Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <Yigal-Levin AT utc.edu>]

Friends,

I've been following this thread with some ammusement, but now I have to get
my two perutot in:

>At 06:37 AM 2/8/2003 +1000, Lew Osborne wrote:
>Concerning the belief of the Hebrews in Spirits and immortal souls, this
>was not held by the Hebrews in early times. It did however become part of
>their belief system by some after the captivity.

While this is often claimed by scholars, just what WAS supposed to exist in
Sheol?


>
>The incident with Saul and the witch of endour was very much a happening
>that was a put on by the woman, Saul did not see any thing, Saul stood head
>and shoulders above every man in the land, she knew who he was just as she
>knew who he wanted to be 'brought forth' she conjured up a myth.

C'mon! We have no way of knowing what either the lady or Saul "saw" or
"believed". The only thing that we DO know is what the author of 1 Samuel
presumed. He certainly does not seem to be saying that the woman was a
charlatan. He presumed that the idea of the woman bringing Samuel "up" to
deliver YHWH's message to Saul, as well as the idea that only the woman
could actualy "see" Samuel (which is why WE would call her a "medium"),
would both be perfectly reasonable to the intended audience of 1 Samuel -
persumably either Late Monarchic or Early Post-Exilic Judahites.


Dr. Yigal Levin
Dept. of Philosophy and Religion
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga
615 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga TN 37403-2598
U.S.A.
>From dwashbur AT nyx.net  Fri Feb  7 17:14:28 2003
Return-Path: <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
Delivered-To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Received: from scanmail4.cableone.net (scanmail4.cableone.net [24.116.0.124])
        by happyhouse.metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF2D720043
        for <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>;
        Fri,  7 Feb 2003 17:14:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from scanmail4.cableone.net ([10.116.0.124]) by
        scanmail4.cableone.net  with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.687.68);
        Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:14:32 -0700
Received: from scanmail4.cableone.net [24.116.0.124] by scanmail4.cableone.net
  (SMTPD32-7.04) id AFC810DE0346; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:14:32 -0700
Received: from daddy (24-117-116-81.cpe.cableone.net [24.117.116.81]) by
        mail.cableone.net with SMTP (MailShield v2.04 - WIN32 Jul 17 2001 
17:12:42);
        Fri, 07 Feb 2003 15:14:32 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
From: Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] [b-hebrew nefarious nefesh
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 15:06:47 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.4.3
References: <NFBBKDEKJBKDMCGCFJNKCEJHELAA.lizfried AT umich.edu>
In-Reply-To: <NFBBKDEKJBKDMCGCFJNKCEJHELAA.lizfried AT umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <200302071506.47783.dwashbur AT nyx.net>
X-SMTP-HELO: daddy
X-SMTP-MAIL-FROM: dwashbur AT nyx.net
X-SMTP-PEER-INFO: 24-117-116-81.cpe.cableone.net [24.117.116.81]
X-BeenThere: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: A forum on the Hebrew Bible, its language and interpretation
 <b-hebrew.lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/b-hebrew>
List-Post: <mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
List-Help: <mailto:sympa AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=HELP>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman-2.1/listinfo/b-hebrew>,
        <mailto:b-hebrew-request AT lists.ibiblio.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:14:29 -0000

On Friday 07 February 2003 12:25, Lisbeth S. Fried wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>  In any event, her use of Elohim should make
>
> > it clear that
> > she is not claiming she saw nothing more than a reincarnation
> > of Samuel in
> > his regular old body.
>
> Dear Dave,
> It's not a *reincarnation*. That would imply that at one point
> he didn't have a body, and now had one. The point is that
> he rose out of the ground in the form he had under the ground.
> That form wore a cloak.

She saw him in the form that was familiar to those who had known him; the=
=20
"cloak" was the mantle of the prophet.  I don't understand why you're so =
hung=20
up on this.  Was an apparition supposed to appear naked?  This doesn't ma=
ke=20
sense.  We're back to the hallucinated duck.  If it's not really corporea=
l,=20
does that mean it should appear without feathers?  You're not making your=
=20
case.  A disembodied being capable of appearing in apparition form to som=
eone=20
would presumably be able to take any form it wanted.  You're trying to de=
fine=20
the whole idea out of existence, and it's not working.  Samuel was visibl=
e,=20
but only to one person.  A garment is described,  but it's the specific=20
garment that identified a prophet.  It's ridiculous to take that statemen=
t=20
and insist that it MUST have been a *physical* body of some sort with a=20
*physical* mantle.  Once again, this is pushing literalism to the point o=
f=20
absurdity.

> She saw gods coming out, i.e, she saw immortal beings.
> Beings that were still living --in their body -- after they had died.

It doesn't say that.  Once again you're injecting your own assumptions in=
to=20
the text.

> I hadn't thought about the plural verb.
> Someone must have accompanied Samuel.
> The Hebrew bible does not know of disembodied spirits or
> of disembodied gods or God.

Once again, we're back to the circular reasoning.  The Hebrew Bible doesn=
't=20
know anything about these things, therefore the vision of Samuel couldn't=
=20
have been one.  But the vision of Samuel wasn't one, therefore the Hebrew=
=20
Bible doesn't know anything about these things.  You've invested all this=
=20
energy and gotten absolutely nowhere.  You're welcome to your view, but i=
t's=20
nothing more than an unsupported opinion that is actually contrary to the=
=20
plain sense of the text.

> I suspect the NT doesn't either until you get to G. John.

Since the letters of Paul are much earlier than John, this statement is=20
equally absurd.

--=20
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur