The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Pharisees and Reincarnation

Evangelical Universalism
#1

Hi Jason :slight_smile:

Here are some notes I’ve made about Pharisaic and later Jewish beliefs in reincarnation.

Belief in some form of reincarnation is probably a minority opinion in Judaism – but it is still quite widespread among Jews today. It is especially prominent among sects of the Hasidim, but is also acknowledged in a prayer book much used by Orthodox Jews in which forgiveness for any sins in past incarnations is asked for. And it is popular among some liberal and Reformed Jews with an appetite for mystical Judaism. Jews who take a more rationalist approach to religion are dismayed by this. However, beliefs about the afterlife are not normative in Judaism – it is the practice of Torah that is normative – so disagreements over this issue have never been a basis for schism.

The wellspring of Jewish belief in reincarnation or ‘gilgul’ is the various texts and schools of Kabbalism that have flourished from 1200 onwards. However, the belief may have earlier roots.

A reference to metempsychosis or reincarnation was seen by Thackeray, a distinguished scholar and translator of Josephus, in Josephus’ description of Pharisaic teachings and in Josephus’ own speech against suicide. Josephus states: ‘Every soul, they (the Pharisees!) maintain, is imperishable, but the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishment’.

Flavius Josephus, writing from circa 75 – 94 of the first century, seems to attribute this belief to the Pharisees. He is not a favourite source for Jews because he changed sides during the Jewish Wars and declared that the Jewish Messianic prophecies that initiated the First Roman-Jewish War actually prophesied Vespasian becoming Emperor of Rome. However, he is noted for being a scrupulous historian – so his treachery does not necessarily invalidate his testimony on everything. The difficulty with his testimony is that he is writing for a Romano-Hellenistic audience – therefore he may be translating Jewish concepts into ideas that are more accessible to his audience. A belief in Reincarnation was commonplace in the Roman world – Plato promulgates this and it is thought that he derived his beliefs from Orphism (and the Orphics derived their beliefs from the East). It seems very possible that when Josephus speaks of the wicked going to punishment (annihilation?) in hell, while the righteous return in another body he may have been talking about resurrection rather than reincarnation. However it seems that the jury is still out on this.

Circles of the Pharisees from the time of the Second Temple did develop an esoteric doctrine known as Merkabah mysticism from meditating on the ‘secrets of creation’ contained in the first Chapter of Genesis and Ezekiel’s throne vision. However, the evidence for their teaching is fragmentary. Did it contain speculations about reincarnation? Who knows…

It seems that some Jews today claim that teaching about reincarnation can be found in the Mishinah and the Talmud. But my research suggests that this is very doubtful and a matter of interpretation. There are no explicit references to ‘gilgul’ in these foundational texts – despite what some websites may suggest. The gilgul – or ‘return’ – referred to explicitly in the Talmud actually concerns a repeated oath made during a Beth Din. The first explicit reference to ‘gilgul’ appear in the writings of Anan teen David (eighth century), the founder of the Karaite sect

Ideas about reincarnation flourish in the texts of medieval Kabbalah – which were influenced by Merkabah mysticism, but also by Neoplatonism etc. Kabbalistic ideas about reincarnation vary. Some suggest that a wicked person can be reincarnated as an animal or even a plant – but most authorities deny this. Some early texts suggest that only those who have failed to procreate are reincarnated so that they do the right thing second time around. However, some core Jewish beliefs about reincarnation do seem to emerge that differentiate it from the thinking of both Platonism and Eastern religions –

First – reincarnation is mostly seen as more of a blessing than a ‘karmic’ punishment (and we note that if Josephus is talking about reincarnation it is something that happens to good people rather than bad people). It gives the soul a chance to progress in a more perfect observation of Torah and by so doing to participate more fully in tikkun (the hallowing/repairing of creation). This is not to say that punishment for sin is absent from belief in gilgul – and it has been used as theodicy at times of great suffering; but it is not the keynote of the Jewish idea.

Second – Eastern and Platonic ideas of reincarnation are cyclical whereas the Jewish idea is teleological.

Third – Eastern and Platonic ideas of reincarnation see the body as a prison for the soul (and release from the body comes with release from the interminable cycle of reincarnation which brings only suffering). However in Jewish ideas of reincarnation – except in the teachings of the Essene sect according to Josephus - the reincarnate bodily life is a blessing.

