Sauron

I asked this same question on another thread, in a slightly different form. Consider the following passage:

So, Yahweh says "I am the God of Abraham, etc." Christ uses this verse and explains that it implies that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are still alive at that time; i.e., they live in an afterlife. Therefore, the statement of Yahweh to Moses at the burning bush contained a hint of the afterlife, hidden in how it was phrased. But were readers of the Torah really expected to notice that?

Also, if the Hebrew says what I think it says here, then the "to be" verb is not even expressed. It's assumed. Apikorus, maybe you can straighten out that knot for me?

By analogy: if Thor appeared and said, "I am Thor, the god of the Vikings", that wouldn't necessarily imply that the Vikings still existed. Just that this was the god associated with the Vikings, who themselves are now long dead.

From what I can gather, the doctrine of an afterlife was not well established in Judaism prior to Christ. Yet here is an entire doctrine being extracted from one solitary word - a word which may have been implied, and not expressly written.

Comments?

Clouseau

The Sadducees did not say so. The real sting for them was that the Jews claimed to be the children of old, childless, troubled Abram, to whom the promise had been made that his descendants would be innumerable. There was no purpose to that promise if Abraham was totally non-existent at death. The whole Jewish 'project' was founded upon belief in human immortality in ancient times, in belief that man is made in the image of an eternal deity; and the Sadducees were way off course.

Clivedurdle

Isn't the classic example today you will be with me in Paradise - meaning dependent on punctuation which was not then used!

Sauron

How could punctuation produce different meanings above?

Chris Weimer

For truly I tell you today, You will be with me in Paradise. or
For truly I tell you, Today you will be with me in Paradise.

Peter Kirby

Given the biblical examples of the phrase "Truly I say to you," wouldn't the former ("Truly I say to you today") be something of a stretch to say the least?

RED DAVE

Whether or not the ancient Hebrews believed in immortality or not and what kind is a complex point, but the Jewish 'project' was founded on the notion of a chosen people not immortaity.

RED DAVE

Chris Weimer

I haven't thoroughly researched it, but yes, I would think the latter ought to be preferred.

Solo

This brain-teaser comes from a Jewish gnostic giving an esoteric interpretation of Moses' encounter with the Creator. The 'astonishment' of the hearers of Jesus is (as Paul's was at Corinth), that Jesus denies death has any meaning in the "resurrection" that he preaches. For him, "resurrection" was not from a state of rigor mortis, but from the state of spiritual stupor and unrepentance. As the saying "let the dead bury their dead" implies, there were two kinds of "dead": corpses and deadheads, the latter, evidently capable of digging graves.

Actually, the usage of "dead" for "unspiritual" had some currency in 1st century rabbinical wisdom according to Geza Vermes and if anyone cares to read through the Thanksgiving hymns of Qumran, the idea of "resurrection" as a rescue from the depths of depression was quite common among the Essenes. e.g.

My spirit is imprisoned with the dead
for (my life) has reached the Pit;
my soul languishes (within me)
day and night without rest
......................
I thank Thee, O Lord, for Thou hast redeemed
my soul from the Pit
and from the hell of Abaddon
Thou has raised me up to everlasting
height.
(1QH)

Jiri

Clivedurdle

Isn't it verily verily I say unto you? So the whole phrase is a literary device?