In mijn tweede boek leidde ik uit de religie bij een reeks jagers en verzamelaarsvolkeren af dat het bovennatuurlijk begrip ziel uit het dagelijks leven ontstaan was en in feite ‘leven’ betekende. Maar was dat ook zo in het Oud Testament? Waren er daar ook verbanden tussen de ziel en dieren, m.a.w. overblijfselen van het totemisme ongeveer 9000 jaar nadat landbouw en veeteelt in Zuidwest-Azië waren ontstaan?
Het Hebreeuwse woord voor ziel, nephesh, is in verschillende Engelstalige bijbels anders vertaald, zowel als soul, living being, maar er zijn ook andere. Een overzichtelijke tabel met meerdere verschillende vertalingen van het woord nephesh, staat op: http://www.quotedstatements.com/bible-files/soul.htm Daar ziet men dat nephesh vaak wel, vaak niet als ziel werd vertaald.
De bijbelvertaling die nephesh consequent vertaalt als ziel is de Darby bijbel (op sites afgekort tot DBY. Let op: DRB is een andere bijbelvertaling). De tekst daarvan kan men raadplegen op: http://www.biblesway.com/versions/darby_bible Men kan er zoeken op trefwoord (Bovenaan links, Bible Keywords, b.v. ‘soul’ en men krijgt een lijst van alle plaatsen in het oud testament waar ziel voorkomt.)
Op: http://bible.cc/genesis/1-24.htm ziet men het oud testament regel per regel in 13 verschillende vertalingen naar het Engels. In Genesis 1:24 kan men op die pagina lezen dat nephesh op verschillende manieren vertaald werd. Ook:
– Zoals overal elders in de wereld het begrip ziel in de bijbel vaak verbonden is met adem. (Ook: Egyptenaren, Romeinen en in het Sanskriet waar het ‘atman’ betekent, Duits: atem (atmen). NL, adem (ademen). In de Genesis geeft god de mens het leven via zijn neusgaten, zo werd hij een levende ziel: “And the Lord God formed [as a potter] man [Adam] of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath that is life; and man became a living soul.” (Genesis 2:27)
– In de bijbel hebben dieren en zelfs planten ook een ziel. Daarmee is de cirkel rond. Bijna tienduizend jaar na het ontstaan van de landbouw was het totemistisch verleden van jagers en verzamelaars bij boeren nog niet volledig verdwenen.
De ideologische bovenbouw van de menselijke maatschappij is een lijdzame, inerte kracht. Kenmerken van het verleden die geen objectief nut meer hebben worden nog lange tijd als idee en in praktijk mee overgedragen.
Uit: Richard A. Wiedenheft, ‘Creation of Man’: “Nephesh (נפש) is the Hebrew word commonly translated as soul in English. It literally means the “complete life of a being” though it is usually used in the sense of “living being” (breathing creature).
The Hebrew word nephesh applies to humans, lower animals, corpses and to God Almighty (Leviticus 26:11; 26:30; Psalm 24:4; Isaiah 42:1). In some Jewish traditions, such as Chabad-Lubavitch, plants also have souls . The concept of an immaterial soul separate from and surviving the body is common today but was not fully founded in ancient Hebrew beliefs.”
Professor Heinrich J. Vogel, THE OLD TESTAMENT CONCEPT OF THE SOUL, 1963
“The Old Testament uses particularly four terms in referring to the soul of man: 1. nephesh which occurs about 700 times in the Old Testament. In 472 of these instances it is translated in the AV as “soul” and in at least 215 other occurrences it is rendered by an assortment of 38 other translations. 2. neshāmāh which is translated “soul” in Isaiah 57:16, but is rendered in four other translations in the eighteen other passages where it occurs in the Old Testament. 3. nedibāthī which is translated “my soul” in Job 30:15, but is rather an appellative meaning “my magnanimous or noble one.” 4. rūach which in 233 instances is translated in the AV as “spirit” but in the 135 other occurrences is rendered by no less than fifteen other translations. In addition to these four terms we might also give some attention to the pair of words lēb and lēbāb, which are closely related in meaning to the words just mentioned, being translated in the AV at least 755 times as “heart” but rendered in the 88 other occurrences by 25 other translations.
According to Ernst Meier, Hebraeisches Wurzelwoerterbuch, 1846, nephesh is derived from the verb nāphash, which means to exhale, to breathe out, and in the Niphal to breathe oneself out, to catch a breath.”
 Meestal niet vertaald als ziel, maar men kan stellen dat dit preciezer is dan levend wezen.
