• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Life after Death in Ancient Israel.

Levite

Higher and Higher
The Bible clearly condemns witchcraft, and talking with the dead. (Leviticus 19:31) Therefore, I believe the apparition that spoke to Saul was not Samuel, but a wicked spirit pretending to be him.

Actually, Lev. 19:31 refers to sho'alei ov v'yidoni, which has nothing to do with either witchcraft or the dead. There are other prohibitions elsewhere in Torah that may or may not proscribe speaking with the spirits of the dead-- they definitely proscribe summoning up such spirits-- and that may or may not prohibit "witchcraft." The problem is that "witchcraft" and "sorcery" are extremely broad, generic terms, and the words used in Hebrew are extremely specific, indicating particular magical acts. So what the Torah is prohibiting is not all kinds of magic, but very certain acts; and with at least some of those terms, the definition is subject to debate.

What does seem clear, though, is that the spirit Saul had summoned to him was Samuel. There is no suggestion in the text that it was anything else. It is referred to in Hebrew simply as "Samuel," not as "the spirit of Samuel" or "the spirit" or anything else. And since the text clearly portrays this as one of Saul's great sins, it would be drastically undercut if he were being deceived by a wicked spirit. The point is that in transgressing God's commandment not to summon up the spirits of the dead, he has sinned by not only going against what God says, but by disturbing the rest of a righteous man, who deserved peace.

FWIW, also, all the commentators in Jewish tradition that I have seen appear united in believing in was, in fact, Samuel's shade.
 

Shermana

Heretic
What does seem clear, though, is that the spirit Saul had summoned to him was Samuel.

FWIW, also, all the commentators in Jewish tradition that I have seen appear united in believing in was, in fact, Samuel's shade.

^ Quoted for truth.

Basically that should effectively quash any anti-afterlife argument right then and there.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
It's hard to say precisely what the beliefs surrounding death and potential existence after were in Ancient Israel, simply because the only materials we have that deal with the concept in the Biblical Era are the documents of the Tanach.
I appreciate all the feedback. In the original OP, I did overstate my position. I have gone back and edited the OP now. I didn't mean to imply that the Ancient Hebrews never had a belief in the afterlife, or that it was something that developed only later on. Just that, at times, it may appear that groups of Hebrews (and I would say sizable groups) lacked a belief in the afterlife (or may have even been agnostic in regards to it).

I would even be so bold to say that maybe some groups of Hebrews had a lack of belief in the afterlife even from a very early time. If some Hebrews did originate from Mesopotamia, ones who had held the Epic of Gilgamesh to be important, I would say it is quite possible some Hebrews from the beginning had lacked a belief in the afterlife. It does appear (or at least one could argue), that the Sumerians (or some Sumerians) did lack a belief in the afterlife, as can be seen in the Epic of Gilgamesh

But I do agree with you that there is evidence they also had a belief in an afterlife. I just don't think it was a belief that was constant, or all held onto.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
^ Quoted for truth.

Basically that should effectively quash any anti-afterlife argument right then and there.
It only does such if one has the idea that the Bible is a unified piece of work, and that the beliefs presented there were continuous throughout all time. However, the Bible is not a unified work, and does contain contradictory ideas in places.
 

Shermana

Heretic
It only does such if one has the idea that the Bible is a unified piece of work, and that the beliefs presented there were continuous throughout all time. However, the Bible is not a unified work, and does contain contradictory ideas in places.

The "contradictory ideas" tend to be based on particularly controversial interpretation issues. For example, even Qoholeth is debatable as to whether its referring to the soul itself or just the body. As for the Bible being a "Complete work", while we agree it's not, you'd have to imagine that the Rabbis who compiled it might have been aware of the Theological themes enough to the point that they'd know either there is no contradiction or that there's a way to reconcile them, assuming one interprets it in such a way to promote a contradiction.

So if the issue is about whether it contradicts, then the specific issues need to be discussed to see if they truly contradict or if there's an issue with the extrapolation.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Actually, Lev. 19:31 refers to sho'alei ov v'yidoni, which has nothing to do with either witchcraft or the dead. There are other prohibitions elsewhere in Torah that may or may not proscribe speaking with the spirits of the dead-- they definitely proscribe summoning up such spirits-- and that may or may not prohibit "witchcraft." The problem is that "witchcraft" and "sorcery" are extremely broad, generic terms, and the words used in Hebrew are extremely specific, indicating particular magical acts. So what the Torah is prohibiting is not all kinds of magic, but very certain acts; and with at least some of those terms, the definition is subject to debate.