Fourth there is often an emphasis in Jewish belief that reincarnation is an exception rather than the rule – and is often the lot of patriarchs and prophets (Moses and Jethro are thought of as reincarnations of Cain and Abel in one tradition). Also I understand that the mainstream belief is that there is a limit to the number of reincarnations for an individual (six is the number i have seen given in a number of sources)

I’m no expert here – but I have looked at various reliable sources (including the great scholar Gershom Scholem) while making these notes. Hope they are useful – they focus an ealrier post I made.

Dick :slight_smile:

Reincarnation?
#2

Bits and bobs

I think if I am to reach any conclusions from the reading I’ve done on reincarnation and Judaism regarding the NT they have to be very, very tentative indeed. It is possible the circles of the Pharisees – especially the Merkabah mystics – held to some doctrine of reincarnation, perhaps limited to the belief that great prophets were to reincarnate to usher in the Messianic Age. It is possible that the common people may have had some less exalted ideas about reincarnation – thinking perhaps in terms of karmic retribution in this life for sins in past lives (and perhaps it is this belief that Jesus is rebuking the disciples for in the healing of the blind man from John’s Gospel). Sources are suggestive – but very fragmentary and unclear. (One thing I didn’t say in my last post is that the editor of the Mishnah collection of Rabbinical rulings on which the Talmud was based actually came from the rationalistic anti-mystical strand in Judaism and so was keen to edit out any mystical and otherworldly speculations from the Mishnah).

In a post another thread I spoke with breezy confidence – as I sometimes do – about a matter on which I was uncertain; namely what is the relationship between ideas of purification in Gehenna and purification in successive incarnations in the minds of Jews who believe in the gilgul. I gave an answer based on one remebered source. However, having now read Scholem on this matter in ‘Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism’ I conclude that actually there is no consistent attempt to give a systematic account of the relationship between tow doctrines that seem contradictory.

Note on the difficulty of translating Josephus statements about ‘reincarnation’

If you are interested to find out more have a look at Google books at –
books.google.co.uk/books?

id=oVlfQSqzjzwC&pg=PA165&lpg=PA165&dq=Josephus+reincarnation&source=bl&ots=hVA8gN2H_a&sig=new2BnXFh60fr7R8aqSU2iRgTsU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=S8NUUc79DITfPcaqgIAD&ved=0CFgQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Josephus%20reincarnation&f=false

Note on the reliability of Josephus as a source.

I’ve noted that Fredrick Farrar (Anglican Universalist) and Jewish scholars are dismissive of Josephus as a reliable source. I knew he was under a cloud for being the turncoat who effectively declared Vespasian as the Messiah. However, from a reading of several scholarly websites I now realise there are other issues – see especially

livius.org/jo-jz/josephus/josephus.htm the main source for the quotations below:

*Joseph was born in Jerusalem in 37 CE as the son of Matthias, a man from priestly descent, and a mother who claimed royal blood. Stated differently, he was born as a Sadducee and an aristocrat. The boy must have been a real know-it-all, because he excelled in all his studies and at the age of sixteen, he decided to find out for himself what philosophy was best - that of the Sadducees, that of the Essenes or that of the Pharisees. Although he studied all three systems, he was not content, and for three years, he lived in the desert with a hermit named Bannus. Returning to Jerusalem at the age of nineteen, he choose to become a Pharisee.

At least, this is what he writes in his Autobiography. The problem is that it cannot be true. To become an Essene, one had to study three years and we may assume that one did not understand the essentials of the teachings of other Jewish sects within a few weeks either. It was simply impossible to study the three disciplines and live three years in the desert before one’s nineteenth year. Worse, the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities show a profound dislike of the Pharisees. Hence, we may conclude that Josephus only says that he became a Pharisee because he knew from where the wind was blowing, and Pharisaism was very popular at the moment he was writing his Autobiography. *

So the main point here is that Josephus’s reporting of the beliefs of the Pharisees is not based on first hand evidence, and it may be an attempt to discredit them. On the wider issue of his reliability I note the following:

*The Jewish War was written under imperial auspices. Vespasian and Titus gave the historian access to the imperial archives and to the logbook of their campaign. This enabled Josephus to write a reliable story, even about events at places where he had never been. At the same time, imperial patronage made the story unreliable. Vespasian’s bid for power is presented in a favorable way; Titus is a valiant warrior whose heroism is matched only by his kindness towards the victims of the war.

