Why bring it up bit by bit when the Egyptians already knew about the soul and afterlife a long time ago?
The Egyptians had their own doctrines about "the soul," but this isn't to say that the Egyptians were correct either theologically or even anthropologically, speaking in modern terms about it. We don't know that they were any more or less correct than were the later Greeks. We also would have to do some analytic study to see what conceptual differences the Egyptians had about the nature of the human soul in contrast to what 1st century Christians--or Jesus--had.
And why did God bring clarification in bit by bit? That's a good question, Rami, and I don't think there is an easy or clear answer to that.
The author of OT was clear about it; Man is made of dust!
I don't think we can say he [Moses?] was "clear" about it when
1) Man's being made from dust doesn't clearly and distinctly explain anything to the reader in a comprehensive manner, and
2) this statement isn't necessarily above or prior to all other statements about the nature of Humanity made in the Old Testament, or even in the book of Genesis itself. The place of Genesis isn't dependent on whether or not it mentions or explains the human soul. More specifically, what we find in the Old Testament theology alludes to the view that human beings are unified beings, so it would be more appropriate to say Moses likely thought of people as "being" souls rather than "having" souls in some distinct separateness.
Are you familiar with the Golem story by the Jews? The Golem was made of mud, like Adam. Then a rabbi wrote the name of God on its head to get it animated, as Adam got animated by God's breath. No soul was required!
Thank you for your participation.
Yes, I am familiar with the Golem story. Unfortunately, like the story of
Frankenstein by Mary Shelley, I don't think the medieval Jewish myth of the Golem is relevant to the issue of
whether or not we should value the Old Testament or even the book of Genesis.
While as Christians we aren't required to agree with all of the various tropes of Rabbinic/Talmudic Jewish thought, not to mention Kabbalistic thought, the place of Genesis as a part of the overall Tradition (or Canon) of biblical and also Christian thought is one that can't be readily jettisoned in a wholesale manner.
I think you're welcome to place the New Testament in priority over the Old Testament; I know I do. But I don't think we can simply dismiss it altogether since it provides the prophetic background and genetic identity by which the Messiah (i.e. Jesus) was to arrive into the World.
It would be unwise, and unscholarly, to evict the Old Testament from our biblical thought and erroneously take some view akin to that of Marcion.