What does seem clear, though, is that the spirit Saul had summoned to him was Samuel. There is no suggestion in the text that it was anything else. It is referred to in Hebrew simply as "Samuel," not as "the spirit of Samuel" or "the spirit" or anything else. And since the text clearly portrays this as one of Saul's great sins, it would be drastically undercut if he were being deceived by a wicked spirit. The point is that in transgressing God's commandment not to summon up the spirits of the dead, he has sinned by not only going against what God says, but by disturbing the rest of a righteous man, who deserved peace.

FWIW, also, all the commentators in Jewish tradition that I have seen appear united in believing in was, in fact, Samuel's shade.

Whether one calls a person a witch, a spirit medium, or some other term, clearly the Bible condemns talking with the dead. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) If faithful Samuel were alive as a spirit, would he violate God's law and come to Saul at the behest of a wicked spirit medium? Jehovah had broken off communication with Saul after Saul became unfaithful. Would he now allow a spirit medium to force him to speak to Saul by means of dead Samuel? The answer should be obvious. Further, Saul did not see Samuel, but assumed the spirit was Samuel by the spirit medium's description. (1 Samuel 28:13,14) In this regard, Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 says: "as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all...and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun." Since that is the case, we can be sure such "spirits" are not dead persons. Rather, God said a person would be unclean and detestable who inquired of the dead. Saul himself was put to death partly for "asking of a spirit medium to make inquiry." (1 Chronicles 10:13) The demons, wicked spirits once angels, often pretend to be ghosts of dead persons to deceive people as to the condition of the dead. I believe it is for this reason the Bible roundly condemns attempting to talk with the dead.


 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
It only does such if one has the idea that the Bible is a unified piece of work, and that the beliefs presented there were continuous throughout all time. However, the Bible is not a unified work, and does contain contradictory ideas in places.

I disagree. And so does Jesus Christ. (John 17:17) He appealed to God's word as the authority for his teachings. In fact, the unity of the Bible is proof of it's divine authorship, in my opinion. Written by some 40 diverse men over a period of some 1,600 years, the Bible is remarkable in it's consistent message. (2 Timothy 3:16,17)
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
Whether one calls a person a witch, a spirit medium, or some other term, clearly the Bible condemns talking with the dead. (Deuteronomy 18:10-12)

Deuteronomy 18:10-12:

"Let there not be found within your midst one who passes his son or daughter through fire, nor a kosem kosamim, a me'onen, a menachesh, or a mechashef, or a chover chiber, a sho'el ov v'yid'oni, or a doresh 'al ha-metim. Any who do thusly are an abhorrence before YHVH, and because of this abhorrence, YHVH your God will drive them out before you: you must be pure, like YHVH your God."

First of all, it is important to understand that "passing his son or daughter through fire" is a reference to the worship of Molech, a particularly repulsive pagan god sometimes worshipped in that area, whose followers practiced child sacrifice. Thus, we understand that all the prohibitions that follow are contexted by idolatry: the magics described are absolutely forbidden when done in the service of prohibited worship of other gods. It is far less clear to what degree they are permissible if not done in the service of prohibited worship.

Second of all, as I noted before, the terms employed are not general, they are exceedingly specific.

The rough, though more precise than the usual English, translations for the words mechashef/ah, kosem, me'onen, menachesh, chover chiver, sho'el ov v'yidoni, and doresh al hametim are, respectively:

"hemomancer": which is to say, someone who casts spells or divines by means of blood magics

"diviner (by sorting methods)": which includes extispicy (divining by examining the entrails of an animal), cartomancy (divining by cards, like Tarot would be, today), silexomancy (divining by stones), stipomancy (divining by staves or sticks), and other kinds of methods for divination,

"nubilomancer": which is to say, someone who divines by examining the patterns of clouds,

"colubromancer": which is to say, someone who divines by examining the movements or tracks of snakes,

"caster of binding spells": which is to say, someone who casts spells in order to bind the will of the subject to the mastery of the caster,

"hucksters": which is to say, those who call themselves sorcerers or wizards or whatnot, but are only using tricks and chemical or hypnotic means of fooling the gullible into believing they are experiencing magic, for their own nefarious purposes,

and finally, "necromancers": which is to say, people who use magic to summon and desecrate the dead, either in body or in spirit.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether it might be permissible to summon the dead for reasons not relating to prohibited worship of other gods, clearly, summoning the dead was a legitimate concern, which was addressed in these commandments.

Why would such a commandment be given if there was no real expectation that, when summoned, the spirits of the dead would actually be compelled to appear?

In any case, it is the summoning that is prohibited-- not the act of speaking with the dead. And, indeed, there are many stories told in the Talmud and in later rabbinic literature of righteous men who were visited by dead spirits who came of their own accord, or of righteous men who happened to be in places where dead spirits were and conversed with them, and they clearly are described as not having sinned in the least. Because they did not summon up those spirits. They merely conversed with those who came to them, or upon whom they happened by accident.

If faithful Samuel were alive as a spirit, would he violate God's law and come to Saul at the behest of a wicked spirit medium?

I think the idea is that he had no choice: the reason that spirit necromancy is forbidden is because it compels an unwilling spirit to leave wherever it might be and appear before the necromancer in the world of the living.

Jehovah had broken off communication with Saul after Saul became unfaithful. Would he now allow a spirit medium to force him to speak to Saul by means of dead Samuel?

God has nothing to do with it. Samuel spoke for himself, giving no new message from God to Saul. He only describes what God did, and what God is about to do. And what God is about to do can hardly be surprising to Saul-- he seems to have had Samuel called up specifically because that is the outcome of the current situation he feels worried will occur.

Further, Saul did not see Samuel, but assumed the spirit was Samuel by the spirit medium's description. (1 Samuel 28:13,14)

The medium does not describe Samuel as Samuel. Saul specifically asks her to raise up the spirit of Samuel (28:11). And the text itself, in narrating, consistently refers to the spirit as "Samuel." Not "the spirit of Samuel," not "the spirit," not "the wicked spirit pretending to be Samuel." Explicitly as "Samuel."

In this regard, Ecclesiastes 9:5,6 says: "as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all...and they have no portion anymore to time indefinite in anything that has to be done under the sun." Since that is the case, we can be sure such "spirits" are not dead persons.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
כי החיים יודעים שימתו והמתים אינם יודעים מאומה ואין עוד להם שכר כי נשכח זכרם׃ גם אהבתם גם שנאתם גם קנאתם כבר אבדה וחלק אין להם עוד לעולם בכל אשר נעשה תחת השמש׃
"For the living know their joy, but the dead know no such thing, nor have no more reward, for the remembrance of them is lost: neither the love they felt, nor the hate, nor the passion-- all have already been destroyed, and they have no further interest in this world, in anything that occurs under the sun."

What Ecclesiastes is describing is that the dead are no longer alive, and thus have no connection to the world of the living, nor any mortal feeling that might tie them to it, for they are not subject any longer to the same conditions in which we, the living, dwell.

This is one example of why it is generally a bad idea to make theology based on translated text, rather than the original: the translation may be inaccurate.

The demons, wicked spirits once angels, often pretend to be ghosts of dead persons to deceive people as to the condition of the dead.
[/quote]

Judaism doesn't believe in fallen angels. To the degree that it has accepted a belief in demons, they had a fairly narrow purview permitted them in terms of deceiving humanity, and all were bound to obey God. Nothing in the Tanach, nothing in Rabbinic Literature, has ever suggested that demons can or will impersonate the spirits of the dead.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Judaism doesn't believe in fallen angels.
As much as I agree with your post above, I think I've seen reference to the "old" Enochian interpretation of Genesis 6 with the Fallen Angels, not like it would validate this silly notion f that the Spirits of the dead are really such beings in disguise.

Giants - public

And it seems there are some Talmudic passages that indeed refer to the "Classical" interpretation of Genesis 6. Can you provide input on what this says?

The Talmud [Yoma 67b] states that the rite of Azazel on Yom Kipur is so called because it obtains atonement for the affair of Uzza and Azael.... Rambam ... concludes that the interpretation that best fits the text is that of 'the Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol] which refers this to the angels 'fallen' from heaven, as discussed in Yoma 67b, but it requires length delving into the mysteries of this subject.' See Note 1 at the bottom.

Meam Loez quotes Talmudic tractate Nidah 61a that saying that "Og was a son of Shamchazai, one of the two angels who were cast down from heavin in the time of Enosh. These are the fallen angels described in the Torah." The other angel was Uziel, who "went and enticed men to sin through perfumes and jewelry.... He married a woman called Naamah and had children. These gave rise to "shedim" (demons) which appeared to people at night. These giants believed they were so tall that even a flood would not drown them, and thus God caused boiling hot water to come out of the ground during the flood.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Deuteronomy 18:10-12:

"Let there not be found within your midst one who passes his son or daughter through fire, nor a kosem kosamim, a me'onen, a menachesh, or a mechashef, or a chover chiber, a sho'el ov v'yid'oni, or a doresh 'al ha-metim. Any who do thusly are an abhorrence before YHVH, and because of this abhorrence, YHVH your God will drive them out before you: you must be pure, like YHVH your God."

