So, some Jehovah's witness knocked on my door...

[KLP]

Using David since he in unencumbered by the Babylon, Rome, Greek influences, did King David think that his dead infant son was alive in the spirit realm and that he would eventually be re-united with him? If so, when did the infant son gain this soul/spirit component? Did David hope and think that he would be eternally with God?

I think these are sort of rhetorical questions based on the text. And I think David has a definite notion of individual and identifiably separate souls. I understand that the Jews have held different views and may even so today think differently from what David thought about this topic.

I agree with your comment about breath and like the term "gave up the ghost" and "breathed his last", the idea was definitely that the life spirit was breathed and at death one breathed it out.

[agricola]

Using David since he in unencumbered by the Babylon, Rome, Greek influences, did King David think that his dead infant son was alive in the spirit realm and that he would eventually be re-united with him? If so, when did the infant son gain this soul/spirit component? Did David hope and think that he would be eternally with God?

I do not believe he expected that. As soon as the child died, David was up and around and resuming his life. He said there was no longer any point in praying because the child was dead/gone. I don't see any hint that the expected anything different - perhaps he believed they would be reunited after he himself died in some nebulous spirit world, but I don't think that is discernible from the text.

I think these are sort of rhetorical questions based on the text. And I think David has a definite notion of individual and identifiably separate souls. I understand that the Jews have held different views and may even so today think differently from what David thought about this topic.

I agree with your comment about breath and like the term "gave up the ghost" and "breathed his last", the idea was definitely that the life spirit was breathed and at death one breathed it out.

Judaism isn't exactly big on 'believing exactly correctly 'about much of anything (except the one-ness of God and the importance of the revelation at Sinai - and even the exact meaning of that is up for discussion). And BECAUSE there is no 'official doctrine' about souls, after life and so forth (except that there IS one), there are ideas all over the place (and none is 'official').
Plus there's the additional complication that not all Jews necessarily believe everything 'Judaism teaches'. Mostly because one of the main things Judaism teaches is 'question everything!'

The current main thinking on 'souls' is that, at base, all souls are gifts of God, and a soul/body together make up a person. There are children's stories about how when you are asleep, your soul leaves and goes to heaven and hangs out, or writes all your doings in a record book. Prayers around bedtime ask angels to guard your sleep. There's a notion that it might be possible that your soul could get lost, or intercepted, before returning to your body - and so sleeping is a perilous thing because the body/soul connection is 'thinned'. The traditional morning prayer thanks God for RETURNING one's soul.

the prayerbook (which is a great source for understanding what Judaism actually believes) indicates that God sustains the living (keeps us alive, provides what we need) and that God gives life to the dead (I should quote that: 'gives life to the dead'). God keeps faith with those who sleep in dust (the dead). What exactly do those phrases mean? They have been interpreted over many centuries in different manners, but basically they are an expression of trust that God will not forget us, ever.

During the High Holy Day services, this same prayer has some interesting additions - (bear in mind that the theme of the HHD's is God's judgment over all) - here's some of the added phrases:

Remember us that we may live...

In mercy, You remember Your creatures with life.

Faithful are You in giving life to the dead.

(the first prayerbook was assembled before 1000 CE, and this prayer is the oldest in it, and is quoted in part in the Talmud, which dates back at least as early as 300 CE - so I think this approach can be taken as both authoritative and dating back to Second Temple times).

And then there are other references - like Psalms (these are popular or liturgical songs and prayers - unlike Christianity, Judaism does not consider these 'inspired word of God' level material - but they do reflect what was likely the common understanding. Psalms typically date to some period during First Temple times - about 900 to 600 BCE.

Ps 115 -
The dead cannot praise the Lord, nor can those who go down to silence (also 'the dead' - Hebrew poetry doesn't use rhyming words, but instead typically uses coupled phrases meaning the same thing).

Some of the Psalms may have been by David, some others were written according to his authorization - and they date much closer to David's time than anything else.

