CC BY
58
POSSIBLE PARALLELS IN ECCLESIASTES' AND ARISTOTLE'S REFLECTIONS CONCERNING THE ETERNITY AND IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL IN CORRELATION WITH ITS INTELLECTUAL AND ETHICAL MERITS
Igor Tantlevskij St. Petersburg State University, Russia tantigor@mail.wplus.net
Abstract. Comparing Ecclesiastes' thoughts attested in Eccl. 3:10-11, 21; 7:29, 8:5-7,11_14> 11:5, 9,12:3-7,14 with Aristotle's ideas recorded in his treatises On the Soul (II, 2, 413a3-10, 413b24-25; Ill, 5, 430322-25; V, 4, 43031-4), Metaphysics (XII, 1070326, 1074^-14), and Nicomachean Ethics (I, 11, 1100a29-30, 110^35-110^9; X, 7, 1177a11-1178a8, cf. also Pro-trepticus, fr. 10c), the author tries to reveal possible parallels in these thinkers' views on the eternity and immortality of the spirit/soul and posthumous requital in correlation with its rational and moral merits.
Keywords: Ecclesiastes, Aristotle, eternity and immortality of the spirit/soul, "parts" of the soul, "actual mind", afterlife requital.
* This research was carried out thanks to the funding of the Russian Science Foundation (project №15-18-00062; Saint-Petersburg State University).
I
The reader of Ecclesiastes (this book dating varies in the interval from the last quarter of the 6th to the 3rd cent. BCE)1 takes usually notice of the author's pessimistic ideas connected with some views, being periodically expressed in this work in one or another form, concerning the finiteness of individual existence (cf., e. g.: Eccl. 3:19-20, 9:2-3, 5, 10). However, Ecclesiastes appears to have ultimately come to some rather optimistic conclusions concerning the righteous and wise share in the other world2. But let us start with his "neutral" statement which runs as follows:
Who knows if the human spirit (ru.ah) ascends upward
or if the animal spirit goes downward to the earth? (Eccl. 3:21; cf.: 8:7).
1 See, e.g.: TaHT^eBCKHH 2014, 139-141. On the Book of Ecclesiastes in detail see, e. g.: Seow 1997; Bartholomew 2009; Brown 2011.
2 TaHraeBCKHH 2014,141-148.
EXOAH Vol. 11.1 (2017) © Igor Tantlevskij, 2017
www.nsu.ru/classics/schole DOI: 10.21267/AQUILO.2017.11.4523
Thus, Ecclesiastes knows, in addition to the idea of descending of all spirits to Sheol {sc. the underground realm of the dead), also the conception of ascending of {the righteous and wise ones') spirits upwards, i. e. to the heavens, to the Creator {cf.: EccL 12:7; see below). In the course of his lifetime, Ecclesiastes inclines in his reflections first toward one view, then to another; depending on this, the tone of his book and his mental set change, as well as his attitude towards one's purpose and mode of life, what one should do during his lifetime, etc. At the end of the work, after the expressible and figurative description of one's decease approaching and man's departure to "his eternal home" {'el bet 'olamo; EccL. 12:5), the author, summing up the reflections of his life, on his second thoughts, concludes his notes3 with the following assertion:
And the dust {sc. man's flesh. — I. T.) will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit (ha-ruh) will return to God Who gave it {12:7).
Let us note that the Divine {resp. eternal) spirit in man has already been contrasted with the human flesh in the Book of Genesis 6:3:
"My Spirit {ruht) will not contend with {or: "abide in"4. —I. T.) man {ba-'adam; who was formed of "the dust of the ground {ha-'adamah)", see.: Gen. 2:7.—I. T.) forever {le-'olam), because he {also) is flesh..."5
Images and tropes of the Book of Ecclesiastes' concluding chapter can hardly be interpreted unambiguously, but in the light of the author's belief in man's spirit "return to God" {Eccl 12:7) one can apprehend the phrase: "and the almond tree {has-saqed) will blossom" {Eccl. 12:5), used as an allegory of "man's going to his eternal home", to have been an indication of his transition to a new life {beyond the grave), for in the Land of Israel the almond tree {Prunus amygdalus) blossoms first of all fruit trees at the end ofjanuary/the beginning of February — as a "pro-claimer" of spring and revival6. {NB: the verb saqad [with the same consonantal spelling as the noun saqed] means, in particular, "wake {up)", "to be awake".) As for the image of "the silver cord being loosed" {Eccl. 12:6), symbolizing an earthly decease, it could be understood as an uncoupling of man's spirit and flesh {ex hy-pothesi connected with one another by this "silver cord" during man's lifetime).