First of all, it is important to understand that "passing his son or daughter through fire" is a reference to the worship of Molech, a particularly repulsive pagan god sometimes worshipped in that area, whose followers practiced child sacrifice. Thus, we understand that all the prohibitions that follow are contexted by idolatry: the magics described are absolutely forbidden when done in the service of prohibited worship of other gods. It is far less clear to what degree they are permissible if not done in the service of prohibited worship.

Second of all, as I noted before, the terms employed are not general, they are exceedingly specific.

The rough, though more precise than the usual English, translations for the words mechashef/ah, kosem, me'onen, menachesh, chover chiver, sho'el ov v'yidoni, and doresh al hametim are, respectively:

"hemomancer": which is to say, someone who casts spells or divines by means of blood magics

"diviner (by sorting methods)": which includes extispicy (divining by examining the entrails of an animal), cartomancy (divining by cards, like Tarot would be, today), silexomancy (divining by stones), stipomancy (divining by staves or sticks), and other kinds of methods for divination,

"nubilomancer": which is to say, someone who divines by examining the patterns of clouds,

"colubromancer": which is to say, someone who divines by examining the movements or tracks of snakes,

"caster of binding spells": which is to say, someone who casts spells in order to bind the will of the subject to the mastery of the caster,

"hucksters": which is to say, those who call themselves sorcerers or wizards or whatnot, but are only using tricks and chemical or hypnotic means of fooling the gullible into believing they are experiencing magic, for their own nefarious purposes,

and finally, "necromancers": which is to say, people who use magic to summon and desecrate the dead, either in body or in spirit.

Leaving aside, for the moment, the question of whether it might be permissible to summon the dead for reasons not relating to prohibited worship of other gods, clearly, summoning the dead was a legitimate concern, which was addressed in these commandments.

Why would such a commandment be given if there was no real expectation that, when summoned, the spirits of the dead would actually be compelled to appear?

In any case, it is the summoning that is prohibited-- not the act of speaking with the dead. And, indeed, there are many stories told in the Talmud and in later rabbinic literature of righteous men who were visited by dead spirits who came of their own accord, or of righteous men who happened to be in places where dead spirits were and conversed with them, and they clearly are described as not having sinned in the least. Because they did not summon up those spirits. They merely conversed with those who came to them, or upon whom they happened by accident.



I think the idea is that he had no choice: the reason that spirit necromancy is forbidden is because it compels an unwilling spirit to leave wherever it might be and appear before the necromancer in the world of the living.



God has nothing to do with it. Samuel spoke for himself, giving no new message from God to Saul. He only describes what God did, and what God is about to do. And what God is about to do can hardly be surprising to Saul-- he seems to have had Samuel called up specifically because that is the outcome of the current situation he feels worried will occur.



The medium does not describe Samuel as Samuel. Saul specifically asks her to raise up the spirit of Samuel (28:11). And the text itself, in narrating, consistently refers to the spirit as "Samuel." Not "the spirit of Samuel," not "the spirit," not "the wicked spirit pretending to be Samuel." Explicitly as "Samuel."



Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
כי החיים יודעים שימתו והמתים אינם יודעים מאומה ואין עוד להם שכר כי נשכח זכרם׃ גם אהבתם גם שנאתם גם קנאתם כבר אבדה וחלק אין להם עוד לעולם בכל אשר נעשה תחת השמש׃
"For the living know their joy, but the dead know no such thing, nor have no more reward, for the remembrance of them is lost: neither the love they felt, nor the hate, nor the passion-- all have already been destroyed, and they have no further interest in this world, in anything that occurs under the sun."

What Ecclesiastes is describing is that the dead are no longer alive, and thus have no connection to the world of the living, nor any mortal feeling that might tie them to it, for they are not subject any longer to the same conditions in which we, the living, dwell.

This is one example of why it is generally a bad idea to make theology based on translated text, rather than the original: the translation may be inaccurate.