Een tekst met citaten uit verschillende teksten. Onderwerpen:
– Hebben dieren een ziel in de bijbel?
– De ziel bij Homeros
– Citaten over de ziel (Darbyvertaling) uit Genesis en een paar uit Leviticus
– Tekst: Richard A. Wiedenheft, ‘Creation of Man’, en nota’s
– James D. Tabor, ‘What the bible says about Death, Afterlife, and the Future’, waaronder: ‘A GRECO-ROMAN TRANSFORMATION’
Overspel: verbrand haar!
(GENESIS 38:24) “And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying, Tamar thy daughter-in-law has committed fornication, and behold, she is also with child by fornication. And Judah said, Bring her forth, that she may be burned.” Commentaar van: Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary. « 38:24. Bring her forth, and let her be burnt-In patriarchal times fathers seem to have possessed the power of life and death over the members of their families. The crime of adultery was anciently punished in many places by burning (Le 21:9; Jud 15:6; Jer 29:22). This chapter contains details, which probably would never have obtained a place in the inspired record, had it not been to exhibit the full links of the chain that connects the genealogy of the Saviour with Abraham; and in the disreputable character of the ancestry who figure in this passage, we have a remarkable proof that “He made himself of no reputation” [Php 2:7].” Hoe verklaar je dat Jezus van deze Judah afstamt?Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary “38:1-30. The profligate (verkwistend, losbollig) conduct of Judah and his family. – This chapter gives an account of Judah and his family, and such an account it is, that it seems a wonder that of all Jacob’s sons, our Lord should spring out of Judah, Heb 7:14. But God will show that his choice is of grace and not of merit, and that Christ came into the world to save sinners, even the chief. Also, that the worthiness of Christ is of himself, and not from his ancestors. How little reason had the Jews, who were so called from this Judah, to boast as they did, Joh 8:41. What awful examples the Lord proclaims in his punishments, of his utter displeasure at sin! Let us seek grace from God to avoid every appearance of sin. And let that state of humbleness to which Jesus submitted, when he came to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, in appointing such characters as those here recorded, to be his ancestors, endear the Redeemer to our hearts.”
Nota’s: de ziel in het oud testament
In The Companion Bible van W. Bullinger, http://www.companionbiblecondensed.com/ wordt het Hebreeuwse word nephesh als ziel vertaald.
E. W. Bullinger vertaalde de bijbel naar het Engels tot aan zijn dood in 1913. Hij vertaalde het Hebreeuwse woord nephesh als ziel, in tegenstelling tot de King James Bible en de Willibrordvertaling in het Nederlands.
Dieren hebben zielen (Uit: Professor Heinrich J. Vogel, THE OLD TESTAMENT CONCEPT OF THE SOUL, 1963)
p.12 “When both man and the animals are referred to in Genesis as nephesh chayyāh the conclusion is not warranted that there are no differences between them, that man is nothing but a highly developed animal; but rather the truth is emphasized, that in some respects, such as having a physical body, in which there is blood, and which is capable of locomotion, and which breathes and has many similar organs and functions, man and the animals are similar. Both breathe, both live, both move, both reproduce their kind, both grow and develop, then degenerate and die.”
Dieren hebben geen ziel.
“The brute animals are not capable of such expressions. They serve only an auxiliary purpose in glorifying the Creator. They are indeed evidence of His creative power, of His wisdom, of His goodness, but they cannot respond to these qualities in God as can man, because man has a soul, which the animals lack. This fact alone ought to suffice to establish the truth that man has a soul.”
Maar dit is in tegenspraak met het begin van volgend citaat waar dieren gelijk gesteld worden met mensen. Verschillen tussen ziel en geest enzovoort zullen variëren volgens interpretatie en mogelijk aanleiding geven tot Byzantijnse discussies over deze begrippen. Achteraan van deze citaten: de termen zijn inderdaad door elkaar gebruikt.