Flavius Josephus’ kindness towards his Roman benefactors does not mean that he is negative about the Jews. On the contrary, he has pity with ‘the innocent’ in Jerusalem, who are trapped inside a city under siege and cannot leave. At great length, he describes the atrocities to which they are subjected.

But his sympathy does not include all Jews. The responsibility for all the bloodshed rests squarely on the shoulders of the people that he describes as ‘brigands’, ‘madmen’, ‘desperado’s’, or ‘bandits’: those are the invectives he has in store for violent nationalists like the Zealots, the Sicarians and men like John of Gischala. It is no coincidence that the Jewish War ends with a speech of the leader of the rebels at Masada, the Sicarian Eleaser, who more or less admits that all violence was a result of nationalistic agitation and also admits that God is angry. (The speech is, of course, written by Flavius Josephus himself. Almost no one survived the capture of Masada, and the historian can never have received a report of Eleaser’s last words.)

The common people with their silly nationalistic ideas, their religious intolerance and their aggressive behavior are responsible for the disaster. The Jewish aristocrats -to which Flavius Josephus belonged- are of course not to blame for the war. The same applies to war crimes. These are invariably committed by the rank and file, never by their officers.
In the first century, there were serious economic problems in Judaea. The rabbinical sources indicate that the Temple authorities were widely regarded as corrupt. In this conflict between the rich elite and the poor peasants, the Romans sided with the elite, as they always did. Peasant resistance against the Temple authorities coincided with resistance against the Romans. The war that started in 66 was not only a national revolt against a greedy emperor and his tactless governor, but also a class war among the Jews. Josephus, like every aristocrat, had no real sense of identification with the dispossessed and oppressed peasantry; ultimately, he did not understand the true cause of the war he described. *

Apart from accusations of ideological bias, these other less substantial criticisms are sometimes levelled at Josephus:

*• Josephus commonly exaggerated, embellished, and overstated his writings. Some historians point to the fact that he was overstating for dramatic purposes. For example, he says that so much blood was shed in Jerusalem that streams of gore extinguished the fires that burned. Although this is exaggerated, his point is clear!
• Josephus is not consistent with numbers. For example, he says Mount Tabor is “thirty stadia” (18,200 feet), when in reality the mountain is only 1,920 feet. Exaggeration of numbers is very common to authors of that era.
• It is also thought that Josephus’ wrote highly about his exploits in order to enhance his image. His endeavors are not always written consistently between written works.
• "In behalf of Josephus, it must be recalled that all these defects…were widely shared among ancient historians, few of whom brought critical tools to their craft in any modern sense. Josephus, in fact, was more reliable than most historians of his day. Whenever he is not referring to himself, his material is basically reliable."1

Details of geography and architecture of that time, which are stated in Josephus’ works, are being verified today.*

All the best

Dick

#3

The passage of Josephus is found here btw:

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex … tion%3D154

A hint of the believe in reincarnation might be found in the apocryphal book of Wisdom:

As a child I was by nature well endowed,
and a good soul fell to my lot;
or rather, being good, I entered an undefiled body (Wis. 8:19-20)

Fits to what Josephus says:

“They [the Pharisees] say that all souls are incorruptible, but that the souls of good men only are removed into other bodies, - but that the souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment.”

It should be noticed here that Josephus employs terms NOT used in the New Testament, when he speaks about eternal punishment.

#4

Hi Sven –

Thanks for the response. That’s great and real food for thought. IT’s really rather interesting learning about Josephus and realising all of the issues involved in using him as a source (I note he is often used in defence of ECT as well as in defence of reincarnation).

The quotation you give from the Book of Wisdom is very interesting. It certainly seems to imply a belief in the pre-existence of souls which is a pre-requisite for any doctrine of reincarnation I know that the author of this book was a Hellenistic Jew – possibly from Alexandria if seem to remember. A lot of the book is dedicated to a denunciation of pagan Idolatry – suggesting the author is worried about ‘contamination’. However, in the verse you cite we seem to have evidence of interpolation of a pagan idea into the author’s Judaism. Hmmmm.

Regarding the quotation from Josephus about the Pharisees adn reincarnation – well I’m agnostic about this but am open to persuasion.

