers.207
The absence of a doctrine of the soul is all the more astonishing in view of the fact that the
Colossian heretics taught a Jewish brand of Neo-Pythagoreanism in which the purification of
the soul from everything earthly and its ascent to the highest element where Christ dwells
occupied a central place.208 The author is plainly conducting the controversy wholly in terms of
christology and not anthropology. Even statements about the Spirit are surprisingly sparse.

5. Secularity of the Usage.

201
So Barth, 335: Janus’ head, bound to the flesh yet aspiring to the spirit → VI, 436, 9 ff.
202
The usual antithesis is σῶμα and ψυχή, but we find variations in the Gk. world too,
Plut.Quaest. Conv., V (II, 672e, 673b); Cons. ad Apoll., 13 (II, 107 f.) etc. → VII, 103, 32 ff.
203
Not because the ψυχή is quasi-material and bound to the body but because it denotes man
and his existence as he lives in the body, while πνεῦμα basically suggests God’s action.
204
R. Jewett, “Paul’s Anthropological Terms,” Arbeiten z. Gesch. d. antiken Judt. u. d. Urchr., 10
(1971), 175–183 suggests the adoption of anthropological trichotomy by the enthusiasts who
opposed him.
205
The formulation ποιεῖν τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, 1 Ἐσδρ. 9:9; 4 Macc. 18:16; Mt. 7:21; 12:50; Mk.
3:35 is traditional, cf. Schlier Eph.7, ad loc.
206
Loh. Kol. on 3:23.

Test. G. Testament of Gad.

Test. B. Testament of Benjamin.

207
Barth, 320 ref. to Calvin’s transl. “de courage.”
208
In Alexander Polyhist. (1st cent. B.C.) all the terms of Col. 2 occur in Fr., 1a of an anon.
Pythagorean, Diels, I, 448, 33 ff., cf. E. Schweizer, Die “Elemente d. Welt” (→ n. 129), 160–163.
 It may be inferred that Paul’s use of ψυχή is a more considered one than that of the
Gospels. Paul employs ψυχή rarely. He never has it for the life which survives death,
for to him it is all-important that the new life of the risen Lord should be understood
wholly as a gift on the basis of a new creative act of God. Hence not even in germ is it
to be found in man. It is to be viewed entirely as a divine and heavenly life which lies in
the future or in heaven, 1 C. 15:38; 45–47, 49; 2 C. 5:1f.; Phil. 3:11 f. etc. Nevertheless
Paul’s understanding of man does not differ completely from that of the Gospels. For
him, too, there is continuity between the earthly life and that of the resurrection. If in
their use of ψυχή the Gospels say that true life that is not threatened by death is found
only by the man who orientates his life to God and not himself, so that he does not live
in his own strength but by the gift of God (→ 644, 37 ff.), Paul says with greater
theological sharpness that the continuity lies wholly in God and hence can no longer be
denoted by ψυχή but only by πνεῦμα → VI, 420, 3 ff.
III. Hebrews.
In Hb. 12:3 the ψυχαί of the community are the place where it grows weary.209 One
may thus think of life-force, courage, or readiness for sacrifice, but it may be doubted
whether the specifically spiritual life of the community is in view. This is the meaning,
however, in 13:17, for the ψυχαί over whom the leaders of the community watch and
for whom they must render an account are naturally the members of the community as
in 2 C. 12:15 (→ 648, 17 ff.), but described now with more emphatic reference to their
spiritual life. ψυχή is the man for whom an account must be given at the Last Judgment.
He is not commended to the leader of the community in general, as the neighbour is. He
is specifically commended; the leader must bring him to salvation and not to judgment.
The only question is whether ψυχή is meant to place bigger stress on man as a whole
person or on his life before God,210 which is supported by 10:39. περιποίησις ψυχῆς in
contrast to ἀπώλεια obviously means the attainment of true and authentic life → 643,
38 ff.211 In the context this is the life that is achieved or preserved through the Last
Judgment.212 Since περιποίησις alongside ἀπώλεια means “preservation” or
“attainment,” we have here something of the insight that the earthly life which is lived
before God reaches its consummation through God’s judgment and resurrection with no
complete break between this life and life after death (→ 642, 18 ff.). This is also
suggested by 6:19, where hope is understood as an anchor of the ψυχή which has
penetrated to the inner sanctuary where Jesus the fore-runner dwells. The spiritual
existence of man before God is obviously intended here. Here, too, the ψυχή is not in

209
The par. in Polyb., 20, 4, 7; 29, 17, 4 support the view that ταῖς ψυχαῖς goes with
ἐκλυόμενοι. The first passage contrasts ψυχαί and σώματα; there is weakening in both.
210
Acc. to Mi. Hb., ad loc. the ref. is to eschatological life. Reicke, 208 f. sees in Hb. 10:39, as in
Jm. 1:21; 1 Pt. 1:9, a supreme religious good, a part of the person which will be saved for
eternal life.
211
In the Gk. par. Xenoph.Cyrop., IV, 4, 10; Isoc. Ep., 2, 7 περιποιέομαι τὴν ψυχήν means “to
preserve life.” but the par. in 1 Th. 5:9: εἰς περιποίησιν σωτηρίας, cf. εἰς περιποίησιν δόξης, 2
Th. 2:14, is closer, C. Spicq, L’ép. aux Hb., II, Ét. bibl. (1953), ad loc.
212
V. 39 interprets the quotation from Hab. 2:4 in v. 38. Here, too, we have ψυχή, but God’s
ψυχή which takes no pleasure in the one who draws back.
 itself good or divine. It is assailed and threatened and needs an anchor. Yet it lives in
virtue of the fact that it has sent on its hope ahead and thus in a sense already lives
where it will one day be perfected. Through the idea of a fore-runner, eschatological
statements about the coming life with God can be changed into spatial statements about
the location of the hope of the believer in the innermost part of the temple.
The most difficult passage is 4:12 (→ VI, 446, 4 ff.). It must be asked whether
πνεῦμα and ψυχή are separated by God’s Word (→ IV, 118, 17 ff.) or whether this
Word pierces them both. Since the parting of the bones and marrow is hard to imagine,
the text is probably saying that the Word has penetrated the πνεῦμα and ψυχή as it has
the bones and marrow.
If so. these are to be explained in terms of traditional anthropology as in 1 Th. 5:23 (→ VI,
435, 9 ff.). The saying can then be understood in the light of PhiloRer. Div. Her., 130–132. Here
the λόγος of God, for Philo the divine reason which can make logical distinctions, is described
as the τομεύς (“the cutter”) which can pierce and dissect not only corporeal things even down to
atoms but even ψυχή, λόγος, and αἴσθησις, and that which is perceived with the spirit.213