“Since the “breath of life” or “the spirit of life” is common to both man and animals, it cannot be the bearer of the personality, but since the spirit remains in man as long as he lives and forms a thing apart by itself in man, it must be regarded as forming a part of man’s total essence. This would give us a real trichotomy of spirit (rūach), soul (nephesh), and body (bāsār). The next step is to regard the soul merely as the result of the indwelling of the spirit in the body, which would deny a real existence to the soul—it would be only a function of the material body when quickened by the spirit. As long as the spirit is present, so long the soul is a “living soul” (nephesh chayyāh), but when the spirit is withdrawn, the vitality of the soul is destroyed, and it becomes a soul of a dead man (nephesh mēth), i.e. a corpse (Num. 6:6; Lev. 21:11). In some instances, as we have seen, a dead body is simply called “a soul” (nephesh), (Lev. 19:28; 21:1; 22:4; Num. 9:6, 7, 10; Hag. 2:13). According to this view the annihilation of the soul ensues inevitably at death, that is when the spirit is withdrawn from the body. Evidence of this dissolution of the personality is said to be found in the verse Ecclesiastes 12:7 “the spirit shall return to God, who gave it.” Logically and historically this view is the parent of later Sadduceeism which taught that there is neither angel nor spirit. It is the materialistic view.” (…)
“Those holding this view conclude that if the teaching of Genesis 2 and 3 is taken as a complete account of man’s composite nature, the soul must be regarded not only as the vital principle of the body, but as the seat of all the mental activities. With these the spirit, which is really the impersonal basis of life in man, stands in no direct relation. From these facts no advance in the direction of an immortality of the soul is possible, for in death the soul is extinguished and only the spirit survives. But since the spirit is only the impersonal force of life common to men and animals, it returns to the Fount of all Life, and thus all personal existence ceases at death. So the Sadducees concluded, and the result was materialism (which is still a popular view today).
The doctrine of Genesis 2 and 3 (which leads eventually to materialism) never succeeded in dispossessing the older and rival doctrine. These conflicting views of soul and spirit were current together, and not infrequently the same writers in the Old Testament have used these terms, sometimes with one meaning, sometimes with another.
According to the primitive Hebrew view, man was composed not of three essentially distinct elements—a trichotomy—spirit, soul, and body, but only of two—a dichotomy—spirit or soul, and body. The spirit and soul were really the same. The partial differentiation of these two naturally arose in time. The term spirit was appropriated to mark the stronger side of the soul and designated the stronger and stormier emotions.”
De ziel bij Homeros htor, kardi/h, kh=r, sth/qov,
“The doctrine of the soul and of the future life among the Greeks can be traced from the time of Homer’s writings. According to Homer, only one part of man’s composite nature survived death, the soul or ψυχή. The Homeric conception of the soul is peculiar. It enjoys an independent and secret existence in the body, and on the death of the body independently withdraws itself. It exercises no function of the human spirit, whether of thought or emotion. These faculties belong to the mind (qumo/v), which resides in the diaphragm (fre/nev) Il. xxii. 475. The qumo/v is the most comprehensive expression in Homer for the various mental activities. This qumo/v and such faculties of the mind as are represented more or less definitely by no/ov me/nov, or physical expressions like htor, kardi/h, kh=r, sth/qov,, etc., are all functions of the body and not of the soul, and disappear with its resolution into its original elements. Homer never ascribes any activity to the soul in the living man. The soul is not mentioned till its separation from the body is impending, or has actually taken place. Accordingly after death, or rather after entrance into Hades, the soul loses consciousness and thought (Il. xxiii. 103, 104); it knows nothing of the upper world; it cannot return thither (Il. xxiii. 75, 76); it cannot exert any influence on the living; it is incapable of anguish as of affection. Wherein the personality consists in Homer is difficult of comprehension. At times the body, as opposed to the soul (Il. i. 3–5), is described as the person, at times the soul (Il. xv. 251, where it is the soul that speaks). The person fully conceived appears to be the living man, that is, the combination of the visible body and the invisible soul.
This is the normal, and all but universal, view of the soul in Homer. On the other hand, passages are occasionally to be met with in the Odyssey which assign a larger degree of consciousness, thought, and vitality to the shades. These passages attest belated survivals of Ancestor Worship. They are found especially in books x. and xi. of the Odyssey. In these books the poet attributes the restoration of the consciousness of the shades to their enjoyment of the blood of the slaughtered animals; but this is a misapprehension of the poet, who lived in an age that had forgotten the original significance of these rites. The shades, even according to these books, possess the faculties of thought, will, and action before drinking the blood. The blood is simply an offering to the souls of the departed to comfort them and feed them, but not to restore to them faculties which they had never lost. Moreover, the poet’s account provides us with an exact and detailed description of a sacrifice to the dead.” (…)
“Thus we have seen four different conceptions of the soul among the Greeks: 1. as a shade possessing thought, will, and activity and power to help or injure the living (the Animistic view), found in Homer and Hesiod, 2. as an unconscious helpless shade (the ordinary Homeric view), 3. as having no existence whatever, according to the philosophers, and 4. as an immortal spiritual being in Orphic teaching and in the writings of Plato
Despite all the teaching of individual poets, philosophers, and schools, the popular beliefs of the Greeks remained from century to century in the main unaffected. The immortality of the soul never became a part of the national creed, but remained the peculiar property of individual theologians and philosophers. This is also indicated by the evidence of Greek epitaphs.”.
