It's interesting that (from what you've said here, I have no knowledge) the biblical Greek uses the word from Plato.
I don't think the Septuagint uses the word from Plato, so to speak. It was just the word used for such things at the time. Plato imported a whole lot of baggage into the word. Aristotle is noticeably loosy-goosy in using 'psyche' and 'pneuma' in De Anima. Scholars argue over whether or not he made a distinction between the terms.
I think the distinction is clearer than you suggest. Hebrew uses nephesh, translated as ‘soul’ or ‘life’, and ruach translated as ‘spirit’ or ‘breath’.
There are other terms that are used coterminously, including neshamah and chayah. Furthermore the range of usages 'nephesh' is put to make it somewhat difficult to map to the concept of 'soul' - the first uses are all in Genesis 1 where it refers to animals (Genesis 1:20, 21 etc.). In Genesis 2:7 'nephesh' is something man becomes as a result of the breath of life (neshamah) rather than something he has / a part of him.
In Deutronomy it's used more like the term 'life-blood' ("Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life/nephesh, and you shall not eat the life/nephesh with the meat. Do not eat it; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.")
Ruach in connection to man seems to be more like an thing he is given temporarily rather than a constituent part of his being (even in Ecclesiastes, which is usually one of the proof texts for the ruach being 'spirit', it's used in this impersonal sense).
I'd agree that nephesh can be translated as 'life' and 'ruach' as 'breath', but in the creation described in the OT a man has breath and life, he isn't a combination of body, life and breath.
I think the distinction is clearer than you suggest. Hebrew uses nephesh, translated as ‘soul’ or ‘life’, and ruach translated as ‘spirit’ or ‘breath’.
There are other terms that are used coterminously, including neshamah and chayah. Furthermore the range of usages 'nephesh' is put to make it somewhat difficult to map to the concept of 'soul' - the first uses are all in Genesis 1 where it refers to animals (Genesis 1:20, 21 etc.). In Genesis 2:7 'nephesh' is something man becomes as a result of the breath of life (neshamah) rather than something he has / a part of him.
In Deutronomy it's used more like the term 'life-blood' ("Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life/nephesh, and you shall not eat the life/nephesh with the meat. Do not eat it; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.")
Ruach in connection to man seems to be more like an thing he is given temporarily rather than a constituent part of his being (even in Ecclesiastes, which is usually one of the proof texts for the ruach being 'spirit', it's used in this impersonal sense).
I'd agree that nephesh can be translated as 'life' and 'ruach' as 'breath', but in the creation described in the OT a man has breath and life, he isn't a combination of body, life and breath.
Yes. I agree that there isn’t some simplistic additive process where a person is regarded as body+breath+life. In Genesis 2 the body is formed out of the earth, and God breathes (napah) the breath (neshamah) of life into the man and he becomes a living being (nephesh). ‘Spirit’ as a term doesn’t appear until later on in Genesis.
I’m not troubled by the fact that nephesh is used for animals that lies quite comfortably in its soul-life semantic field.
Ruach in a generic sense of ‘spirit’ (i.e. not specifically Holy Spirit) is very commonly used, and doesn’t seem to me to have the temporary connotation you are suggesting. I don’t think it’s clear how it relates to nephesh, any more than it’s clear how pneuma relates to psyche.
FWIW I don’t believe souls are gendered, because I think gender is a cultural phenomenon.
I'd use "social construct", which isn't quite the same but, either way, regarding aspects of our identity including gender, it seems relevant to ask whether our (re-embodied?) souls would exist within some kind of society.
I think the distinction is clearer than you suggest. Hebrew uses nephesh, translated as ‘soul’ or ‘life’, and ruach translated as ‘spirit’ or ‘breath’.
There are other terms that are used coterminously, including neshamah and chayah. Furthermore the range of usages 'nephesh' is put to make it somewhat difficult to map to the concept of 'soul' - the first uses are all in Genesis 1 where it refers to animals (Genesis 1:20, 21 etc.). In Genesis 2:7 'nephesh' is something man becomes as a result of the breath of life (neshamah) rather than something he has / a part of him.
In Deutronomy it's used more like the term 'life-blood' ("Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life/nephesh, and you shall not eat the life/nephesh with the meat. Do not eat it; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.")
Ruach in connection to man seems to be more like an thing he is given temporarily rather than a constituent part of his being (even in Ecclesiastes, which is usually one of the proof texts for the ruach being 'spirit', it's used in this impersonal sense).
I'd agree that nephesh can be translated as 'life' and 'ruach' as 'breath', but in the creation described in the OT a man has breath and life, he isn't a combination of body, life and breath.