The link you’ve given is a translation of Josephus’ description of the doctrines of the Essenes – and here he does make a clear link between them and pagan ideas about body/soul dualism. And I note the following from ‘Hell: Eternal Torment or Annihilation? by Samuele Bacchiocchi, Ph. D., Andrews University’

*Traditionalists often cite Josephus’ description of the Essene belief about the immortality of the soul and the eternal punishment of the wicked to support their contention that such a belief was widely accepted in New Testament times. Let us look at the text closely before making any comment. Josephus tells us that the Essenes adopted from the Greeks not only the notion that “the souls are immortal, and continue for ever,” but also the belief that “the good souls have their habitations beyond the ocean,” in a region where the weather is perfect, while "bad souls [are cast in] a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments."17 Josephus continues explaining that such a belief derives from Greek “fables” and is built “on the supposition that the souls are immortal” and that "bad men . . . suffer immortal punishment after death."18 He calls such beliefs "an unavoidable bait for such as have once had a taste for their [Greek] philosophy."19

It is significant that Josephus attributes the belief in the immortality of the soul and in unending punishment not to the teachings of the Old Testament, but to Greek “fables,” which sectarian Jews, like the Essenes, found irresistible. Such a comment presupposes that not all the Jews had accepted these beliefs. In fact, indications are that even among the Essenes were those who did not share such beliefs. For example, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are generally associated with the Essene community, speak clearly of the total annihilation of sinners*

There is a link at the bottom of the page of the website you refer to about Josephus’ ‘noble’ description of Hades which is in fact a rather horrible ECT fantasy. I’ve followed this up and it seems that William Whitson – the translator - mistakenly attributed this discourse to Josephus. The attribution is old and probably stems from the mistaken belief – from another interpolation known as the Testament of Flavius – that Josephus actually became a Christian. It appears the discourse on Hades was actually the work of Hippolytus of Rome (170 – 235) an important 3rd-century theologian of the ECT school.

Regarding your point about the real Josephus attributing a belief in everlasting punishment (rather than Aeonian punishment) to the Pharisees, using a word (presumably meaning ‘enduring forever’) not found in the New Testament – now that’s very interesting. I was thinking that since he was writing mainly for a Roman audience in the aftermath of the Jewish Wars, how would they have received this information ? They might have gloated that the people who were so confident of the vindication of their righteousness and the alleged everlasting destruction of the wicked by their God had come off rather badly when rebelling against the might of Rome.

Also I note that Josephus view conflicts with what we know about the real eschatology of the Pharisees which was a bit more nuanced according to the very reliable Encyclopedia Judaica:

*“There is difference of opinion between Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel [the two schools of thought among the Pharisees during the first century] as to the duration of the punishment in Gehenna…according to the former, the thoroughly wicked remain there for everlasting disgrace; the intermediate ones (between the wicked and the good) descend to Gehenna to be purged and ascend after purification. According to the latter, the intermediate ones do not go there at all…and whereas transgressors (both Jewish and Gentile) are punished in Gehenna for only twelve months, only special categories of sinners…are punished there for all time.”1 The pained prisoners of this place of torment suffer six days a week, “but on the Sabbath are given rest.”2 Some believe that after twelve months in Gehenna, the wicked are “annihilated, to suffer no more”; while others believe that after twelve months, the wicked “having atoned for their sins…will join the righteous in Gan Eden” (the Garden of Eden).3

1“Netherworld,” Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 12, column 998, italic emphasis by author.
2 Ibid.
3 “Paradise,” Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 13, column 83.*

Happy Easter Sven

Wow I had little idea of the problems of using Josephus as a source before yesterday - but it’s interesting!!!

Dick :slight_smile:

#5

Hmmm there is something very interesting to a Universalist about Josephus on refection – and this is not really about his obscure references to the Pharisees and reincarnation or resurrection (although this is interesting). Rather I think it concerns how Josephus’ writings were doctored.

The real Josephus speaks sympathetically about Jesus – but an interpolation into the original text has Josephus confess that Jesus is the Christ (see bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm). This seems to give Josephus the authority of an early Christian convert.

The real Josephus speaks of the Emperor Vespasian as being the King foretold by the Hebrew Prophets (music to the ears of Christian Emperors)

The real Josephus – writing contemporary with the NT – makes some small references that can be interpreted as supporting the idea that the Jews of Jesus’ day believed in some form of ECT for the (very) wicked; but an interpolation of a 3rd century homily on eternal damnation by Hippolytus seemes to give authority for belief in the full monty developed ECT doctrine to an early Christian (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus’s … ning_Hades -the article is corroborated by other scholarly sources, but I give the wiki link because it is the most concise article I’ve viewed)

So we have ample cause to reject appeals to Josephus today by supporters of ECT.