3 The phrase "Vanity of vanities," said Ecclesiastes, "All is vanity", inserted at the beginning of the book {Eccl. 1:2), just after its title, as well as in its end {Eccl. 12:8), serves as a sort of framing of this work text. The passage Eccl. 12:9-14 represents a prosaic addition of the editor of the Book of Ecclesiastes (probably, his disciple) with a poetic insertion.
4 See: the Qumran text 4Q252 {Commentary on Genesis A) i 2. On this translation cf. further, e. g.: Bernstein 1994, 421-427.
5 Cf. also, e.g.:Num. 16:22, 27:16.
6 Cf. also: Num. 17:16-24.
Ecclesiastes also expresses the initial differentiation of man's spirit and flesh and their implicit contraposition in the verse 11:5 (NB: at this the spirit appears to be a primary one):
...You do not know where the spirit (ha-ruh) is coming from
(lit.: "...what is the path of the spirit". — I. T.),
or how the bones (appear) in the womb of her who is with child.
In this connection let us mention that the Hebrews had an idea of two souls residing in man, or more specifically, of the "soul" and the "spirit": nefes and ruah (ruh). The "soul"-nefes is in the blood of living creatures - men or animals7, being their vitalforce, and it perishes together with their flesh. The term nefes is translated 600 times as psuche in the Septuagint. It could be characterized conventionally as the "vegetative-animal soul"8. According to Biblical views, the "spirit"- ruah, being closely connected with man's "heart" (a synonym of the inner man)9, is a "bearer" of person's essential individuality, his selfness, reason, mind, consciousness, etc.10 The term ruah is translated as pneuma 277 times in the Septuagint. Let us mention also that in some cases the Hebrew terms ruah ("spirit") and nefes ("soul") are used interchangeably (as in other languages), especially in poetry.
Judging by some Biblical books created/composed earlier or approximately at the same time as the Book of Ecclesiastes, the conception of ascending of the righteous and wise ones' spirits to the heavens (cf.: Eccl. 12:7) as their reward (Ps. 119:112 mentions an "eternal recompense"11) in the other world was widely spread in the Judaean society. The spirits of the other people descend and remain in Sheol which is depicted — within this conception's framework — in negative tones and considered par excellence to be an abode of sad existence of likeness of man's shade or even as an equivalent of the de facto loss of personality, destruction, nonexistence12. Let us give some examples:
In the way of uprightness is life (i. e. eternal life13. — I. T.),
and (in its) pathway there is immortality ('al-mawet) (Prov. 12:28).
7 See, e. g.: Gen. 9:4-5; Lev. 17:10-12,14; Deut. 12:23-24; cf.: Jer. 2:34.
8 Cf.: Dussaud 1949, 385-388; U,npKHH 1987,185.
9 See, e. g.:Ex. 28:3, 35:5, 21-22, Deut. 34:9, Isa. 29:24, 40:13, 59:21, 65:17,iJer. 3:16-17, Ezek. 11:5,19, 18:31, 20:32, 36:26,1Job 20:3, 32:8(1), Ps. 77[76]:7, i Chr. 28:12,2 Chr. 29:31.
10 Among other meanings of this word let us mention, e. g., the following ones: "breath"; "wind", "blowing"; "passion".
n Cf. also Ps. 116:15: "Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His pious".