Het was uiteraard juist omgekeerd, tenzij men onder onsterfelijkheid niet het traditionele begrip maar het nieuwe verstond waarbij de ziel van één mens eeuwig bleef bestaan.
Voetnoot 1: “1 When the entire content of the soul came to be regarded as λογιστικόν, a soul could no longer consistently be ascribed to animals, who only possessed qumo/v and e0piqumi/a. Further, if a soul could not justly be ascribed to animals, it follows further that a human soul could not rightly be said to descend into the body of an animal. Plato, however, maintained this view to the end, probably for ethical reasons.”
De vermelding van een ziel voor dieren
Alle onderstaande citaten komen uit DBY( = DarBY’s Bible, 1890 +) “Nephesh is used of the lower animals only, in twenty-two passages, and is rendered in nine different ways:
“creature” Genesis 1:21, “And God created the great sea monsters, and every living soul that moves with which the waters swarm, after their kind, and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.”
Genesis 1:24; “And God said, Let the earth bring forth living souls after their kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth, after their kind. And it was so.”
Genesis 2:19; “And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name.” (DBY bijbel)Genesis 9:10, “and with every living soul which is with you, fowl as well as cattle, and all the animals of the earth with you, of all that has gone out of the ark every animal of the earth.”
Genesis 9:12. “And God said, This is the sign of the covenant that I set between me and you and every living soul that is with you, for everlasting generations:”
Leviticus. 11:46. “This is the law of cattle, and of fowl, and of every living soul that moveth in the waters, and of every soul that crawleth on the earth;”
7 “thing” Leviticus. 11:10. “but all that have not fins and scales in seas and in rivers, of all that swarm in the waters, and of every living soul which is in the waters they shall be an abomination unto you.”
Ezekiel. 47:9. 2 (Bullinger) “And it shall come to pass that every soul that liveth, which swarmeth whithersoever the rivers shall come, shall live. And there shall be a very great multitude of fish; for these waters shall come thither, for they shall be healed; and everything shall live whither the river cometh.”
“life” Gen. 1:20, 30. 2
“the life” Gen. 9:4. Deut. 12:23. Prov. 12:10. 4
“beast” Lev. 24:18. (See margin.) 3
“the soul” Job 12:10. (See margin.) 1
“breath” Job 41:21. 1
“inner man” Isa. 19:10. (See margin.) 1
“her” Jer. 2:24. 1
Total = 22”
Lower Animals and Man
Nephesh is used of the Lower Animals and Man in seven passages, and rendered in three different ways:
“creature” Gen. 9:15, 16. 2
“the life” Lev. 17:11, 14. 4
“soul” Num. 31:28. 1
Wiedenheft gelooft zelf, wat zijn analyse van de ziel in het oud testament kan beïnvloeden.
Zie ook Nephesh in Wikipedia Engels.
Dit artikel geeft een complete referentie van de vermelding van nephesh in het oud testament.
Men ziet aan de referenties dat de ziel zowel voorkwam bij mensen als bij dieren. (Wk E)
“The Companion Bible” van Bullinger biedt een andere vertaling dan de King James waarin het Hebreeuws woord nephesh vertaald is als ziel. “The Companion Bible” vindt men op: http://www.companionbiblecondensed.com/
Richard A. Wiedenheft http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/do-we-have-an-immortal-soul.html
Ander artikels over of i.v.m. religie:
In de reeks ‘Op zoek naar de wortels van religie’
(1) kennisreproductie en aanpassingen
(b) Wat is een mens?
(2) het biologische nut van religie
(c) Wat is het biologisch nut van religie?
(c) Geen recent fenomeen: archeologische sporen
(3) kennis en reproductie
(e) Kennis werd geaccumuleerd en gereproduceerd
(4) kennisreproductie en aanpassingen
(f) De mens was afhankelijk geworden van de reproductie van zijn kennis
(g) Aanpassingen bij de mens
(5) wie leerde wie wat?
(h) Men leerde van zijn ouders …
(i) en de maatschappij leerde de jongeren
(6) in oorsprong was er … één religie, de vooroudercultus
(j) De functies van de oudste religie van de mensheid