Yes. I agree that there isn’t some simplistic additive process where a person is regarded as body+breath+life. In Genesis 2 the body is formed out of the earth, and God breathes (napah) the breath (neshamah) of life into the man and he becomes a living being (nephesh). ‘Spirit’ as a term doesn’t appear until later on in Genesis.
When it appears (in the Noah narrative) it is also in connection with all life - not just human life (6:17, 7:15 and again in 7:22). Both terms are very rarely connected in the same bit of text - one of the few exceptions is Isaiah 42:5 where they appear to be used as synonyms of each other in a bit of Hebrew parallelism. It's instructive that the concept of the soul in Judaism seems to post-date its interaction with Greek thought.
Ruach in a generic sense of ‘spirit’ (i.e. not specifically Holy Spirit) is very commonly used, and doesn’t seem to me to have the temporary connotation you are suggesting.
'Temporary' may be somewhat misleading to my meaning on my part (I was suggesting the association between the body and the 'spirit' was temporary), maybe it's better to say that it seems that there's nothing personally specific about the 'ruach' or 'nephesh' a person has, it's just some 'stuff' given to every person (or living being) by God as part of creation, which eventually may return to its source.
FWIW I don’t believe souls are gendered, because I think gender is a cultural phenomenon.
I'd use "social construct", which isn't quite the same but, either way, regarding aspects of our identity including gender, it seems relevant to ask whether our (re-embodied?) souls would exist within some kind of society.
If the (as I understand them) Christian doctrines about a new Heaven and new Earth, in which we will live in resurrected bodies in the everlasting Kingdom of God, are true, then yes, certainly. I don't think we're all going to be isolated from each other.
Comments
I don't think the Septuagint uses the word from Plato, so to speak. It was just the word used for such things at the time. Plato imported a whole lot of baggage into the word. Aristotle is noticeably loosy-goosy in using 'psyche' and 'pneuma' in De Anima. Scholars argue over whether or not he made a distinction between the terms.
There are other terms that are used coterminously, including neshamah and chayah. Furthermore the range of usages 'nephesh' is put to make it somewhat difficult to map to the concept of 'soul' - the first uses are all in Genesis 1 where it refers to animals (Genesis 1:20, 21 etc.). In Genesis 2:7 'nephesh' is something man becomes as a result of the breath of life (neshamah) rather than something he has / a part of him.
In Deutronomy it's used more like the term 'life-blood' ("Only be sure that you do not eat the blood; for the blood is the life/nephesh, and you shall not eat the life/nephesh with the meat. Do not eat it; you shall pour it out on the ground like water.")
Ruach in connection to man seems to be more like an thing he is given temporarily rather than a constituent part of his being (even in Ecclesiastes, which is usually one of the proof texts for the ruach being 'spirit', it's used in this impersonal sense).
I'd agree that nephesh can be translated as 'life' and 'ruach' as 'breath', but in the creation described in the OT a man has breath and life, he isn't a combination of body, life and breath.
Yes. I agree that there isn’t some simplistic additive process where a person is regarded as body+breath+life. In Genesis 2 the body is formed out of the earth, and God breathes (napah) the breath (neshamah) of life into the man and he becomes a living being (nephesh). ‘Spirit’ as a term doesn’t appear until later on in Genesis.
I’m not troubled by the fact that nephesh is used for animals that lies quite comfortably in its soul-life semantic field.
Ruach in a generic sense of ‘spirit’ (i.e. not specifically Holy Spirit) is very commonly used, and doesn’t seem to me to have the temporary connotation you are suggesting. I don’t think it’s clear how it relates to nephesh, any more than it’s clear how pneuma relates to psyche.
I'd use "social construct", which isn't quite the same but, either way, regarding aspects of our identity including gender, it seems relevant to ask whether our (re-embodied?) souls would exist within some kind of society.
I agree that mind and soul seem to mean the same thing.
I also think that mind is an emergent property of brain activity - it's created and sustained by processes there.
When it appears (in the Noah narrative) it is also in connection with all life - not just human life (6:17, 7:15 and again in 7:22). Both terms are very rarely connected in the same bit of text - one of the few exceptions is Isaiah 42:5 where they appear to be used as synonyms of each other in a bit of Hebrew parallelism. It's instructive that the concept of the soul in Judaism seems to post-date its interaction with Greek thought.
'Temporary' may be somewhat misleading to my meaning on my part (I was suggesting the association between the body and the 'spirit' was temporary), maybe it's better to say that it seems that there's nothing personally specific about the 'ruach' or 'nephesh' a person has, it's just some 'stuff' given to every person (or living being) by God as part of creation, which eventually may return to its source.
If the (as I understand them) Christian doctrines about a new Heaven and new Earth, in which we will live in resurrected bodies in the everlasting Kingdom of God, are true, then yes, certainly. I don't think we're all going to be isolated from each other.