12 Cf., e.g.:Eccl. 9:5,10.
13 The term "life" is used sometimes as a synonym to the eternal Life in Ancient Near Eastern literature.
The wise one {leads) upward on the path of life
{i. e. he obtains immortality in heaven. — I. T.), in order to avoid the depths of Sheol {Prov. 15:24).
For you will not abandon my life {lit. soul. — I. T.) in Sheol,
you cannot allow your pious one to see the Abyss.
You will get me to know the path of life {i. e. eternal life. — I. T.),
fullness ofjoy in the face of You,
at Your right hand Delight forever {Ps. 16:10-n)14.
I know {that) my Redeemer lives,
and He shall stand {in) the end {i. e. onjob's decease15. —I. T.) upon the dust
{sc. Job's remains. —I. T.) — after my skin {here: flesh. —I. T.) is destroyed; and out of my flesh {i. e. having departed the rotten flesh.— I. T.) I
{sc. Job's spirit16. — I. T.) shall see God17,
{Whom) I shall see for myself,
my eyes shall behold {sc. Job's spirit's eye18. —M. T.) — {I myself), not another {one) {Job1919:25-27)20.
Some Judaeans probably believed that initially, immediately after flesh's death, all human spirits (souls) descend into Sheol21, where the Divine Judgment takes place, — the Book of Proverbs, in particular, mentions the "weighting of spirits" {16:2) or "hearts" {21:2, 24:12)22 by the Lord. The spirits of the wicked and unreasonable ones, being burdened with the sins, remain here, thus suffering their punishment {eternally?). The spirits of the righteous, virtuous, and wise ones soar into the heavens and ascend to their Creator {cf., e. g.: Hos. 6:2, 13:14; i Sam. 2:623).24 In connection with the doctrine of the spirit's Divinejudgement in
14 See also further, e. g.:Ps. 16:5-11,17:15, 21:5,7, 23:6, 27:13, 36:10, 37:34-38, 41:13, 49:16, 56:14, 61:8, 73:24-28,103:4-5,116:8-9,119:112,139:24,142:5-7,143:10.
15 The parallel hemistich 19:26b testifies in favor of this interpretation of the phrase.
16 Cf.:/ob 32:8, 33:4, 6, 34:14-15.
17 Or: "But {lastly) from my flesh {i. e. onjob's resurrection in the flesh. — I. T.) I shall see God". Cf.: Isa. 26:19, 41:14; Dan. 12:2,13.
18 Cf., e. g.: i Sam. 2:32-33; 2 Sam. 7:16.
19 The title of the book Iyyob {Job) should probably be interpreted as: "Where is the ancestor's {forefather's) spirit {'ey (')ob)?".
20 Cf. also, e. g.:Job 32:8, 33:4, 6, 34:14-15.
21 Cf., e. g.: Ps. 16:10, 49:16. Cf. also the Thanksgiving hymn of the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness {iQHa) 11:19f. {see further: Tantlevskij, Svetlov 2014, 61-63), as well as: iPet. 3:18-19, Matt. 12:40; the apocryphal Gospels of Peter 10:41-42 and Nicodemus, 18-24.
22 Cf. in this connection the Egyptian "Book of the Dead", chapter 125.
23 Cf. also: Deut. 32:39.
the other world (Eccl. 11:9,12:7,14; also: 8:5-6) the perception of the etymology of the term Sheol (se'ol / se'ol) — in all probability derived from the verb sa'al, to "ask", "inquire", "require", "demand", "entreat", — clears up.
According to Ecclesiastes' observations and understanding, the righteous one's and the wicked one's requital is far from its realization during their terrestrial life; however, he "knows" intuitively that it oversteps (should overstep) the limits of man's earthly being:
Because the sentence on the evil-doer is not carried out on the instant, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. A sinner does evil a hundred (times) because his (days) are prolonged,
yet I (also) surely know that it will be well (tob; lit. "good(ness)". — I. T.) with those who fear God,
who fear before Him. But it will not be well with the wicked; nor will he prolong (his) days,
(which will disappear) like a shadow25, because he did not fear before God. Such a vanity which occurs on earth,
that there are the righteous to whom it happens according to the deeds of the wicked, and there are wicked (men) to whom it happens according to the deeds of the righteous (8:11-14).