Thus Hb. 4:12 is saying that the Word of God pierces all things even to the
inwardness of physical and psychical man. There is no stress on ψυχή alongside
πνεῦμα. It goes with it rather than being distinguished from it. No definite theological
trichotomy is in view.
IV. The Catholic Epistles.
1. John.
On 1 Jn. 3:16 → 638, 4 ff. In 3 Jn. 2 the author expresses the wish that the recipient
will be as well and healthy in all things as his ψυχή is. We thus have here a distinction
between the physical and the spiritual life which has been lurking for a long time in the
background but which has nowhere come out so clearly. If ψυχή means the true life
before God, experience shows that this can be sound even in a man who is sick in body.
Hence ψυχή is not just the whole self or life of man which embraces the physical too
and experiences πάντα. It is the life which is ultimately important, i.e., which is
orientated to God. Naturally ψυχή is not set in express antithesis to the bodily side here.
The hope is that the two will be in harmony, not that they will be separated from one
another.214
2. James.

Philo Philo, of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.–50 A.D.), ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland.
213
Cf. Wis. 7:22 ff., where something similar is said about God’s πνεῦμα, and O. Sol. 12:5 for
something comparable about the Word. PhiloVirt., 103 equates ψυχή and διάνοια.
214
Schnckbg. J.2 (1963), ad loc. The best par. is PhiloRer. Div. Her., 285. Here we have the
εὐοδοῦσθαι of τὰ ἐκτός, τὰ σώματος, and τὰ ψυχῆς, which is ethically understood. The usage
shows, however, that one cannot differentiate so easily the natural life, the life of faith on its
natural side. and the supernatural life (Schnckbg., loc. cit.). The life of faith, as the use of ψυχή
shows, is the natural life which is lived before God and. by His gift, and which finds its
fulfilment in the resurrection.
 Since the ἔμφυτος λόγος (1:21), in spite of Epict.Diss., II, 11, 3, is not reason, but
the Word of God rooted in man (1:18, 22),215, σῷζω embraces eschatological salvation.
ψυχή is thus the life of man before God which will find its consummation in the
resurrection. The same applies in 5:20, as the addition ἐκ θανάτου shows. ψυχή is again
man’s existence in responsibility to God; this is saved through death or through the
judgment of condemnation. Whether θάνατος means the former or the latter depends on
whether we see in ψυχή that of the sinner or that of the monitor,216 Tob. 4:10; Ab., 5,
18,217 cf. Ez. 3:18–21,218 seem to favour the latter. Barn., 19, 10; 2 Cl., 15, 1, cf. 19, 1;
Ep. Apostolorum, 51 (Copt.)219 contain both thoughts, cf. also Pist. Soph., 104 (GCS,
171, 35 ff.). Prv. 10:12, which is possibly quoted at the end of the saying, supports the
former. A multitude of sins could hardly be spoken of in relation to the monitor. For
these two reasons it is perhaps better to refer both the statements of v. 20b to the
sinner.220 In this case ψυχή is here again the true life before God. This is saved through
judgment, which threatens it with death.
3. 1 Peter.
3:20 seems to be just a numerical reference (→ 639, 25 f.). Since we have here the
righteous who are preserved through the flood and who typify the baptised, it is just
possible, however, that the author has in view the eight souls which live in God’s sight
and are kept by Him for salvation. In 1:9 the σωτηρία ψυχῶν is the eschatological goal
of faith. Plainly, then, ψυχή is the individual life, or the person thus denoted, that stands

215
τοῦτο τὸ ἔμφυτον ἔχο[υσα], “that has passed into flesh and blood,” P. Masp., I, 67006, recto
3 (6th cent. A.D.), cf. Preisigke Wört., s.v.
216
If ψυχή is related to the monitor, one should consider whether the thought is not simply
that he attains to life for eternity beyond physical death. If αὐτοῦ is to be cut out with R, we
must certainly decide in favour of the first sense.

Ab. Pirge Abot, Mishnah-, Tosefta-, Talmudtractate Sayings of the Fathers (Strack, Einl., 54).
217
Cf. Str.-B., III, 229 f.
218
Also the Gk. of Act. Thom., 6, ed. M. R. James, Apocr. Anecdota, II, TSt, 5, 1 (1897), 29; cf.
Hennecke2, 35, no. 8.

Barn. Epistle of Barnabas.

Ep. Epistulae.

Copt. Coptic.
219
Ed. H. Duensing, KlT, 152 (1925), 33 f., cf. Hennecke3, I, 149.

Pist. Soph. Pistis Sophia, original Gnostic work in Coptic (3rd. century A.D.), ed. C. Schmidt,
1925.
220
Logically the saying about the covering of sins certainly comes before that about the saving
of the ψυχή from death, Dib. Jk., ad loc., but it is added in confirmation as a bibl. quotation.
 before the judgment and is saved through it after the parousia of Christ (v. 7).221 This
life from God, however, is already lived and sanctified on earth in obedience to God,
i.e., in love (1:22). 4:18 is to be construed along similar lines. Intrinsically it is possible
to think of those who suffer persecution commending their physical life to God. But
since martyrdom has to be reckoned with as a present-day reality later (4:12ff.; 5:9), this
is unlikely. The commending is to be in the doing of good and God is expressly invoked
as the Creator. Obviously, then, the reference is to the life which the Creator Himself
takes into His keeping hands through death and fashions anew. Christ as the “overseer
of your souls” (2:25) is indubitably the One who cares for the faith life of the
community (→ 650, 29 ff.; II, 615, 25 ff.).
2:11 is the most strongly Hellenised ψυχή passage in the NT (→ VII, 144, 19 ff.).
Here ψυχή is clearly a life which is given by God and lived before Him. Fleshly desires
war against it.222 It thus seems to be a part of man, the flesh being another part. The first
part is not, of course, unconditionally and in all circumstances good. It is exposed to
attack and conflict. Above all it is not summoned to asceticism, which will simply
mortify the flesh. Instead, it is summoned to a life which, even though lived in the
earthly sphere, is already at home in the heavenly sphere (→ VI, 447, 11 ff.).
Nevertheless, this is the only NT passage where ψυχή plainly stands in antithesis to
σάρξ. Since elsewhere in the letter ψυχή is the individual life which survives physical
death, which is created afresh after it, and which attains to salvation after the parousia,
ψυχή comes close here to the Greek understanding (→ 611, 15 ff.). It thus takes the
place that is occupied by πνεῦμα in Paul (Gl. 5:17). On the other hand πνεῦμα here
stresses that God is the subject and it is confined in the OT sense to prophets, apostles,
and martyrs (→ VI, 447, 3 ff.).
4. 2 Peter.
In 2:8, 14 ψυχή is the person, but the person who lives responsibly, distinguishing
between good and evil, and hence exposed to temptation. In itself, then, ψυχή is neutral,
being qualified positively or negatively by δικαία or ἀστήρικτος. It is certainly not an
intrinsically bad principle or one of lesser worth.
V. Revelation.
1. ψυχή as Physical Life.
Very much along OT lines is the use of πᾶσα ψυχή (→ 632, 36 ff.) in 16:3 except
that the added ζωῆς emphasises the fact that the reference is to living creatures and not
to plants or animals. Only here and in 8:9 is ψυχή used for animal life in the NT; in both
cases marine creatures are in view. In 12:11 ψυχή means the physical life which the
martyrs are not to preserve or love.
2. ψυχή as Person.