Judaism doesn't believe in fallen angels. To the degree that it has accepted a belief in demons, they had a fairly narrow purview permitted them in terms of deceiving humanity, and all were bound to obey God. Nothing in the Tanach, nothing in Rabbinic Literature, has ever suggested that demons can or will impersonate the spirits of the dead.[/quote]

The Bible does not support your ideas about talking with the dead. As Psalm 115:17 shows, the dead do not praise Jah, and associates death with silence. Samuel did speak God's word as God's prophet when alive. Regarding the spirit that leaves the body at death, this is simply the life-force and has no ability to think. As Psalm 146:4 states regarding those who die, "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish." Ecclesiastes 9:5 says: "as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all." Isaiah 8:19,20 adds "Should there be application to dead persons in behalf of living persons?...Surely they will keep saying what is according to this statement that will have no light of dawn."
I believe your claim that speaking with the dead is not condemned by Deut. 18:10-12 is simply mistaken. That scripture reads "There should not be found in you..anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah." This prohibition is all inclusive, as is the prohibition of burning one's children to any false god.
The Torah supports the fact that angelic sons of God cohabited with women before the Flood. (Genesis 6:1-4) Later on, the Israelites worshipped these demons. (Deuteronomy 32:17) It is for this very reason God gave his people warnings about such practices as "divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. (Deut. 18:10,11)


 

Shermana

Heretic
The Bible does not support your ideas about talking with the dead. As Psalm 115:17 shows, the dead do not praise Jah, and associates death with silence.

How are they supposed to praise Yah in the Spirit world to begin with? Do they have vocal chords?

Samuel did speak God's word as God's prophet when alive. Regarding the spirit that leaves the body at death, this is simply the life-force and has no ability to think.

I agree that they cannot "think" the same way we do but I believe they have their own form of perception as well as ability to communicate, which the text plainly says about Samuel.
As Psalm 146:4 states regarding those who die, "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish."

His body is what goes to the ground after his Spirit goes out.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 says: "as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all."

Besides the fact that Qoholeth's inclusion remains disputable to this day, the interpretation of such is at question, it could just be referring to the physical corpse.
Isaiah 8:19,20 adds "Should there be application to dead persons in behalf of living persons?...Surely they will keep saying what is according to this statement that will have no light of dawn."

That in no way demonstrates they aren't floating around in Sheol.

I believe your claim that speaking with the dead is not condemned by Deut. 18:10-12 is simply mistaken. That scripture reads "There should not be found in you..anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah." This prohibition is all inclusive, as is the prohibition of burning one's children to any false god.

It wouldn't say to not speak to "Spirits of the dead" if it weren't possible to do so.

The Torah supports the fact that angelic sons of God cohabited with women before the Flood. (Genesis 6:1-4) Later on, the Israelites worshipped these demons. (Deuteronomy 32:17) It is for this very reason God gave his people warnings about such practices as "divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. (Deut. 18:10,11)

"Spirit medium" means that there are Spirits that can be channeled through a Medium. Just because there are Demons doesn't mean that all the above mentioned are demons, what you have presented is a false syllogism of sorts. Just because there are demons, does not mean that all the things prohibited in above are demons alone.

 

Levite

Higher and Higher
JThe Bible does not support your ideas about talking with the dead. As Psalm 115:17 shows, the dead do not praise Jah, and associates death with silence.

That has nothing to do with speaking to the dead. It simply says that the dead do not sing praises to God.

Regarding the spirit that leaves the body at death, this is simply the life-force and has no ability to think.

I know of no basis in text or tradition to make that statement.

As Psalm 146:4 states regarding those who die, "His spirit goes out, he goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish."
Again, not translated well:

תצא רוחו ישב לאדמתו ביום ההוא אבדו עשתנתיו׃
"Their breath leaves them, they return to their earth, and that time, their deeds are destroyed."

The verse simply means that when people die, the things they built in life begin to decay and pass into memory.

Ecclesiastes 9:5 says: "as for the dead, they are conscious of nothing at all."
Once again, I already noted above that your translation is inaccurate:

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
כי החיים יודעים שימתו והמתים אינם יודעים מאומה ואין עוד להם שכר כי נשכח זכרם׃ גם אהבתם גם שנאתם גם קנאתם כבר אבדה וחלק אין להם עוד לעולם בכל אשר נעשה תחת השמש׃
"For the living know their joy, but the dead know no such thing, nor have no more reward, for the remembrance of them is lost: neither the love they felt, nor the hate, nor the passion-- all have already been destroyed, and they have no further interest in this world, in anything that occurs under the sun."

What Ecclesiastes is describing is that the dead are no longer alive, and thus have no connection to the world of the living, nor any mortal feeling that might tie them to it, for they are not subject any longer to the same conditions in which we, the living, dwell.

Isaiah 8:19,20 adds "Should there be application to dead persons in behalf of living persons?...Surely they will keep saying what is according to this statement that will have no light of dawn."
I already noted above that sho'alei or dor'shei ov v'yidoni does not mean consulting spirits of the dead. It refers to hucksters and charlatans who claim prophetic or supernatural knowledge falsely, in order to defraud people.

Also, those verses already are mistranslated:
וכי יאמרו אליכם דרשו אל האבות ואל הידענים המצפצפים והמהגים הלוא עם אל אלהיו ידרש בעד החיים אל המתים׃ לתורה ולתעודה אם לא יאמרו כדבר הזה אשר אין לו שחר׃
"When they say to you, "Seek the ov and yidoni, who twitter and mutter: should not a people seek out their gods on behalf of the living, from the dead?" By Torah and by testimony, if they do not say something like this, there will be no dawn!"

The last verse is poetic and idiomatic, and therefore is almost inevitably mistranslated, since most translations have no ear for poetry, and ignore idiomatic usage altogether.

I believe your claim that speaking with the dead is not condemned by Deut. 18:10-12 is simply mistaken. That scripture reads "There should not be found in you..anyone who inquires of the dead. For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah." This prohibition is all inclusive, as is the prohibition of burning one's children to any false god.
I already pointed out that that's not what it actually says. You're basing your theological presumptions on a flawed translation. Repeatedly, it would seem.

The Torah supports the fact that angelic sons of God cohabited with women before the Flood. (Genesis 6:1-4)
B'nai Elohim (lit. "children of God" doesn't mean actual divine or supernatural beings. It means powerful people who worshipped God. Using b'nai in the sense of "followers" or "community" is a common colloquialism in Biblical Hebrew. Nefilim are not falled angels or angelic beings of any kind, they were particularly large and strong people, who were called Nefilim ("fallers-down") because the sight of them made people's hearts fall within them. It's a poetic term.


It is for this very reason God gave his people warnings about such practices as "divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events or anyone who inquires of the dead. (Deut. 18:10,11)
Again, not properly translated. That is just not what the original means. You can derive any kind of theology and metaphysics you like from a translation, but you consistently risk error due to flaws in translation. And when the translation is poor-- as most of them are-- the errors will be frequent, and compound one another.
 

Shermana

Heretic
B'nai Elohim (lit. "children of God" doesn't mean actual divine or supernatural beings. It means powerful people who worshipped God. Using b'nai in the sense of "followers" or "community" is a common colloquialism in Biblical Hebrew. Nefilim are not falled angels or angelic beings of any kind, they were particularly large and strong people, who were called Nefilim ("fallers-down") because the sight of them made people's hearts fall within them. It's a poetic term.

Levite, could I get a comment on those Talmud verses I posted?
 

Levite

Higher and Higher
As much as I agree with your post above, I think I've seen reference to the "old" Enochian interpretation of Genesis 6 with the Fallen Angels, not like it would validate this silly notion f that the Spirits of the dead are really such beings in disguise.

http://www.basicsofjudaism.com/midrash-secrets/giantsAnd it seems there are some Talmudic passages that indeed refer to the "Classical" interpretation of Genesis 6. Can you provide input on what this says?

The Talmud [Yoma 67b] states that the rite of Azazel on Yom Kipur is so called because it obtains atonement for the affair of Uzza and Azael.... Rambam ... concludes that the interpretation that best fits the text is that of 'the Midrash of Rabbi Eliezer HaGadol] which refers this to the angels 'fallen' from heaven, as discussed in Yoma 67b, but it requires length delving into the mysteries of this subject.'

Meam Loez quotes Talmudic tractate Nidah 61a that saying that "Og was a son of Shamchazai, one of the two angels who were cast down from heavin in the time of Enosh. These are the fallen angels described in the Torah." The other angel was Uziel, who "went and enticed men to sin through perfumes and jewelry.... He married a woman called Naamah and had children. These gave rise to "shedim" (demons) which appeared to people at night. These giants believed they were so tall that even a flood would not drown them, and thus God caused boiling hot water to come out of the ground during the flood.


At the time that the two sugiyot in question (on Yoma 67b and Niddah 61a) were composed, there was still some popular currency to the non-canonical apocalyptic works of the late Second Temple Period. Rabbis can be just as subject as anyone else to literary and philosophical fads.

These are excellent examples of individual Rabbis expressing personal opinions, or playing with midrashic ideas, which were fair game at that time, and in succeeding times, as the theological and metaphysical understandings of Judaism became clearer, those ideas either fell at the wayside or were rejected forecefully from the tradition, in that they were shown to be incompatible with things of importance.

One of the reasons that Talmud study is so difficult, and requires so many clarificatory commentaries, and such extensive teaching, is that one must sort through a lot of material, compiled over a lot of time, which includes both material that is legal, fundamental, and fixed, and also material which is not legal but midrashic, and is not necessarily fundamental, and is not in any way fixed in terms of dogmatism or canon or what have you. And one must learn to recognize the difference.
 

Tbone

Member
Recently, I have been researching and writing a book on suffering. Throughout my research, I have spent a considerable amount of time on the wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible (especially Job). For me, this is some of the most interesting aspects of the Hebrew Bible, and I think it is also a portion that many tend to skip over.

Throughout my research, one thing kept sticking out though. That is the lack of belief in an afterlife. Such a stance causes problems in regards to why people suffer. Unlike the commonly held belief of many Christians, which holds that one is rewarded in the afterlife, which justifies suffering in this life.

Yet, when dealing with the topic of suffering in the Hebrew Bible, we get a very different pictures. For instance, in the story of Job, Job states that we only have this one life to live. The implication is that after we die, it is all done.

However, even with Job, it is not quite that easy. In Job 14:13 we actually catch a glimpse of Job hoping for an afterlife. Contrary to the common idea at that time, Job speculates on a vague possibility that he may live again. However, Job quickly brushes away such an idea, and accepts what was the common thought at that time: when you died you died (which is the general idea portrayed in Job, as Solomon Freehof points out in his commentary on Job). As Raymond Scheindlin writes in his commentary of Job, even though Job has a vision of an afterlife, it is quickly dismissed, as he knew there was no afterlife.

It is not just in Job that we see this suggestion that the life we have now is the only life there is. Qoheleth is another great example of this doubt in an after life. Chapter 3:19-21 states that we all die, and return to dust, just like animals do. In death, there really is no difference between humans and other animals, as we all go to the same place (we turn into dust). As Kathleen O'Connor points out, the author did not have the benefit of a notion in life after death. In fact, such a notion doesn't appear until the very end of the OT period. For those who observed death, all just returned from where they came, the Earth (as in dust to dust).

So there is no need for a belief in an afterlife to explain anything, even within religious traditions.


Edit** I just want to make it clear that what I'm saying here isn't true of all Israelites, throughout all history. I'm talking about a specific period of time, which would be around the time in which this wisdom literature was written. As briefly alluded to, later on, a different notion did form, one of an after life (which throughout the Bible, takes on different forms).

You read Job and missed the part about the resurrection? :shrug:
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
You read Job and missed the part about the resurrection? :shrug:

Can you specifically point it out? Chapter and verse?

The only time I recall Job mentioning resurrection was during some wishful thinking, and then rescinding on that idea. I do touch on that in my OP.
 

allright

Active Member
no life after death in the old testament ?

i suppose then when God took Enoch, it means he took him and buried him

and Elijah went up to Heaven in God's chariot only to be dropped in a grave

and when Samuel rebuked Saul for calling him up he meant he preferred to not exist
 
Last edited:

idav

Being
Premium Member
Recently, I have been researching and writing a book on suffering. Throughout my research, I have spent a considerable amount of time on the wisdom literature in the Hebrew Bible (especially Job). For me, this is some of the most interesting aspects of the Hebrew Bible, and I think it is also a portion that many tend to skip over.

Throughout my research, one thing kept sticking out though. That is the lack of belief in an afterlife. Such a stance causes problems in regards to why people suffer. Unlike the commonly held belief of many Christians, which holds that one is rewarded in the afterlife, which justifies suffering in this life.

Yet, when dealing with the topic of suffering in the Hebrew Bible, we get a very different pictures. For instance, in the story of Job, Job states that we only have this one life to live. The implication is that after we die, it is all done.

However, even with Job, it is not quite that easy. In Job 14:13 we actually catch a glimpse of Job hoping for an afterlife. Contrary to the common idea at that time, Job speculates on a vague possibility that he may live again. However, Job quickly brushes away such an idea, and accepts what was the common thought at that time: when you died you died (which is the general idea portrayed in Job, as Solomon Freehof points out in his commentary on Job). As Raymond Scheindlin writes in his commentary of Job, even though Job has a vision of an afterlife, it is quickly dismissed, as he knew there was no afterlife.