This passage can be understood in the sense that "from the perspective of the eternity-'olam" (cf.: Eccl. 3:11), the days of man's earthly life — no matter how much prolonged they may be (cf.: Eccl. 6:3, 6) — will, nevertheless, pass away "like a shadow"; they "will not last" beyond the earthly life for the wicked one, because his spirit will descend to Sheol, where it becomes the likeness of the shadow (cf.: Eccl. 3:19; 9:10). But the spirits of "those who fear God" will certainly taste the "good(ness)" — if not on earth (see.: Eccl. 8:14), then in God's Presence (Eccl. 12:7), ascended up to heaven (cf.: Eccl. 3:21).
In the final part of the Book of Ecclesiastes and in its editor's addition one can find the emphasis on (the other world) requital as well. Thus, addressing himself to the youth, Ecclesiastes says:
Know that for all these (sc. your deeds. — I. T.) God will bring you into Judgement (11:9; cf.: 3:17, 8:5-6).
In his addition to the Book of Ecclesiastes its editor also affirms: For God will bring every deed intojudgement —
24 On the Israelite-Judahite (Judaean) conceptions of the afterlife in detail see, e. g.: TaHT^eB-ckhh 2016,197-217; cf. also: Bloch-Smith 1994; Moor 2014, 373-388.
25 Cf.: i Chr. 29:15;/ob 14:2; Ps. 102:12,144:4; Eccl. 6:12.
138 Parallels in Ecclesiastes' and Aristotle's reflections on the soul {Judgement) on every secret thing, whether good or evil {12:14).
Person should remember his Creator from his youth up, and not only when his old age comes {Eccl. 12:1). In that case, on the death of flesh his "spirit will return to God Who gave it" {Eccl. 12:7), and will not remain in Sheol.
Ecclesiastes is also very optimistic about the potential of man's knowledge, cognition — this is an endless process of understanding, comprehension of the constantly changing world:
I have understood the God-given task with which the sons of men are to be occupied: He has made everything beautiful — {although) in {the limits of) its time; but {as for the sons of men), He has put even the eternity {ha-'olam)
in their heart26 — though no one can comprehend the work that God does, from beginning to end {3:10-11; cp.: 7:29).
The mentioning of ha-'olam {"the eternity", with the definite article) probably implies here not the idea of afterlife, i. e. life after death, but originally eternal life of man's spirit — without death. At the same time the term ha-'olam can be interpreted in this passage as "the world" {bearing in mind man's thought scope of the universe, or, perhaps, an expression of the idea of man's spirit as a "microcosm")27.
II
In his early work, the fragmentary preserved dialogue Eudemus, Aristotle {384322 BCE) recounts the concept of Plato about the immortality of the soul {the "whole soul") and anamnesis. Later, however, his views on the essence of the human soul are undergoing significant changes. In particular, he develops the doctrine of the few parts of the soul: "vegetative", "animal" — sc., the lower parts, perishing with the body, — and the "mind" {nous; "intellect", "reason"). In the Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Ch. 11 {110^35-110^9), Aristotle says that the ancestors passed into the other world can stay there, being both "happy" {eudaimones) and "blessed" {makarioi), as well as "not happy" {cf. also: 1100a29-30). In Book X, Ch. 7 {1177a11-1178a8), the Stagirite points out also a path leading to the "happiness": speaking of the mind {nous) as the highest part of the soul28, "either as being itself divine {theion), or as being the divinest {part) {to theiotaton) of us", he as-
26 Cf. the Septuagint's translation: "And He has also put even the eternity in their heart.".
27 Cf., on the other hand: Mazzinghi 2000,147-161.
28 Cf., e. g.: Plato, Alcibiades I, 130c, 133b-c; Gorgias, 493a-c; Cratylus, 399e, 400c; Phaedrus, 246a-b, 247c, 253c-e; Laws, II, 661b-c.
serts, that "perfect happiness" is achieved thanks to the "contemplative / resp. speculative activity (theoretike)". (Cf. also Protrepticus, fr. 10c [= lamblichus, Pro-trepticus, 8 (Pistelli 48. 9-13, 18-20)]: "So nothing divine (theion) or blessed (makarion) belongs to humans apart from just that one thing worth taking seriously, as much mind and intelligence (nou kai phroneseos) as is in us. For, of what is ours, this alone seems to be immortal (athanaton), and this alone divine (theion). <...> Thus, one ought either to give himself up to philosophy or say goodbye to living and depart from hence.".) The more intense the wise is able to engage in contemplation, so he becomes wiser and happier. Therefore
we ought so far as possible to achieve immortality (athanatidzein), and do all that man may to live in accordance with the best thing (to kratiston) in himself; for though this be a small (part) (mikron) in bulk, in power and value it far surpasses all the rest.
It may even be held that this (part) is the true self of each (man), inasmuch as it is actually the dominant and better (to kurion kai ameinon) (part of him); and therefore it would be a strange thing if a man should choose to live not his own life but (the life of) some other (in himself). <...> That which is proper to the nature of each is that which is best and most pleasant for each creature; accordingly man is inherent in life, subordinate to the mind, inasmuch as the mind more than anything else is man. Therefore this life will be the happiest.
In his treatise On the Soul, Aristotle admits that man's "active mind" (nous poietikos) is not an organic body's function29, but proves to be as if it comes from the outside (cf. Eccl. 11:5: "You do not know where the spirit is coming from"); it appears in a certain moment of person's development as something given to him directly, and so it turns out rather as an independent (incorporeal) "entity", enters into a temporal alliance with the "vegetative" and "animal" parts of the soul perishing together with the body30. Thus, speaking in the treatise On the Soul, Book II, Ch. 2, 413a3-10, about "parts"/"shares" (mere) of the soul, Aristotle observes that
there is no reason why some (parts of the soul) should not be separated (from the body), if they are not the entelechy of any body whatever (6-7).
Further, in his treatise On the Soul, the Stagirite makes the following assumption:
As regards the mind and the speculative faculty, <...> it would seem to be a distinct spices of soul, and it alone is capable of separation from the body, as that which is eternal from that which is perishable (II, 2, 413b24-25)31.
29 Cf., e. g.: Cohoe 2013, 347-377; Idem 2014, 594-604.
30 Cf., e. g.: Modrak1991, 755-774; Amorose 2001, P. 97-106; Wood 2012,169-182;Johansen 2015; Tantlevskij 2015,137-141.
31 Cf. also: V, 4, 43031-4.
Aristotle writes about the immortality of "mind" in Metaphysics {Book XII, 1070826, 1074b1-14) as well. Speaking of the "active mind" in the treatise On the Soul, Book III, Ch. 5, he assumes that
it is only when separated that it is its true self, and this alone is immortal {athanaton) and everlasting {ai'dion; "eternal". — I. T.). We do not remember {ou mnemoneuomen) because this {active mind. — I. T.) is impassive {apathes), while the mind which can be affected {ho pathetikos nous. — I. T.) is perishable and without this {i. e. active mind. — I. T.) does not think at all {430822-25).
Paradoxically, it turns out that person perceives eternally his selfness, individuality, his own "I" without any correlation of himself with his memory: in different person's hypostases his reminiscences, naturally, may be different, but regardless of their varying specifics in one or another periods of his everlasting existence in one or another hypostases, he perceives himself, feels just like he is this same person and does not lose his individuality {and even possibly his identity in each of his "incarnations"). In this conception one can reveal also the originality of Aristotle's interpretation of the pre-existence of the soul.