221
G. Dautzenberg, “Σωτηρία ψυχῶν (1 Pt. 1:9),” BZ, NF, 8 (1964), 262–276 emphasises the
underlying apocal. tradition; the lack of art. suggests a fixed usage influenced by the Semitic
st.e. ψυχή is the centre of existence, life, but not a higher ego.

NT New Testament.
222
Cf. also the Apoc. of Adam, 75, 4 f., ed. A. Böhlig-P. Labib, “Kpt.-gnost. Apok. aus Cod V v.
Nag Hammadi,” Wissenschaftl. Zschr. d. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, Special Vol.
(1963), 107.
 The use in 18:13 also follows the OT (→ 639, 24 ff.; Ex. 27:13). Materially the
word is parallel to σώματα (→ VII, 1035, 13 ff.; 1058, 1 f.), but horror at the traffic in
slaves, who are also human persons, is probably expressed in the fuller expression
ψυχαὶ ἀνθρώπων, so that the word is not just a numerical term. A beginning of critical
social ethics might be detected here.
3. ψυχή as Life after Death.
This sense is clearest in 6:9, which again reflects the OT (→ 634, 3 ff.). Here ψυχή
is the man who survives death prior to his resurrection. He is seen as one who has self-
awareness, who awaits the day of God’s righteous judgment, and who is protected by
God under the heavenly altar (→ VII, 934, 31 ff.). Yet the ψυχαί are not intentionally or
emphatically presented as non-corporeal, since the divine can see them and they are
robed in white garments. Only hereby are they marked as belonging to God (v. 11).223
Nevertheless, it must be maintained that this intermediate state is not a true life; this will
come only with the new corporeality at the resurrection. Furthermore the reference here
is expressly to martyrs; it seems to be assumed in 20:13 that for non-believers at least
there will be no consciously experienced intermediate state (→ D VI 5).
Finally the ψυχή in 20:4 is the person which stands before God’s judgment and
which is endowed with the glory of the millennium before His throne. Obviously the
reference here again is to the final state after the first resurrection. It now becomes plain
that ψυχή does not denote a purely provisional and definitely non-corporeal state which
will become full humanity again only with the gift of the body at the resurrection. This
is confirmed by the relation of the word to the relative masculine pronoun, which shows
how much it embraces the whole person. ψυχή is thus adopted as a term for man as he
lives in eschatological salvation. It does not carry with it any clear distinction between a
non-corporeal and a corporeal state.

VI. New Testament Usage in Distinction from πνεῦμα.

1. Except in Hb., Jm. and 1 and 2 Pt. ψυχή means the physical life of man, that of
animals too in Rev. (→ 653, 30 ff.). In popular use, although not in the studied
theological style of Paul and John, πνεῦμα can be used for it (→ VI, 377, 16 ff.).224 But
a difference may be seen already in the fact that the soul, unlike the spirit, can be hated,
persecuted, and slain. Even when there is reference to the παρατίθεσθαι of the πνεῦμα,
this can be only in such a way that God is central as the recipient (→ VI, 415, 17 ff.;
452, 39 ff.), not in such a way that the cessation of life is stressed. A real antithesis
develops here when ψυχή definitely describes the purely natural life which can be
ended. Thus 1 C. 15:45 can adopt dualistic speculations about the contrast between the
Adam who became a living ψυχή, and the Adam who became a πνεῦμα ζωοποιοῦν (→
661, 29 ff., 662, 20 ff.).
2. On the other hand, ψυχή is always my life, never the phenomenon of life as such.
Like πνεῦμα then (→ VI, 435, 3 ff.) it can denote man as a whole, a person. It can thus
be used for the reflexive pronoun, or in the formula πᾶσα ψυχή, or as a purely numerical
term (→ 639, 24 ff.). The fact that πνεῦμα cannot be used in these ways shows already
that even when it denotes man as a totality, it presents him under a special aspect. Again