It is not just in Job that we see this suggestion that the life we have now is the only life there is. Qoheleth is another great example of this doubt in an after life. Chapter 3:19-21 states that we all die, and return to dust, just like animals do. In death, there really is no difference between humans and other animals, as we all go to the same place (we turn into dust). As Kathleen O'Connor points out, the author did not have the benefit of a notion in life after death. In fact, such a notion doesn't appear until the very end of the OT period. For those who observed death, all just returned from where they came, the Earth (as in dust to dust).

So there is no need for a belief in an afterlife to explain anything, even within religious traditions.


Edit** I just want to make it clear that what I'm saying here isn't true of all Israelites, throughout all history. I'm talking about a specific period of time, which would be around the time in which this wisdom literature was written. As briefly alluded to, later on, a different notion did form, one of an after life (which throughout the Bible, takes on different forms).
The story is better when there isn't some promise of afterlife. Really makes me question how much devotion he gave to this God that was troubling the one life he will live. A big aspect of the story is that he did it out of love and not because he expected to come out rich in the end.
 

rusra02

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That has nothing to do with speaking to the dead. It simply says that the dead do not sing praises to God.



I know of no basis in text or tradition to make that statement.

Again, not translated well:

תצא רוחו ישב לאדמתו ביום ההוא אבדו עשתנתיו׃
"Their breath leaves them, they return to their earth, and that time, their deeds are destroyed."

The verse simply means that when people die, the things they built in life begin to decay and pass into memory.

Once again, I already noted above that your translation is inaccurate:

Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
כי החיים יודעים שימתו והמתים אינם יודעים מאומה ואין עוד להם שכר כי נשכח זכרם׃ גם אהבתם גם שנאתם גם קנאתם כבר אבדה וחלק אין להם עוד לעולם בכל אשר נעשה תחת השמש׃
"For the living know their joy, but the dead know no such thing, nor have no more reward, for the remembrance of them is lost: neither the love they felt, nor the hate, nor the passion-- all have already been destroyed, and they have no further interest in this world, in anything that occurs under the sun."

What Ecclesiastes is describing is that the dead are no longer alive, and thus have no connection to the world of the living, nor any mortal feeling that might tie them to it, for they are not subject any longer to the same conditions in which we, the living, dwell.

I already noted above that sho'alei or dor'shei ov v'yidoni does not mean consulting spirits of the dead. It refers to hucksters and charlatans who claim prophetic or supernatural knowledge falsely, in order to defraud people.

Also, those verses already are mistranslated:
וכי יאמרו אליכם דרשו אל האבות ואל הידענים המצפצפים והמהגים הלוא עם אל אלהיו ידרש בעד החיים אל המתים׃ לתורה ולתעודה אם לא יאמרו כדבר הזה אשר אין לו שחר׃
"When they say to you, "Seek the ov and yidoni, who twitter and mutter: should not a people seek out their gods on behalf of the living, from the dead?" By Torah and by testimony, if they do not say something like this, there will be no dawn!"

The last verse is poetic and idiomatic, and therefore is almost inevitably mistranslated, since most translations have no ear for poetry, and ignore idiomatic usage altogether.

I already pointed out that that's not what it actually says. You're basing your theological presumptions on a flawed translation. Repeatedly, it would seem.

B'nai Elohim (lit. "children of God" doesn't mean actual divine or supernatural beings. It means powerful people who worshipped God. Using b'nai in the sense of "followers" or "community" is a common colloquialism in Biblical Hebrew. Nefilim are not falled angels or angelic beings of any kind, they were particularly large and strong people, who were called Nefilim ("fallers-down") because the sight of them made people's hearts fall within them. It's a poetic term.


Again, not properly translated. That is just not what the original means. You can derive any kind of theology and metaphysics you like from a translation, but you consistently risk error due to flaws in translation. And when the translation is poor-- as most of them are-- the errors will be frequent, and compound one another.

Your claim that these verses are "not properly translated" is special pleading.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
no life after death in the old testament ?

i suppose then when God took Enoch, it means he took him and buried him

and Elijah went up to Heaven in God's chariot only to be dropped in a grave

and when Samuel rebuked Saul for calling him up he meant he preferred to not exist
Read the OP again. I never said there was no life after death in the Old Testament. So your argument here is meaningless.
 
Top