corrente

Now that we're trying to figure out how to talk about religion...

After posting "How can Bush say his enemies have no soul?", I asked Allen Brill of The Village Gate what "soul" meant, and this was his response:

"Soul" is used to translate the Hebrew word nephesh in the Hebrew Bible. Technically, it means "throat" or even trachea. Since human beings breathe through the "throat," it became synecdoche for life itself.

There's not much Greek-style dualism in the Hebrew Bible. You won't find strong distinctions between flesh and spirit or body and mind. There's also very little concern with the survival of a "soul" into eternity. There is an occasional reference to the vague, post-death state of Sheol, but resurrection makes no appearance except in Daniel 12 and perhaps Isaiah 25. (Ezekiel 37 refers to the "resurrection" of a nation, not an individual.) More important is the idea that one "survives" death by having descendants. Otherwise, one seeks a grant of long life and health from God, not a post-death existence that Christians call "eternal life." One has a "soul" in this sense as long as one is alive.

What Lambert seems to be talking about is what might be called a "conscience." The Hebrew sometimes uses lab, the word for "heart," in a way similar to English idiom. God has a "heart" in this sense. David is a man after God's own heart.

But the lab encompasses more than "conscience." It's the seat of emotions, the will and thought. As such, all human beings, created in the "image of God" have a "heart" even if it is corrupt. Again, there is no explicit connection between the lab and post-death existence.

Eternal life and some distinction between the body and "soul" are more common conceptions in the Greek Bible. The famous statement attributed to Jesus about the foolishness of giving up one's "soul" for the world translates the Greek word psyche. The Greek background includes the idea that the psyche separates from the soma, "body," at death and lives on. This "soul" can be "lost" by personal choice, destroyed by God or saved according to the Greek Bible. But psyche can also be used for the Hebrew concept nephesh as in Matthew 10:39.

Related but to be distinguished from the psyche is the pneuma or "spirit." Connected with idea of breath and life in Christian theology, believers have the gift of the "Spirit" that guides, enlightens and encourages them. It is only believers who have the "Spirit" and its fruits according to the Greek Bible. Those who do not believe have a "different spirit."

Finally, there is the Pauline idea of the "mind of Christ"--the nous xristou. Believers have it, according to Paul. This refers to the intellect more than the emotions and is the capacity that believers have to understand spiritual matters.

Does any of this go through Bush's mind when he makes outlandish statements like the one cited by Lambert? I very much doubt it. Dubya picked up some Evangelical jargon in that small group with Don Evans that he throws around carelessly from time to time. But there's precious little theological reflection going on there.

Is the idea that there are human beings without "souls" absurd? Within the context of the Hebrew Bible, it is. Even in the Greek Bible that reflects a more dualist approach to body and soul, I don't find any support for the idea that there are human beings born without "souls." Even though who "lose" their "souls" can be found again and "saved." Only in the eschatological sense are "souls" ever destroyed at the end of time, Last Day, etc.

Thanks to Allen for his careful, scholarly exposition. (Note to athiests and militant rationalists who just wnat to skip over this nonsense: You can't refute what you don't understand.)

Bottom line for me is that I stand by my original statement. I take Bush at his word. The fact that his thinking is careless doens't imply that he can't mean what he says. I believe that when Bush says his enemies have no souls, he is saying what he means: that is, that his enemies really are not human, and therefore that it's OK, indeed praiseworthy, to kill them. Not exactly mainstream Methodism, but then with so many other lies, why should we believe that statement, either?

I find Allen's last comment especially interesting, and perhaps he will expand on it. "Only in the eschatalogical sense are souls ever destroyed at the end of time." Lots of Bush's base believes that the end times are near, if not actually upon us. Could Bush believe that, and would that explain his belief that his enemies have no souls?