Dick

#6

Yes, that scary passage about the torments in Hades seem to have been wrongly ascribed to Josephus.

I’m not aware that Josephus mentions his own belief on this matter.

It is clear from the Bible, that at least some Jews believed in a physical ressurection, a belief Josephus does not mention, maybe because he feared to be ridiculed by his Hellenistic/Roman audience for such belief.

As the term Gehenna is not present both by Josephus and Philo, these talmudic passages might significantly postdate the New Testament.

#7

Hi Sven -

Its’ good fun chewing the cud about this historical issue with you :slight_smile:

And I reckon a good case can be made that the interpolation of Hippolytus was done originally on purpose to legitimate new and harsher doctrine.

Yes that’s odd - I guess as an aristocrat from a priestly family he must have been a Sadducee. So his accounts of the doctrines of the Pharisees and Essenes may be spiced with aristocratic disapproval. This is what my source cited in a preiovus post suggests (I think?) -

*…he decided to find out for himself what philosophy was best - that of the Sadducees, that of the Essenes or that of the Pharisees. Although he studied all three systems, he was not content, and for three years, he lived in the desert with a hermit named Bannus. Returning to Jerusalem at the age of nineteen, he choose to become a Pharisee.

At least, this is what he writes in his Autobiography. The problem is that it cannot be true. To become an Essene, one had to study three years and we may assume that one did not understand the essentials of the teachings of other Jewish sects within a few weeks either. It was simply impossible to study the three disciplines and live three years in the desert before one’s nineteenth year. Worse, the Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities show a profound dislike of the Pharisees. Hence, we may conclude that Josephus only says that he became a Pharisee because he knew from where the wind was blowing, and Pharisaism was very popular at the moment he was writing his Autobiography. *

And/or he was aware that they wouldn’t understand it - hence when he speaks of what seems to be reincarnation he actually means ressurection.

Now this is a really interesting issue and worth thinking through - I’ve put some stuff on the Articles thread about Rabbis and the Afterlife. I’ll get another post togther on this very issue and plonk it there. Do you know what the adjective is that Josephus uses to describe punishment in the world to come (that woudl be good to know). As for Philo - what does he have to say about the world to come (any good links?).

All very good wishes

Dick

#8

Nifty thread; carry on! {g}

On a rather different note, apologists like myself are well aware of the dispute over the paragraph about Jesus known as the Testimony of Flavius (from The Antiquities), but there is a similar and far more extensive paragraph in an Old Slavic copy of The Jewish War which is a truly puzzling bit of oddity: applying the same principles of interpolation detection to it removes only a few things, and what’s left over doesn’t look much at all like something a Christian would have invented but more like what Josephus was reporting from spotty secondhand sources. Yet it doesn’t appear in other copies of TJW at all. There are several other references to Jesus in this Slavonic version of TJW which look suspiciously like they may have been interpolated out of other copies of TJW. I may run an article about this someday… (None of it has anything to do with Christian universalism, btw.)

#9

Even the New Testament seems to suggest that the Jews believed in re-incarnation:

Now Jesus and His disciples went out to the towns of Caesarea Philippi; and on the road He asked His disciples, saying to them, “Who do men say that I am?” So they answered, "John the Baptist; but some say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets. (Mark 8:27, 28)

Especially this one:

And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” (John 9:2)

How could the blind man have sinned so that he was born blind, if not in a previous life?

#10

Hi Piaidon – and Happy Easter!!! :slight_smile:

A reflective thought: the reason I’m engaging in his discussion is so that we can work out some puzzles about the evidence outside the New Testament that can throw some light on the issues of Jewish eschatology at the time of Jesus – because exponents of ECT sometimes appeal to this evidence to bolster their arguments; so I guess it’s good to sift through this evidence properly (and it’s interesting in it’s own right). The issue of the Pharisees and reincarnation has some bearing on the discussion so it’s worth looking at (it’s something I’ve never thought about very deeply before).

Up to this point we’ve had a look at the evidence from Josephus, the Book of Wisdom (courtesy of Sven - which suggests there was cross fertilisation of Jewish and Hellenistic beliefs in NT times), the Jewish tradition of reincarnation that flourishes in Kabbalism but may have earlier roots in the Merkabah mysticism of the esoteric Pharisees (although this seems uncertain to me). I reckon none of this is very conclusive regarding the exact beliefs of the Pharisees.