223
Cf. C. Brütsch, Die Offenbarung Jesu Christi, I2 (1970), 293–7.
224
For the OT cf. Dautzenberg, 109 f. Cf. 2 Macc. 7:22 f.
ψυχή, like πνεῦμα225 (→ VI, 357, 1 ff.; 396, 22 f.; 435, 1 ff.), can be the locus of joy
and sorrow and love and hate; it can thus describe man from the standpoint of inward
participation. In contrast πνεῦμα is never used of non-Christians or for impulses that are
ethically negative,226 since it denotes God’s gift more clearly than ψυχή. Certainly
ψυχή, which is closely related to καρδία with its emphasis on the will and on conscious
inward participation, can be the locus of faith. On the other hand faith is of no interest
as a psychological phenomenon, as Paul stresses when he takes up the matter in 1 C.
12:1ff. The only point is that God can use man’s psychological faculties. The decisive
thing, however, is the proclamation of Jesus as Lord and the edification of the
community, and this takes place through the πνεῦμα, → VI, 423, 16 ff.
3. A further development calls for notice here. Although ψυχή can never be
sundered from the purely physical life, it is not identical with it. One may find or miss
life as God intended it → 642, 14 ff.227 Precisely when man views it as his ultimate goal
and tries to win the whole world, he loses it. Only in giving it does he find it. In this
sense, too, ψυχή is the natural life, but it is this as life in its authenticity as this is given
by God and received from Him. This is where the problem arises. The difficulty with
πνεῦμα is not to let God’s Spirit working in man become an inner spiritual life that is
given to man (→ VI, 415, 13 ff.; 435, 12 ff.). With ψυχή, however, the difficulty is the
opposite one of not restricting the God-given life to the purely physical sphere which is
threatened by death, but also embracing therein the gift of God which transcends death.
4. The OT had already shown that God’s faithfulness does not come to an end with
the death of man. On occasion there could even be individual expectation of life, as in
Ps. 49 → 645, 6 ff. This takes on clearer outlines in Jesus’ teaching about losing and
finding the ψυχή → 642, 14 ff. Thus ψυχή gradually comes to be used more
specifically to denote a life that is not ended by death → 643, 37 ff; 645, 31 ff. In later
texts of the NT this can be expressly identified as the religious life which is to be
pastorally nurtured, with an emphasis on the fact that it is a gift and that it implies
responsibility → 650, 33 ff. In the context of exhortation 1 Pt. 2:11 (→ 653, 9 ff.) can
present it in typical Hellenistic fashion as a life attacked by carnal desires. As in the idea
of the immortality of the soul continuity is maintained between the life of faith and the
resurrection life, but this continuity resides, not in an indwelling of God in man which is
guaranteed by nature or sacrament, but solely in the faithfulness of God. Hence πνεῦμα
too (→ VI, 435, 20 ff.; 445, 27 ff.) can denote the departed Christian. In both cases the
reference is not to a part of man that has survived death,228 but to the total existence of

225
Cf. Mk. 2:8 with 5:30. In Phil. 1:27 and Hb. 4:12 we have the two words together.
226
Unless the ref. is to an evil πνεῦμα (Mk. 9:20; Ac. 19:15; Rev. 16:13 f. etc.), which will
obviously be a supernatural power.
227
The way is prepared for this by the OT idea that the sick life is not life as God intended it and
is thus more death than life. Ps. 86:13, cf. 16:10.

OT Old Testament.

NT New Testament.
228
So Bratsiotis, op. cit. (→ n. 175), 29: In Paul ψυχή and πνεῦμα are two aspects of the part of
man also called νοῦς; they belong to man along with σῶμα.
 man as this is given by God and lived out before Him.229 After death, then, it is bodily if
not fleshly → VII, 1060, 16 ff. Continuity with the physical life of man is naturally
expressed by ψυχή, so that only this and not πνεῦμα can be used in a saying like Mk.
8:35 (→ 643, 10 ff.). John can develop this usage (→ 644, 12 ff.), whereas Paul speaks
only of the πνεῦμα which is to be saved through death (→ VI, 435, 20 ff.) because this
sets in relief continuity with God’s activity in the early life of the believer and in the life
of the resurrection. After Paul, however, ψυχή can be used to describe an existence
which will reach its goal only after death. It thus becomes identical with the soul as the
Greeks understood it, although this is never thought to be pre-existent (→ 653, 16 ff.).
5. ψυχή does not seem to occur as a term for life in the intermediate state (→ III, 17,
6 ff.)230 any more than πνεῦμα does (→ VI, 415, 19 ff.), not even in Rev. 6:9 (→ 654, 2
ff.)231 and certainly not in 2 C. 5:3 (→ VII, 1060, 26 ff.).232 There is dispute, of course,
about Mt. 10:28, → n. 176. Luke (→ D I 7c) seems to be interested in a bodily
resurrection (24:39) immediately after death (16:22ff.?; 23:43?) and he thus avoids
expressions which might suggest the mere survival of the soul. Paul is wisely satisfied
to know that the dead are with Christ, Phil. 1:23, though cf. 3:21 → I, 149, 16 ff.
Schweizer
E. Gnosticism.
1. Gnosticism is made up of many doctrines of salvation both inside Christianity and
outside it. The relevant texts are highly varied in speech and origin. The history of the motifs is
most uncertain. It is thus impossible to generalise about a Gnostic concept of the soul. Common
to all Gnostic teachings is the fact that the self of redeemable man is viewed as part of the

229
Cf. Cullmann, 37–41; v. Campenhausen, 303 f., 307 f. P. H. Menoud, “Le sort des trépas-sés
d’après le NT,” Cahiers théol, de l’Actualité Protestante, 9 (1945), 17–20. C. K. Barrett,
“Immortality and Resurrection,” The London Quart. and Holborn Review, 34 (1965), 91–102
rightly emphasises not merely these NT passages but also Gk. statements about resurrection,
and he pts. out that not every Greek is a Platohist. Cf. also P. Pédesch, “Les idées relig. de
Polybe,” RHR, 167 (1965), 38–42.
230
In opp. to v. Campenhausen, cf. Schmaus, 324–7, to Cullmann, Masson, 250–267. Sevenster
Anthropologie, 176 thinks Paul teaches a survival of the ψυχή in the intermediate state, and
materially cf. Masson, op. cit. (→ n. 229), 42. Guignebert, 435 even believes that man was
already divided into flesh, soul and spirit in the time of Jesus and that only the last went to
God, while the soul went to sheol.
231
Rev. 20:4 should be adduced with caution, since it ref. to the state after the first
resurrection, so that the ψυχή is naturally presented as a full person.
232
For an explicit discussion of the questions involved here cf. M. J. Harris, The Interpretation
of 2 C. 5:1–10 and its Place in Pauline Eschatology, Diss. Manchester (1970).

176 Logically one might ref. v. 28a to the intermediate state when man is without a body and
28b to the time after the resurrection, Dautzenberg, 149 f. as opp. to → VII, 1058, 17 ff. But it
is very doubtful whether the dogmatic idea that God will put the soul back in the body and
then judge both (→ 637, 5 ff.) is presupposed.

Schweizer Eduard Schweizer, Zürich (Vol. 6–9).

transcendent world of light which is entangled in this cosmos. The insight into its origin which
is brought by an extraterrestrial bringer of salvation enables the self to free itself and to return to
its home.233 The fall and ascent of the soul are seen as part of a cosmic process.234 If in what
follows the human self is called the soul, this cannot be taken for granted in non-Gk. texts of the
Gnostic tradition. Yet in Gk.-speaking Gnosticism the terminology of the popular philosophical
doctrine of the soul is used in anthropology,235 so that the pairs light/darkness, good/evil,
spirit/matter and soul/ body correspond to one another.236
2. In their use of ψυχή the Gnostics adopt the hierarchy of the non-corporeal world current
from the days of Plato. But whereas in philosophy the rational power as the dominant factor in
the human soul opens up the possibility of recognising the rational and good order of the
universe, and of imitating it in moral action, on the Gnostic view the ψυχή or inward core of
empirical man is subjected to a cosmos whose matter is indeed fashioned and quickened by the
presence of pneumatic particles but which is still sharply separated from the good world of
light, having been made by a god of lesser rank, cf. Basilides in Hipp.Ref., VII, 23, 2 f.237 Only
the πνεῦμα belongs to the world of light → χάρις F.238 If in Stoicism the πνεῦμα was called the
finest matter as the carrier of rationality, this concept was given a spiritualised turn in Stoic-
Platonic syncretism, and if Pos. et al. saw in the πνεῦμα the carrier of emotional impulses, the
πνεῦμα now becomes the effective counterpart of the ψυχή. The ψυχή is immaterial, but it

233
Many Gnostic trends share an affinity to astrology with the Neo-Pythagoreans, who worked
out their ideas on the ascent of the soul in dependence on Plat.Tim., 47a ff. In this pseudo-
philosophy many individual philosophical principles serve as the content of revelation. Cf.
Burkert, 335–347. On astrology in the mystery religions, cf. Nilsson, II, 596. On the Gnostic
version of the ascent of the soul, cf. C. Colpe, “Die ‘Himmelsreise d. Seele’ ausserh. u. innerh,
d. Gnosis,” Le origini, 429–447.
234
Colpe, op. cit. (→ n. 233), 439–445.

Gk. Greek.
235
The Gnostic systems, which claim to be the revelation of suprarational insight, use
philosophical concepts and figures taken from their discursive rational context, and also the
mythological ἱερὸς λόγος, which by derivation expounds a cult, esp. a difficult mystery cult.
236
Cf. S. Pétrement, Le dualisme chez Platon, les Gnostiques et les manichéens (1947).

Hipp. Hippolytus (c. 160–235 A.D.), disciple of Irenaeus. His main work A Refutation of all
Heresies in 10 books is directed against Greek philosophy as the mother of all heresies, ed. by
different scholars in Die griech. christi. Schriftsteller der ersten 3 Jahrhunderte, 1897 ff.

Ref. Refutatio Omnium Haeresium.

237
Acc. to the Gnostic Justin, Hipp.Ref., V, 26, 32 only the ψυχικὸς καὶ χοϊκὸς ανθρωπος
suffered Jesus’ passion, while the πνεῦμα went back to the Father. Cf. Act. Joh. 98 ff.
238
The metaphors for the pneumatic component of man (spark etc.) mostly come from
philosophy, e.g., Synesius of Cyrene hymnus, 1 (3), 560–9, ed. N. Terzaghi, I Script. Graeci. et
Latini. (1939), and one might ask whether sometimes the Gnostics took them lit.

Pos. Posidonius, of Apamea in Syria, (c. 135–51 B.C.), natural scientist, geographer, historian
and philosopher of Middle Stoicism, ed. J. Bake and D. Wyttenbach, 1810.
belongs to the present cosmos239 and is subject to matter as the essential part of man, cf. the
Gnostic Justin in Hipp.Ref., V, 26, 8 f. The threefold structuring of man240 as
πνεῦμα/ψυχή/σῶμα, which is common in the Gnostics, cf. the Naassenes in ibid., V, 7, 9–15,
Valentinus in VI, 37, is based on a philosophical model. In Middle Platonism, e.g., Plut.Fac.
Lun., 28 (II, 943a) the most valuable part of man, the νοῦς, derives from the solar sphere. The
ψυχή is formed as its annex in transition through the moon hades, and. it is joined to a body on
earth (→ 475, n. 29). In spite of the disparagement of matter in this and related understandings,
and in spite of the hope of a return of the νοῦς to its origin, there is a difference from
comparable Gnostic teachings, cf. Corp. Herm., 1, 22; 13, 7 ff. For the Platonic tradition the
union of the spirit with matter and the resultant development of man and the cosmos are always
an act of self-unfolding νοῦς. This and the rise of the ψυχή are a matter for regret amongst the
Gnostics, since the effect is the essential alienation of the pneumatic particle. The rules by
which ψυχαί live and act in this cosmos, whether they be bodiless demons, the archons of the
astral sphere, or the souls of human bodies, are not the rules of the πλήρωμα, the world of light.
In the Platonic tradition and even in the astrology independent of Gnosticism it is a matter of
understanding the unbreakable order of the cosmos as both εἱμαρμένη and benevolent πρόνοια.
The soul is able to do this as the bearer of the intellect, and this willing recognition confers on
man the freedom which differentiates him from animals and plants. In Gnostic thought,
however, “just” εἱμαρμένη241 is the very thing that disqualifies the cosmos. A ὑπεράνω τῆς

239
Acc. to Hipp.Ref., VI, 34, 1 the Valentinians call the divine σοφία πνεῦμα and the demiurge,
the maker of this cosmos, ψυχή. Plotin inEnn., II, 9, 5 f. attacks the ideas which underlie this
terminology.
240
Acc. to Iren. Haer., I, 14, 1 some Gnostics regard the baptism of Jesus as psychical and that
of the Christ incarnated in Him as pneumatic; only the latter is part of the process of
redemption.

Plut. Plutus.

Fac. De Facie in Orbe Lunae.

475, n. The historical background is clearest in Plut.Fac. Lun., 28–30 (II, 943a–945e): Souls
loosed from the body rise up to the moon, where demons dwell, and then sink back, or,
purified as sheer νοῦς, they rise up to the sun. The νοῦς is as far above the ψυχή as this is
above the σῶμα, 28 (II, 943a). The underlying idea of successive stages as the elements
become increasingly immaterial is still to be found in Philo. Thus birds are less subject to
weakness than land or sea creatures, Cher., 89. Air is between earth/water on the one side
and aether on the other, Som., I, 144 f., where we also find. Plut.’s theory about the moon.
Plut.Fac. Lun., 5 (II, 921 f.). On this whole subj. cf. E. Schweizer, “Die Elemente der Welt Gl. 4:3,
9; Kol. 2:8, 20,” Beiträge z. Theol. d. NT (1970), 155–161.

Corp. Herm. Corpus Hermeticum, collection of Hermetic writings (Poimandres and others), late
anonymous products of Hellenistic-Egyptian mysticism, the teachings of which may be found
already in the 1st century A.D., ed. W. Scott, 1924.
241
The Hermetics use εἱμαρμένη in this negative sense synon. with ἁρμονία, Corp. Herm., 1, 9
or 1, 15.
εἱμαρμένης γενέσθαι, cf. Pist. Soph., 13 (GCS, 45, p. 13, 24 ff.); 26 f. (p. 22, 17 ff.; 26, 4 ff.)242
does not mean, as in philosophy, perceiving the agreement between the cosmos and the soul and
imitating it in life; it means the extrarational insight that natural and moral laws control the
pneumatic self, withhold from it the freedom which is its due, and prevent it from entering the
pleroma. Relevant here is the threefold νόμος, Ptolemaeus Ad Floram in Epiph.Haer., 33, 5, 1–
2, Marcion’s distinction between the good God and the just God, and Epiphanes’ work Περὶ
δικαιοσύνης.243 The Apocr. Joh.244 Cod. IV, p. 40, 21 ff.; II, 26, 8 ff. explains that the ψυχή is
good only to the extent that it has taken πνεῦμα into itself and lets itself be guided by it.
Otherwise it is the seat of the ἀντίμιμον πνεῦμα which causes it to err and do wrong. The ψυχή
marks the disputed territory of redemption, while πνεῦμα (νοῦς) and σῶμα (σάρξ) are quite
unequivocal.245
3. In detail there are gt. differences in the psychological terminology of the Gnostics. For
most of them ψυχή has relative value only in coordination with πνεῦμα, cf. the Gnostic Justin in
Hipp.Ref., V, 26, 25, while it has a negative accent in antithesis to πνεῦμα. Valentinian
Gnosticism adopts the doctrine of two souls (which is found in Numenius, → 616, 8 ff.), cf. Cl.
Al.Exc. Theod., 50, 1 ff.,246 so that the ψυχή can be the pneumatic self of man, although this has
no new implications. Elsewhere νοῦσ/πνεῦμα/λόγος mean much the same and are contrasted
with ψυχή. Corp. Herm., 10, 13 has the crescendo πνεῦμα, μυχή, λόγος, νοῦς, πνεῦμα being
here the blood-substratum of ψυχή, cf. PhiloMigr. Abr., 3 ff. but also Plot.Enn., II, 9, 1, 57–63.

Pist. Soph. Pistis Sophia, original Gnostic work in Coptic (3rd. century A.D.), ed. C. Schmidt,
1925.
242
The freedom of the Gnostic, ἀβασίλευτον εἶναι, is thus a central theme, cf. the Naassenes in
Hipp.Ref., V, 8, 30.

Epiph. Epiphanius, of Eleutheropolis in Palestine, bishop of Constantia in Cyprus (298–403

A.D.), opponent of 80 Christian, Jewish and Gnostic heresies in his rich and comprehensive
work Πανάριον κατὰ πασῶν τῶν αἱρέσεων, ed. K. Holl, 1922.

Haer. Haereses.
243
Cf. W. Völker, “Quellen z. Gesch. d. chr. Gnosis,” Sammlung ausgewählter kirchen-u.
dogmengeschichtl. Quellenschr., NF, 5 (1932), 34 f.

Apocr. Apocrypha.
244
Ed. M. Krause/P. Labib, “Die drei Versionen d. Apokr. d. Joh. im Kpt. Museum zu Alt-Kairo,”
Abh. d. Deutschen Archäolog. Instituts Kairo, Kpt. Reihe, 1 (1962).

Cod. Codex.
245
For similar ideas cf. Corp. Herm., 16, 15 f.

Cl. T. Flavius Clemens Alexandrinus, of Athens, but doing his main work in Alexandria (150–215
A.D.), a leading representative of Christian culture, ed. O. Stählin, 1905 ff.

Exc. Excerpta ex Theodoto.

246
Cf. Basilides’ doctrine περὶ προσθυοῦς ψυχῆς acc. to Cl. Al.Strom., II, 20, 133, 3f.

Philo Philo, of Alexandria (c. 20 B.C.–50 A.D.), ed. L. Cohn and P. Wendland.
In Corp. Herm. Fr., 23, 18 f. Ascl., 12; Corp. Herm. Fr., 18; Basilides Fr., 3 (→ n. 243) and esp.
as a basis for the ethical libertinism of the Carpocratians, Hipp.Ref., VII, 32, 7 f. the
transmigration of souls it taught, though cf. Corp. Herm., 10, 20. Strictly redemption can apply
only to the πνεῦμα or νοῦς of man, cf. Heracleon Fr., 27 (→ n. 243), but in this connection the
texts not infrequently speak of the ψυχή too, cf. Basilides in Iren., 1, 19, 3. Sometimes πνεῦμα
and σάρξ are contrasted and the ψυξή is left out, cf. Hipp.Ref., V, 7, 40. Naturally most
differentiations occur in systems concocted by those who went through the philosophical
schools. Thus Basilides compared the ψυξή to a bird and the πνεῦμα to its wings. The bird
cannot soar without wings, but wings without the bird are useless, Hipp.Ref., VII, 22, 11.
Between πνεῦμα and ψυχή there is thus a reciprocal εὐεργετεῖν, cf. 22, 10. Logically, then,
Basilides assigns the πνεῦμα a place between κόσμος and ὑπερκόσμια, cf. VII, 23, 2.247 In
popular Gnosticism, e.g., the magic pap. or the allegorical interpretation of myths and cults, we
are not to expect an exact interrelating or use of terms, cf. the Naassene interpretation of the
Attis myth in Hipp.Ref., V, 7, 11–15.

Dihle
4. The Coptic texts of Cod. 13 of Nag-Hammadi contain a wealth of new material on the
trichotomy πνεῦμα-ψυχή-σῶμα/σάρξ, “spirit-soul-body (flesh)”248 and on the Gnostic
understanding of ψυχή.
a. Trichotomy. The trichotomous principle of Gnosticism is found in the Nag-Hammadi
texts and is more or less broadly developed, as in Ep. Iacobi Apocr.,249 11, 35–12, 13; the

Migr. De Migratione Abrahami.

Plot. Plotinus, of Lycopolis in Egypt (204–270 A.D.), the last great thinker of antiquity who
brought Neo-Platonism to systematic completion, ed. R. Volkmann, 1883 ff.

Enn. Enneads.

Fr. Fragmenta (-um).

esp. especially.

Iren. Irenaeus, of Asia Minor, bishop of Lyons, martyred 202 A.D. during the persecution under
Severus, ed. in MPG, 7, 1882.
247
If in Corp. Herm., 16, 6 God is distinguished from the πνεῦμα this does not imply any
disparagement of the πνεῦμα compared to its position in the structure of being in other
systems.

pap. Papyrus, shortened to P. when specific editions are quoted.

Dihle Albert Dihle, Cologne (Vol. 9).

248
On the relations cf. K. W. Tröger, “Mysterienglaube u. Gnosis in Corp. Herm., XIII,” TU, 110
(1971), 94 f.; → VI, 392, 13 ff., esp. 395, 8 ff.; VII, 1085, 8 ff.

Ep. Epistulae.
249
Ed. M. Malinine et al. (1968).
Apocr. of Joh. (→ n. 244) Cod., II, 1, p. 25, 17–27, 30; the work Hypostasis of the Archons,250
144, 17–27; the tractate Authenticos Logos251 Cod., VI, 3 and the work Noēma (→ n. 251)
Cod., VI, 4, p. 37, 23 ff. In a consistent application of the trichotomous principle not just
mythology and anthropology but the Gnostic system, and esp. soteriology, are affected. The so-
called work on the origin of the world (no title)252 speaks of the first, second and third
(pneumatic, psychical and earthly) Adam, 165, 28–166, 6, cf. 170, 6–9, and also of three
baptisms, one of spirit, one of fire and one of water, 170, 13–16. Acc. to the Epistle to Rheginus
De Resurrectione253 there is a resurrection of spirit πνευματική which engulfs that of soul
ψυχική and that of flesh σαρκική, 45, 39–46, 2.
b. Varied Use of ψυχή. The varied use of ψυχή, which is not uncommon in Gnosticism and
calls for notice, occurs also in the Nag Hammadi texts. To discover the given meaning of the
ambivalent term ψυχή the distinction between the cosmic soul and the supercosmic soul has
proved helpful. The former is the ψυχή in the narrower sense as the dowry of the cosmic forces,
esp. the stars, while the latter is the πνεῦμα, the inner pneumatic man.254 The true soul, then, is
not the ψυχή but the πνεῦμα, the supercosmic soul which comes into the field of force of the
stars when it falls. The ψυχή is understood as the true and supercosmic soul in this sense in,
e.g., the tractate Exegesis of the Soul Cod., II, 6 (→ n. 5). Opp. to it are the body, the flesh, and
this life. After its fall this ψυχή, now understood as the one higher principle, stands in need of
redemption, which is imparted to it by its bridegroom, the life-giving Spirit → 660, 24 ff.
Mostly a cosmic soul stands in antithesis to the ψυχή which is identified with the πνεῦμα, cf.
the terms pneumatic and hylic ψυχή, Authenticos Logos (→ n. 251) Cod., VI, 3, p. 23, 12 ff.
Sometimes immortal and mortal souls are differentiated, e.g., in the Apoc. of Peter255, Cod., VII,
3, p. 75, 12–76, 17, cf. 76, 34–77, 22. In most cases ψυχή, in acc. with the trichotomous

250
Ed. R. A. Bullard, Patristische Texte u. Stud., 10 (1970). The numbering corresponds to P.
Labib, Coptic Gnostic Pap. in the Coptic Museum at Old Cairo. I (1956).
251
Ed. M. Krause-P. Labib, “Gnost. u. hermet. Schr. aus Cod II u. Cod VI,” Abh. d. deutschen
Archäol. Instituts Kairo, Kpt. Reihe, 2 (1971); cf. The Facsimile Ed. of the Nag Hammadi Cod,
Cod VI (1972).
252
Ed. A. Böhlig-P.Labib, “D. kpt.-gnost. Schrift ohne Titel aus Cod II v. Nag Hammadi,”
Deutsche Akad. d. Wissensch. zu Berlin, Institut f. Orientforschung, 58 (1962), The numbering.
rests on Labib (→ n. 4), although the adduced passages are not given there.
253
Ed. M. Malinine et al. (1963).
254
The distinction was proposed by H. Jonas, “Gnosis u. spätantiker Geist, I” FRL, 513 (1964), 5.

5 If C. J. Ruijgh. Étud. sur la grammaire et le vocabulaire du grec mycénien (1967), 370 f. is right
in associating νοέω and νέομαι “to return (from danger),” then the basic sense of νόος must
be “plan” [Risch].

Opp. oppositum.
255
Not yet ed. Numbered acc. to the thus far accepted system of M. Krause, cf. D. M. Scholer,
“Nag Hammadi Bibl. 1948–1969,” Nag Hammadi Studies, 1 (1971), 109 f., 118–190: also “The
Coptic Gnostic Library,” Nov. Test., 12 (1970), 83–5.

