Abstract
Troels Engberg-Pedersen offers ‘a coherent reading of Paul that reflects the best available conceptual tools for understanding the world, both his and ours’ (6). These tools include ancient Stoicism, which illuminates the material character of pneuma, and the writings of contemporary theorists Michel Foucault and Pierre Bourdieu, which provide heuristic keys to the interpretation of Paul. This response offers sustained analysis followed by three substantive critiques of Engberg-Pedersen’s use of Stoicism to explain Pauline pneumatology. (1) The Stoic models he constructs do not adequately explain Pauline pneumatology. (2) Stoic models that do not align with his conception of pneuma in Stoicism are neglected. (3) Neglected as well are key texts from Paul’s Jewish heritage—Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls—though in principle Engberg-Pedersen acknowledges the indispensability of this heritage.