But you are absolutely right – there are some NT key texts that seem to suggest Jewish belief in reincarnation during Jesus’ time. I’ll tell you what – since this debate is only of secondary importance and not a matter to get too worried about– I will advocate the other side of the argument for you here (and see what you think).

The belief about the second coming of Elijah was explained in the Talmud in terms of an expectation of him just coming back down from heaven again from whence he ascended; they interpreted Malachi as saying that Elijah, who had not actually died but was taken up in a whirlwind, would himself return.

Also I’ve heard the expectation of the return of Elijah explained as being on a par with an archetypal notion found in many cultures that a founding hero will return to help his people in times of great peril (a bit like the British myth of Arthur being the ‘Once and Future King’); and not necessarily entailing any developed belief in reincarnation.

This may well refer to prenatal sins (a child sinning inthe womb) which some rabbis theorized from Gen. 25:22 – I understand that the theorisation about prenatal sin comes from texts that are slightly later than the NT, but these could well reflect earlier Rabbinic debates. Debate on the sins of parents or immediate ancestors which affected the unborn child (cf. Exod. 20:5; Deut. 5:9) occurs in the early midrash Geneses Rabba 63.6 "It does sometimes happen that men and women are themselves responsible in part for physical ailments… But it is not usually so’.

Of course the disciples may also be aware of Romano-Hellenic beliefs about reincarnation and ‘karma’ – but it is not necessary to think that they got the idea from the Pharisees.

Finally – and here’s something I’ve just found out – the Early Church Fathers of all hues of eschatology seem to have been pretty unanimous in condemning belief in reincarnation – not in the Jews but in the pagans and the Gnostic followers of Carpocrates. Origen who is mistakenly thought to have taught a doctrine of reincarnation actually – although he seems to have taught the pr-existence of the soul – condemned the doctrine of reincarnation thus -

“[Scripture says] ‘And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” and he said, “I am not”’ [John 1:21]. No one can fail to remember in this connection what Jesus says of John: ‘If you will receive it, this is Elijah, who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14]. How then does John come to say to those who ask him, ‘Are you Elijah?’—‘I am not’? . . . One might say that John did not know that he was Elijah. This will be the explanation of those who find in our passage a support for their doctrine of reincarnation, as if the soul clothed itself in a fresh body and did not quite remember its former lives. . . . [H]owever, a churchman, who repudiates the doctrine of reincarnation as a false one and does not admit that the soul of John was ever Elijah, may appeal to the above-quoted words of the angel, and point out that it is not the soul of Elijah that is spoken of at John’s birth, but the spirit and power of Elijah” (Commentary on John 6:7 [A.D. 229]).

“As for the spirits of the prophets, these are given to them by God and are spoken of as being in a manner their property [slaves], as ‘The spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets’ [1 Cor. 14:32] and ‘The spirit of Elijah rested upon Elisha’ [2 Kgs. 2:15]. Thus, it is said, there is nothing absurd in supposing that John, ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah,’ turned the hearts of the fathers to the children and that it was on account of this spirit that he was called ‘Elijah who is to come’” (ibid.).

“If the doctrine [of reincarnation] was widely current, ought not John to have hesitated to pronounce upon it, lest his soul had actually been in Elijah? And here our churchman will appeal to history, and will bid his antagonists [to] ask experts of the secret doctrines of the Hebrews if they do really entertain such a belief. For if it should appear that they do not, then the argument based on that supposition is shown to be quite baseless” (ibid.).

“Someone might say, however, that Herod and some of those of the people held the false dogma of the transmigration of souls into bodies, in consequence of which they thought that the former John had appeared again by a fresh birth, and had come from the dead into life as Jesus. But the time between the birth of John and the birth of Jesus, which was not more than six months, does not permit this false opinion to be considered credible. And perhaps rather some such idea as this was in the mind of Herod, that the powers which worked in John had passed over to Jesus, in consequence of which he was thought by the people to be John the Baptist. And one might use the following line of argument: Just as because the spirit and the power of Elijah, and not because of his soul, it is said about John, ‘This is Elijah who is to come’ [Matt. 11:14] . . . so Herod thought that the powers in John’s case worked in him works of baptism and teaching—for John did not do one miracle [John 10:41]—but in Jesus [they worked] miraculous portents” (Commentary on Matthew 10:20 [A.D. 248]).

“Now the Canaanite woman, having come, worshipped Jesus as God, saying, ‘Lord, help me,’ but he answered and said, ‘It is not possible to take the children’s bread and cast it to the little dogs.’ . . . [O]thers, then, who are strangers to the doctrine of the Church, assume that souls pass from the bodies of men into the bodies of dogs, according to their varying degree of wickedness; but we . . . do not find this at all in the divine Scripture” (ibid., 11:17).

“In this place [when Jesus said Elijah was come and referred to John the Baptist] it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I fall into the doctrine of transmigration, which is foreign to the Church of God, and not handed down by the apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the scriptures” (ibid., 13:1).

“But if . . . the Greeks, who introduce the doctrine of transmigration, laying down things in harmony with it, do not acknowledge that the world is coming to corruption, it is fitting that when they have looked the scriptures straight in the face which plainly declare that the world will perish, they should either disbelieve them or invent a series of arguments in regard to the interpretation of things concerning the consummation; which even if they wish they will not be able to do” (ibid.).

What d’ya think –

All the best

Dick

#11

Thanks Dick. In my opinion, that which you shared makes sense, with the exception (in my opinion) of your explanation concerning the man born blind. I think the idea of someone sinning while he/she is in the womb is rather far-fetched.

Notwithstanding, I appreciate the effort you made to show that the Biblical references which seem to point to a belief in re-incarnation by at least some Pharisees, are not definitive. I also enjoyed reading the quote from Origen.

#12

Concerning Philo I answered in the other thread.

I think Josephus employed the terms aidios (eternal/everlasting), adialeiptos (unintermitted), ateleutetos (endless), athanatos (immortal) when speaking about the Essenes’ belief.

However even this needn’t mean literally endless punishment according to this source:

biblicalperspectives.com/boo … tion/6.htm

#13

Well this conversation has become a series of conversations since Sopho started new threads yesterday – and that’s all to the good.

Jason – Happy Easter :slight_smile: and glad you are enjoying this thread; perhaps when these conversations threads about Jewish eschatology come to a natural end you could give us your rabbinical ruling as to the burden of the evidence? And yep – the stuff on the Old Slavonic version of Josephus sounds very interesting.

Paidion – glad you enjoyed the Origen quotations :slight_smile: . I think I’ve got another post in me in which to ponder you question about farfetched explanations of sinning in the womb; yes I’d agree completely with you and with Jesus that this explanation of why the man was born blind is far-fetched (and callous) – but some Rabbis may well have used this explanation to rationalise undeserved suffering. I’ll get back to you soon.

Sven – that’s all excellent stuff. So we’ll keep on the case together I hope and Piadion can keep us on our toes :slight_smile:

All the best

Dick

#14

Och I think I’ve gone as far as I can go with Jewish eschatology for the moment. But I’ll tell you what I think about the reincarnation and the Pharisees issue (for what it’s worth). I had an open mind about it when the thread started but I’m coming to think that it is unlikely they believed in renicarnation. Josephus seems to assert it – but some of the most eminent scholars think that he was actually referring to resurrection. Also it’s hard to place Josephus – his claims about knowing the Pharisees and the Essenes’ doctrines as an insider just don’t stack up. And by all rights he should be a Sadducee as an aristocrat from a priestly family – yet he claims to believe in resurrection (or reincarnation) although he holds the Pharisees in contempt. In short he seems to be a sort of eclectic maverick, and is himself perhaps influenced by Hellenism in his beliefs.

I’m doubtful that we can infer anything solid from the fact that reincarnation becomes part of Jewish tradition later in the Kabala – because this may well have been from the influence of neo-Platonism.

Also I note that reincarnation is not taught in the Talmud (unless we see an esoteric level of interpretation in the text, presumably on grounds of numerology and gematria – and this seems forced to say the least). In addition the Church Fathers do not attack the Jews for believing in reincarnation – but they are keen to attack the pagans for this belief.
As for the Gospel narratives that seem to give credence to the idea of Jewish belief in reincarnation at the time of Jesus – the expectation of the return of Elijah has another explanation which seems simpler (see above post).

The one story that is more difficult to explain is the healing of the blind man in John’s Gospel. The disciples question to Jesus about whether the man’ blindness may be informed by some vague notion of karma – but if this is the case it may be that they have heard this notion from a pagan. Or it may be informed by Rabbinical debates about whether a child can sin in the womb and be punished for this at birth.

Either explanation is based on an attempt to answer why the innocent suffer – and the worst possible answer to this conundrum is that they suffer because they have sinned (people in the East often give this answer in terms of karma, while Christians still sometimes explain undeserved and indiscriminate suffering in terms of visitation of God’s wrath). Jesus in this episode answers that suffering has to be seen as an opportunity for the healing work of God. I see this story in terms of Christus Victor – God comes to free us and heal us rather than acting primarily out of a need to punish.

All the best

Dick

#15

Och I think I’ve gone as far as I can go with Jewish eschatology for the moment. But I’ll tell you what I think about the reincarnation and the Pharisees issue (for what it’s worth). I had an open mind about it when the thread started but I’m coming to think that it is unlikely they believed in renicarnation. Josephus seems to assert it – but some of the most eminent scholars think that he was actually referring to resurrection. Also it’s hard to place Josephus – his claims about knowing the Pharisees and the Essenes’ doctrines as an insider just don’t stack up. And by all rights he should be a Sadducee as an aristocrat from a priestly family – yet he claims to believe in resurrection (or reincarnation) although he holds the Pharisees in contempt. In short he seems to be a sort of eclectic maverick, and is himself perhaps influenced by Hellenism in his beliefs.

I’m doubtful that we can infer anything solid from the fact that reincarnation becomes part of Jewish tradition later in the Kabala – because this may well have been from the influence of neo-Platonism.

Also I note that reincarnation is not taught in the Talmud (unless we see an esoteric level of interpretation in the text, presumably on grounds of numerology and gematria – and this seems forced to say the least). In addition the Church Fathers do not attack the Jews for believing in reincarnation – but they are keen to attack the pagans for this belief.
As for the Gospel narratives that seem to give credence to the idea of Jewish belief in reincarnation at the time of Jesus – the expectation of the return of Elijah has another explanation which seems simpler (see above post).

The one story that is more difficult to explain is the healing of the blind man in John’s Gospel. The disciples question to Jesus about whether the man’ blindness may be informed by some vague notion of karma – but if this is the case it may be that they have heard this notion from a pagan. Or it may be informed by Rabbinical debates about whether a child can sin in the womb and be punished for this at birth.

Either explanation is based on an attempt to answer why the innocent suffer – and the worst possible answer to this conundrum is that they suffer because they have sinned (people in the East often give this answer in terms of karma, while Christians still sometimes explain undeserved and indiscriminate suffering in terms of visitation of God’s wrath). Jesus in this episode answers that suffering has to be seen as an opportunity for the healing work of God. I see this story in terms of Christus Victor – God comes to free us and heal us rather than acting primarily out of a need to punish.

All the best

Dick

#16

Footnote -

Ideas about pre-natal sin in Rabbinical Judaism

Here is a discussion I found by an internet Rabbi about the conversation about pre-natal sin in early Rabbinic Judaism. I note it was a conversation about things unclear or unknown rather than a set of fixed beliefs (and the deliberation between the disciples over the man born blind has echoes of Rabbinic debate):

*Now the idea of pre-natal sin is discussed in a number of places in rabbinical literature. In one case, Esau is described as possessing a sinful nature even though he was not yet born. “When Rebecca passed by the pagan shrines, Esau would run and struggle to come out (Rashi cites this midrash in his commentary on Genesis 25:2).

The Talmud in Sanhedrin 91b also discusses the question. “Antoninus also enquired of Rabbi, ‘From what time does the Evil Tempter hold sway over man; from the formation [of the embryo], or from [its] issuing forth [into the light of the world]?! — ‘From the formation,’ he replied. ‘If so,’ he objected, ‘it would rebel in its mother’s womb and go forth. But it is from when it issues.’ Rabbi said: This thing Antoninus taught me, and Scripture supports him, for it is said, At the door * sin lieth in wait” (Gen 4:7).

In Midrash Koheleth and Midras Ruth, there is a story told of Elisha Ben Abujah, who departed from the faith, and became a horrible apostate; and, amongst other reasons of his apostasy, this is rendered for one: “ There are which say, that his mother, when she was big with child of him, passing through a temple of the Gentiles, smelt something very strong, and they gave to her of what she smelt, and she did eat; והרה מפעפע בכריסה כבכריסה של חכינה and the child in the womb grew hot, and swelled blisters, as in the womb of a serpent’ ? Elisha’s apostasy is evidently due to a sin of her mother. *

All of this material comes from Mishnah/Talmud. The Mishnah was compiled in 202AD from earlier sources going back to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70AD.

My secondary source for these quotations –
rabbimichaelsamuel.com/2010/05/a … natal-sin/*