Thus, as it was noted above, according to Aristotle's teaching, the "active mind" is not an organic body's function, but proves to be as if it comes from the outside — it comes from "eternity" and it departs to "eternity". According to the "soteriological" doctrines of both Ecclesiastes and Aristotle, the reward for the wise and righteous is not "eschatological" — every one of them receives his "share" in the other world directly after his earthly decease. It may be that the emphasis on the "share"/"measure" {greater or smaller) of the immortal {sc. able to be "saved") part of the wise person's soul in Aristotle's teaching implicitly implies that this "proportion" is conceived not to be a definitive one, and he allows for the possibility of some "progress" in the development of the soul in the other world {or its "regress")... On the other hand, Aristotle says about the possibility of influence — though not decisive — of the events of this world to the degree of "happiness"/"blessedness" of the translated into the other world ancestors {see: Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Chapter 11,1100a29-30; 1101a35-b9), suggesting a belief of the relative transparency {at least a one-way) between the two worlds.
III
There is no mention of Jews and their religion or ideas in the preserved works of Aristotle32. Not putting the question here of the possibility of mutual influence between certain relevant ideas ofjewish thinkers and Aristotle or the probability
32 See, e.g.: Stern {ed.) 1974, 6.
of their intellectual contacts, let us mention, nevertheless, of the following. In his work Against Apion (1,176-183),Josephus Flavius (37 — ca. 100 CE) cites the first book of the lost treatise On Sleep by Clearchus of Cyprian city Soli (the middle of the 4th — the beginning of the 3rd cent. BCE), a learned and much-travel pupil of Aristotle. According to Josephus, this book contained Aristotle's account of his encounter and conversations with a Greek-speaking Jew from Coele-Syria (Judaea was a part of it), most probably, in Moesia in ca. 347-344 BCE. In particular, Aristotle tells about hisjewish interlocutor the following:
.He came to converse with us and with some other scholars, to test our wisdom. But as one who had been intimate with many learned men, it was rather he who imparted to us something ofhis own (§ 181).
For a great part of what this Jew said, it would be too long to recite it; but what includes in it both miracle (thaumasioteta) and philosophy, it may not be amiss to discourse on. <...> What I am about to say will seem to you as miraculous (thaumaston) as a dream (§ 177)33.
But of the "miracle" itself Josephus Flavius passes over in silence. Possibly Josephus did not have the original treatise of Clearchus at his disposal and used some sort of an anthology on thejews composed by ajewish apologetic author or by a pagan Greek writer34. On the other hand, some scholars believe that "the continuation of the story was not, in the opinion of the Jewish historian, wholly to credit of the Jewish religion"35. In this connection one should pay attention to following passage from Proclus' commentary on Plato's Republic:
Here is a proof that it is possible for the soul to leave the body and enter it again: the man in Clearchus who used a soul-drawing wand [psuchoulku rhabdu] on a sleeping lad and persuaded the great Aristotle, as Clearchus says in his book On Sleep, that the soul separates from the body and enters it again and treats it as a sort of hotel. For the man struck the boy with his wand and drew out his soul. Leading the soul some distance from the body with the stick, he demonstrated that the body remained motionless and was preserved unharmed and was unable to feel anything when pricked, as if it were dead. In the meantime the soul was at some remove from the body. But when the wand brought it back into association with the body and it reentered it the boy described everything in detail. As a result of this, Clearchus says, Aristotle and the other spectators of such scientific experiments came to believe that the soul was separable from the body. But the
33 Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150 — ca. 215 CE), alluding to Clearchus, also mentions the encounter of Aristotle with thisjew (Stromata, I, 75, 70, 2).
34 Such as Alexander Polyhistor from Miletus (the middle of the 1st cent. BCE) who wrote the compilation "On thejews".
35 Cf.: Stern (ed.) 1974, 52.
point I'm making, that the soul is able to leave the body and enter it again and make it breathe again after abandoning it, has long been demonstrated by the writings of the leaders of the Peripatos (F7 Wehrli36)37.
