Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried AT umich.edu>]

Dear Jim, Dave, et. al.
We are arguing about the term (wb.
It appears here in 1 Sam. 28 and also in Isaiah 8:19.
It appears lots of places actually, but only as something
not to consult.  Only in 1 Sam. 28 and in Isaiah do we
learn something about them. We learn in 1 Sam. 28
that they can wear robes and can look old. We learn
from Isaiah that they "chirp and mutter," or something
like that.
Now, from these two occurrences, why should we suppose
that they don't have physical bodies? True, it's a physical
body that only some can see, but a body nonetheless.

Jim, you say according to the Greeks that everything that exists
exists in a body, or else it doesn't exist. I think Aristotle at least
believed God was not corporeal, I thought Plato did as well.
But that's neither here nor there.
You say that the Hebrews believed in an existence of the soul
beyond this life -- an existence in Sheol. However, what we are
debating is whether that soul was conceived of as physical or
not. I assume when you say "soul" you mean "nephesh."
 If the nephesh is in the blood, which it is, then it seems to me that
it cannot exist without the body. When the blood seeps out, so does
the nephesh, the life.  A nephesh is only that which animates the body,
it has
no other meaning. And that which animates the body is life itself.
I suppose therefore that a dead nephesh is one that "lives" in
Sheol, contrary to Utnapishtum, who got to live in a  pleasanter
place.

Best regards,
liz

> -----Original Message-----
> From: b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org
> [mailto:b-hebrew-bounces AT lists.ibiblio.org]On Behalf Of Jim West
> Sent: Thu, February 06, 2003 5:50 PM
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Re: [b-hebrew nefarious nefesh
>
>
> At 05:27 PM 2/6/03 -0500, you wrote:
>
> >> Dear Bill, et. al.
> >> I would not presume to read the bible other than supra-literally.
>
> i take this to mean *un-literally*.  but isnt such a generalized
> circumscribed presuppositional stance the very thing academic study is
> intent on leading all of us AWAY from?  Some texts certainly
> are to be taken
> literally. not every verse is metaphor.  to suggest that they
> are is to
> confine your interpretation with a narrow preconception.
> liberalism can be
> as fundamentalistic as the most rabid, saber toothed fundamentalist.
>
> >> Otherwise, I would be assuming what the writer *actually* meant,
> >> rather than assuming that he *actually* meant what he
> *actually* said.
> >> Therefore, she saw gods, or a god, coming out of the earth.
> >> Nifty, eh? A god differs from mortals only in their immortality,
> >> not in their corporality.
> >> That's the whole point of the Adam and Eve story, the Gilgamesh
> >> story, etc, etc.
> >> I think the notion that gods are incorporeal is Greek. The
> Greeks had
> >> the idea that God had to be perfect and that since matter is
> >> corruptible, then God could not be material. I don't know whether
> >> that applies to the gods on Olympus or not.
>
> i dont really qualify as an expert on greek theology.  i do
> know a bit about
> plato and epictetus and diogenes of sinope.  none of them
> envisioned an
> incorporeal deity.  every existent thing exists in some form
> else it doesnt
> exist at all.  the shadows too are substance.
>
> as to what the endorian witch saw- she saw samuel- and saul
> believed she saw
> samuel and he believed he would be dead the next day (even
> taking his own
> sword in hand to make sure it happened).  that the ancient israelites
> believed in some sort of existence of the soul beyond this
> life in sheol
> (and that is, after all, where this discussion began), seems
> irrefutable on
> the evidence.
>
> best
>
> jim
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Jim West, ThD
>
> Biblical Studies Resources
> http://web.infoave.net/~jwest
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew