Christian Mortalism - Modern Scholarship

Modern Scholarship

As early as 1917 Harvey Scott could write "That there is no definite affirmation, in the Old Testament of the doctrine of a future life, or personal immortality, is the general consensus of Biblical scholarship.". The modern scholarly consensus is that the canonical teaching of the Old Testament made no reference to an "immortal soul" independent of the body. This view is represented consistently in a wide range of scholarly reference works.

According to Donelley, "Twentieth century biblical scholarship largely agrees that the ancient Jews had little explicit notion of a personal afterlife until very late in the Old Testament period," and "only the latest stratum of the Old Testament asserts even the resurrection of the body." Scholars have noted that the notion of the "disembodied existence of a soul in bliss" is not in accordance with a Hebrew world view: "While Hebrew thought world distinguished soul from body (as material basis of life), there was no question of two separate, independent entities." Gillman argues that

In contrast to the two enigmatic references to Enoch and Elijah, there are ample references to the fact that death is the ultimate destiny for all human beings, that God has no contact with or power over the dead, and that the dead do not have any relationship with God (see, inter alia, Ps. 6:6, 30:9–10, 39:13–14, 49:6–13, 115:16–18, 146:2–4). If there is a conceivable setting for the introduction of a doctrine of the afterlife, it would be in Job, since Job, although righteous, is harmed by God in the present life. But Job 10:20–22 and 14:1–10 affirm the opposite.

However, N. T. Wright suggests that "the Bible offers a spectrum of belief about life after death." While Goldingay suggests that Qohelet points out that there is no evidence that "human beings would enjoy a positive afterlife," Philip Johnston argues that a few Psalms, such as Psalm 16, Psalm 49 and Psalm 73, "affirm a continued communion with God after death," but "give no elaboration of how, when or where this communion will take place."

Neyrey suggests that, "for a Hebrew, ‘soul’ indicated the unity of a human person," and "this Hebrew field of meaning is breached in the Wisdom of Solomon by explicit introduction of Greek ideas of soul. Avery-Peck argues that

Scripture does not present even a rudimentarily developed theology of the soul. The creation narrative is clear that all life originates with God. Yet the Hebrew Scripture offers no specific understanding of the origin of individual souls, of when and how they become attached to specific bodies, or of their potential existence, apart from the body, after death. The reason for this is that, as we noted at the beginning, the Hebrew Bible does not present a theory of the soul developed much beyond the simple concept of a force associated with respiration, hence, a life-force.

Regardless of the character of the soul's existence in the intermediate state, biblical scholarship affirms that a disembodied soul is unnatural and at best transitional. Bromiley argues that "the soul and the body belong together, so that without either the one or the other there is no true man. Disembodied existence in Sheol is unreal. Paul does not seek a life outside the body, but wants to be clothed with a new and spiritual body (1 Cor. 15; 2 Cor. 5)."

The mortalist disbelief in the existence of a naturally immortal soul, is affirmed as biblical teaching by a range of standard scholarly Jewish and Christian sources. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought (1995), says "There is no concept of an immortal soul in the Old Testament, nor does the New Testament ever call the human soul immortal.", Harper's Bible Dictionary (1st ed. 1985), says that 'For a Hebrew, ‘soul’ indicated the unity of a human person; Hebrews were living bodies, they did not have bodies", the New Bible Dictionary’ (3rd. ed. 1996), says "But to the Bible man is not a soul in a body but a body/soul unity", the Encyclopedia of Judaism’ (2000), says "Scripture does not present even a rudimentarily developed theology of the soul", the New Dictionary of Theology’ (2000), and "The notion of the soul as an independent force that animates human life but that can exist apart from the human body—either prior to conception and birth or subsequent to life and death—is the product only of later Judaism", Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (2000), says "Far from referring simply to one aspect of a person, “soul” refers to the whole person", the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says "Possibly Jn. 6:33 also includes an allusion to the general life-giving function. This teaching rules out all ideas of an emanation of the soul.", and "The soul and the body belong together, so that without either the one or the other there is no true man", Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (1987), says "Indeed, the salvation of the “immortal soul” has sometimes been a commonplace in preaching, but it is fundamentally unbiblical.", the Encyclopedia of Christianity (2003), says "The Hebrew Bible does not present the human soul (nepeš) or spirit (rûah) as an immortal substance, and for the most part it envisions the dead as ghosts in Sheol, the dark, sleepy underworld", The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2005), says "there is practically no specific teaching on the subject in the Bible beyond an underlying assumption of some form of afterlife (see immortality)", and the Zondervan Encyclopedia of the Bible (rev. ed. 2009), says "It is this essential soul-body oneness that provides the uniqueness of the biblical concept of the resurrection of the body as distinguished from the Greek idea of the immortality of the soul".

The mortalist disbelief in the existence of a naturally immortal soul, is also affirmed as biblical teaching by various modern theologians, and Hebblethwaite observes the doctrine is "not popular amongst Christian theologians or among Christian philosophers today".