[KLP]

When David says he can't bring the child back but that he can go to him, I think it means he expects to someday go to and exist in the same "place" as that child....not that he will be dead all over like the infant and have they will just have their bones co-located in a super nice box. A number of times David speaks about the desire to eventually dwell and be with the Lord or in the house of the Lord. And I do not think that means having his bones in a nice box near the church building.

But, it sounds like we are in agreement that each person has and/or includes a soul or some spirit thingy.

[B.H.]

Foy Wallace would have to have a talk to some of them ancient Jews wouldn't he.

[agricola]

When David says he can't bring the child back but that he can go to him, I think it means he expects to someday go to and exist in the same "place" as that child....not that he will be dead all over like the infant and have they will just have their bones co-located in a super nice box. A number of times David speaks about the desire to eventually dwell and be with the Lord or in the house of the Lord. And I do not think that means having his bones in a nice box near the church building.

But, it sounds like we are in agreement that each person has and/or includes a soul or some spirit thingy.

Yes I think you are right. David will someday die - and his consciousness will be 'with God' (in the house of the Lord) along with all the other dead. That would be the 'soul' which is (re)united with God after the death of the material body. I would say that sounds like a reasonable 'afterlife' belief. However, it is not the same as a belief in RESURRECTION which is definitely the renewed PHYSICAL life - the bringing back of the body/soul as an entity.

David isn't expected to be 'resurrected'. He is expecting to die and have his 'life-stuff' return to God who gave it. He also apparently expects to be aware of that happening, but that isn't truly clear - I think it is reasonable though.

It is this sort of statement (from the section Jews term 'the Prophets' which include the prophetic and historical books) which assists the Pharisaic movement in their doctrine of life after death, and 'resurrection' - later on.

Here's some NT context:

Paul Before the Sanhedrin
…7As he said this, there occurred a dissension between the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. 8For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, nor an angel, nor a spirit, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all. 9And there occurred a great uproar; and some of the scribes of the Pharisaic party stood up and began to argue heatedly, saying, "We find nothing wrong with this man; suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?"…
Cross References
Matthew 22:23
That same day the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.

Mark 12:18
Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question.

Luke 20:27
Some of the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to Jesus with a question.

Acts 23:7
When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided.

1 Corinthians 15:12
But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?

[margin overa]

It's always a good thing for us as readers to be continually aware that language and culture and cultural expectations are in constant flux, and that we are reading ancient books with contemporary eyes. The Greek, Roman, and indeed pagan cultures spoke of spirits or gods living "forever", and not even "forever" can be taken to mean "on and on infinitely". The gods themselves were susceptible of destruction or death, or at least diminished life.

As far as David goes, could he have meant reuniting with a dead child in the afterlife? That's certainly possible. As agricola points out, there wasn't agreement in David's time or in Jesus' time on interpretation of afterlives or the final destination of the soul. There are expectations contemporary mainstream Christianity has about heaven and hell that I believe would puzzle even those first century Christians (apparently, a number of whom believed in Christ's imminent return to earth - they were no better at predicting it than Harold Camping).

Needless to say, such considerations don't fly in most conservative evangelical churches.

[Lev]

Enjoying the conversation.

I wonder if we might be making an assumption about the 'having' of (or 'being') a soul. Does the possibility of life after death necessarily imply that there's an invisible, spiritual part of us now, separate from our bodies and minds? Perhaps it does if you take the "I'll fly away" (sorry to keep using that song title as my go-to descriptor, not trying to create an earworm) view of a disembodied heaven, but I'm not sure the Bible requires it. As Agricola pointed out, at least in the OT, 'soul' is basically equated with 'life' (via the concept of 'breath'). Does the Bible present any evidence that this consciousness (soul, life, breath) lives apart from its body (or a body)?