acc. accusative.
principle, means the cosmic ψυχή. As such it comes between256 πνεῦμα and σῶμα, and
everything depends on which way it inclines. Acc. to the tractate The Doctrines of Silvanus (→
n. 254) Cod., VII, 4 man, i.e., the Gnostic, has three roots, the divine νοῦς, the soul, and the
body, or matter, p. 92, 15–33. “God is the pneumatic one. Man has taken form from the
substance of God. The divine soul has partial fellowship with him. The soul also has partial
fellowship with the flesh. The bad soul turns hither and thither,” i.e., vacillates, but in no case
should it incline to the animal and carnal nature. p. 93, 25–32, cf. the total context p. 93, 9–94,
5. The middle position of the soul is very clearly taught in Ep. Iacobi Apocr. (→ n. 249): The
flesh longs after the soul, without which it cannot sin. On the other hand the soul cannot be
redeemed without the spirit, 11, 35 ff. “It is the spirit that makes the soul alive, but it is the body
that kills it, i.e., it is itself that kills it,” 12, 5–8. In most texts ψυχή and πνεῦμα (or νοῦς) and
σῶμα/σάρξ are interrelated in this or a similar way. Mery common is the negative evaluation of
the cosmic soul. In this regard we may ref. to texts which certainly place the psychic above the
hylic but regard, it as far removed from the pneumatic. Thus the Hypostasis of the Archons (→
n. 250), 135, 17–20 says that the psychic cannot attain to the pneumatic. Here the man who is
made by the archons is in the first instance totally χοϊκός, 135, 26 ff. → χοϊκός, E. But even the
man who has become psychic is still unable to raise himself, 136, 3 ff. Only when the πνεῦμα
sees the psychic man and stoops downs to him does man become a living soul and can he
motivate himself, 136, 12–17. But when the archons bring the sleep of forgetfulness on Adam,
take living woman out of his rib, and fill up his side with σάρξ, Adam again becomes totally
psychic and the pneumatic woman must first awaken him and raise him up, 137, 3–13. To this
corresponds the depiction of the creation of Adam in the work on the origin of the world (no
title → n. 252), 162, 24–164, 5: In Adam, psychic man, was no spirit. The chief archon let him
lie 40 days “without soul.” In the Apocr. of Joh. (→ n. 244) Cod., II, 1, p. 15, 9–11 the first
archon copies psychically the first and perfect, i.e., pneumatic, upper man. He is then called
Adam. Then the powers make 7 different kinds of soul, that of bones, that of flesh etc., p. 15, 13
ff. 18, 34 f. speaks of the material hylic ψυχή. In order that man, who has a psychic and a
material or hylic σῶμα, p. 19, 5 f., 12, may elevate himself, Ialdabaoth must blow πνεῦμα, the
power of his mother, in his face, p. 19, 23–27, and this δύναμις comes thereby into the psychic
σῶμα, lines 28–30. These are examples of a relatively close connection of ψυξή and σῶμα as
compared with the qualitatively different πνεῦμα. The ψυχή is evaluated negatively in the
Paraphrase of Sēem too (→ n. 254), where it is a “work of uncleanness” and a “profanation of
light thought,” Cod., VII, 1, p. 24 (20), 25–27.
c. The Destiny of the Soul. This is the gt. theme of Gnostic texts and it is developed in many
different ways. The descent and reascent or fall and redemption of the soul are described in
mythological, anthropological and soteriological categories which we can only sketch here. Acc.
to Phil. Ev.257 the soul fell among thieves who took it prisoner § 9 (101, 11 f.). “This is the
situation of the soul. It is worthy, but it fell unto an unworthy body” § 22 (104. 24–26). What
the σῶμα means for the ψυχή is depicted in Thomas Ev. (→ n. 95) Logion 112 (99, 10–12):
“Jesus said: Woe to the flesh that clings to the soul; Woe to the soul that clings to the flesh,” cf.
Logion 87 (96, 4–7). The tractate Authenticos Logos (→ n. 251) Cod., VI, 3 constantly has new
metaphors to depict the destiny of the soul that has fallen into the world and it ref. to its
redemption. In the Apocr. of Joh. (→ n. 244) John and Jesus speak about the fate of different
souls. This is decided by whether the life πνεῦμα or the ἀντίμιμον πνεῦμα has won control of

256
On the middle place of the psychic cf. Cl. Al.Exc. Theod., 56, 3; Iren. Haer., I, 1, 11.
257
Ed. W. C. Till, Patristische Texte u. Stud., 2 (1963).

95 Cf. the expression “circumcision of the heart” or “spirit” in Jer. 4:4; Col. 2:11; Thomas Ev.
Logion 53, ed. A. Guillaumont et al. (1959).
the soul, Cod., II, 1, p. 25, 17–27, 31 par.; III, 1, p. 32, 23–36, 15; IV, 1, p. 39, 17–43, 6; Cod.
Berolinensis, 8502,258 p. 64, 14–71, 2. In the Exegesis of the soul Cod., II, 6 (→ n. 251) the soul
after its fall into the body is oppressed by the archons and degraded as a harlot, p. 127, 25 ff. but
on repentance is redeemed by the Father. He sends to it the μονογενής who unites with it in the
bridal chamber, p. 132, 7 ff. From its bridegroom, the life-dispensing spirit, p. 134 1 f., the soul
has good children and it brings them up. After this new birth the soul can ascend. “This is the
(true) resurrection of the dead: this is redemption from imprisonment; this is the ascent to
heaven; this is the way to the Father,” p. 134, 11–15. In the second Logos of the great Seth (→
n. 254) Cod., VII, 2 the subject is again the origin, destiny and liberation of the soul, cf. p. 57.
27–58, 4: “the soul which comes from on high.” In some texts the soul is judged, e.g., the
Coptic-Gnostic Asclepios (→ n. 251) Cod., IV, 8, p. 72, 27–37; 76, 22–77, 28. The gt. demon is
the judge of souls. In the First Apoc. of James (→ n. 222) three heavenly powers forcefully
snatch away ascending souls, 33, 8–11; 34, 20–24. There is a purification of souls in the tractate
Noēma (→ n. 251) Cod., VI, 4, p. 45, 28 f. There are pure souls and souls that are punished, p.
47, 9 ff. The Apoc. of Adam (→ n. 222), 84, 1–3, 12–14 speaks of souls that can die and those
that are full of blood and filthy works. In the Apoc. of Paul (→ n. 222), 20, 8–21, 20, cf. 22, 9f.
the soul is scourged by angels, examined, condemned after testimony, and put back in the σῶμα.
The Book of Thomas (→ n. 251) Cod., II, 7 ref. to the burning of souls, p. 140. 25–28 and the
destruction of souls when men hope only in the flesh, p. 143, 10–15. Saved souls are in the
ogdoad and sing “praise in silence,” De Ogdoade et Enneade (→ n. 251) Cod., VI, 6, p. 58, 17–
20; 59, 26 ff., cf. the saving of souls through the φωστήρ in the Apoc. of Adam (→ n. 222), 76,
15–27.
1

par. parallel.
258
Ed. W. C. Till, “D. gnostische Schr. d. kpt. Pap. Berolinensis, 8502,” TU, 60 (1955).

222 Cf. also the Apoc. of Adam, 75, 4 f., ed. A. Böhlig-P. Labib, “Kpt.-gnost. Apok. aus Cod V v.
Nag Hammadi,” Wissenschaftl. Zschr. d. Martin-Luther-Univ. Halle-Wittenberg, Special Vol.
(1963), 107.
1
Theological dictionary of the New Testament. 1964-c1976. Vols. 5-9 edited by Gerhard
Friedrich. Vol. 10 compiled by Ronald Pitkin. (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley & G. Friedrich, Ed.)
(electronic ed.) (9:654-660). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.