I'm also very interested in the development of the idea of an afterlife. Again, Agricola points out that the concept was unheard-of in the early OT, quite vague at David's time, and controversial and unsettled at Jesus' time. Where did it come from? If it's of God, did God send a prophet (whose words weren't written down) to explain it to people? Is it a natural outgrowth of the human condition? I'm not challenging the truth of the afterlife--I believe in it, hopefully correctly--I just wonder about how we got it in the first place.

Lev

[agricola]

The usual explanation is that the relatively insular Judaism of the Southern Kingdom (which was pretty isolated, really) suddenly encountered Zoroastrianism in Babylon (which was a very elaborate faith with angels and devils and good and evil and a well developed cosmology including a great battle at the end of time between the god of good/light, his angels, and his human followers, against the god of evil/darkness, his angels (demons/devils) and his human followers.

Then shortly after that, here came the Macedonians with THEIR gods and afterlife (and division between material and spiritual) followed almost immediately by the Romans (similar to the Greeks).

by the time you get the NT, the whole Middle East is a big complex mess.

[B.H.]

It's been a while and can't remember exact qoutes but the Catholic "Apocryphal" books do teach an actual personal reseurrection and afterlife. They were written around 300 to 100 BC.

[agricola]

It's been a while and can't remember exact qoutes but the Catholic "Apocryphal" books do teach an actual personal reseurrection and afterlife. They were written around 300 to 100 BC.

The apocryphal books are literature written mostly between 300 BCE and maybe as late as 50 CE or so - you are right, BH. And that is exactly the period when all these different ideas were being encountered by the Jews, and different answers to different questions were suddenly arising - you can see, I think, that the Sadducees (mostly priests and wealthy urban Jews) pretty much just double-downed on the old traditions (no elaborate afterlife) while the Pharisees, and the other 'philosophies' grappled with the implications of those other faiths.

It is also (probably) important to note that there was a kind of political thing going on concurrent with the religious stuff - these religious ideas had implications for real-world actions, and the implications weren't always along the lines you might expect. You might expect the Sadducees, since they were 'fundamentalist traditionalists' would have strongly supported the restoration of the Jewish king in Jerusalem, etc - but they didn't. That party was all for accommodation to the Roman powers politically and militarily - BECAUSE they primarily wanted non-interference with the temple activities, which the Romans were totally okay with (it was their common practice to stay out of local religious activities).

The Pharisaic party of the first centuries BCE and CE, in contrast, were the 'rebels' - the political branch wanted 'freedom from Roman oppression' and financed and supported numerous armed rebellions against the Romans (which is why any hint of 'messiah' brought the Romans down really fast and hard). There were people who were 'Pharisees' purely out of political motives, but the party as a whole was not like that - the party as a whole was more of a populist, egalitarian movement - saying that God spoke to all the people through the Torah, not just the priests, and that all the people could and should 'learn' (early Protestant types?? maybe a little). It was the numerically largest movement, and the most widespread geographically - so if you could harness the Pharisee movement to support your actions, you would have a massive base of support - both money and people. Most pharisees were ordinary people, but some were wealthy.

Then you have the Essenes, who broke off because they totally opposed an invalid (in their view) election of a new high priest - they were a Sadducee type in that they were temple supporters, but with some extremist religious views (celibacy, extreme purity customs) and with a big helping of Pharisaic type 'end of time' (apocalyptic) beliefs which they thought would play out in the real world, probably in the near future (the Battle Between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness was expected to be taking place pretty much 'right here and almost now').

When I was a kid and reading the NT, everything seemed quite peaceful and 'normal'. But in fact, first century Israel was about as contentious as PRESENT Israel - sure, there is plenty of normal life going on, BUT!

(Rome was ultimately just too powerful, and after the disasters of the rebellions in 69-73, 115 and 130-135 especially, the Pharisaic movement (such as were left) redefined their religious-political views about 'the kingdom' and more or less stopped supporting the idea of armed rebellion, and spiritualized the idea of the coming of the kingdom of God - left it more up to God and less up to people, basically.)