Proclus nowhere alludes to the miracle-maker as ajew. But, according to some scholars, this fact could be "explained away as the result of the Neoplatonic writer's desire to omit everything connected with eitherjudaism or Christianity"38. On the other hand, abstracting from the mystical elements of the story, one can assume here an implicit evidence of one of the possible sources, which could have an impact on the formation/development of Aristotle's teaching concerning man's soul expressed in his later works. Contrariwise, one cannot rule out the possibility of Ecclesiastes' acquaintance with Aristotle's views, provided that this book was composed not earlier than at the end of the 4th — 3rd cent. BCE.
References
Тантлевский, И. P. (2014) «Оптимизм Экклесиаста», Вопросы философии 11,137-148. Тантлевский, И. P.; Светлов, P. В. (2014b) «'Ессеи как пифагорейцы': предестинация в
пифагореизме, платонизме и кумранской теологии», ZXOAH (Schole) 8.1, 54-66. Тантлевский, И. P. (2015) "Бессмертная «доля» души в учении Аристотеля, в Этике Спинозы и в перипатетической рецепции Маймонидом раввинистического учения о «доле» человека «в Грядущем Мире»", EXOAH (Schole) 9.1,137-141. Тантлевский, И. P. (2016) Царь Давид и его эпоха в Библии и истории. Санкт-
Петербург: Издательство РхГА. Циркин, Ю. Б. Карфаген и его культура. Москва: Наука, 1987.
Amorose, M. (2001) "Aristotle's Immortal Intellect," Proceedings of the American Catholic
Philosophical Association 75, 97-106. Bartholomew, C. (2009) Ecclesiastes. Ada, MI: Baker Academic Press. Bernstein, M.J. (1994) "4Q252 i 2: l'ydwrrwhy b'dm lWm," Revue de Qumrân 63,421-427. Bloch-Smith, E. (1992)Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Brown, W. P. (2011) Ecclesiastes: Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching. Louisville, KY: Westminsterjohn Knox Press. Cohoe, C. (2013) "Why the Intellect Cannot Have a Bodily Organ: De Anima 3.4," Phrone-sis 58.4, 347-377.
Cohoe, C. (2014) "Nous in Aristotle's De Anima," Philosophy Compass 9.9, 594-604. Dussaud, R. (1949) Les religions des Hittites et des Hourrites, des Phéniciens et des Syriens.
Paris: Presse Universitaires de France. Johansen, T. K. (2015) The Powers of Aristotle's Soul. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36 Wehrli (Hr.) 2005.
37 Cit.: Ogden 2002,171.
38 Stern (ed.). 1974, 52.
Mazzinghi, L. (2000) "Il mistero del tempo: sul termine 'olam in Qo 3,11," Initium sapientiae: Scritti in onore de Franco Festorazzi nelsuo jo compleanno. Ed. R. Fabris. Bologna: EDB, 147-161.
Modrak, D. K. W. (1991) "The Nous-Body Problem in Aristotle," Review of Metaphysics 44-4, 755-774-
Moor, J. C. de. (2014) "Concepts of Afterlife in Canaan," Ugarit-Forschungen. Internationales Jahrbuch Jur die Altertumskunde Syrien-Palästinas 45, 373-388.
Ogden, D. (2002) Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook. New York, NY: Oxford University Press (2nd ed.: 2009).
Schmidt, B. B. (1994) Israel's Beneficent Dead. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994.
Seow, C. L. (1997) Ecclesiastes: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Anchor Bible. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Stern, M. (ed.). (1974) Greek and Latin Authors on Jews andJudaism. Vol. 1. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Tantlevskij, I. R. (2014) "Optimism of Ecclesiastes," Voprosy Filosofii 11,137-148 (in Russian with an English summary).
Tantlevskij, I. R.; Svetlov, R. V. (2014) " 'Essenes as Pythagoreans': Predestination in Py-thagoreanism, Platonism and the Qumran Theology," EXOAH (Schole) 8.1, 54-66 (in Russian with an English summary).
Tantlevskij, I. R. (2015) "Immortal 'Part' of the Soul in Aristotle's Teaching, in Spinoza's Ethics, and in Peripatetic Maimonides' Reception of the Rabbinic Doctrine of Man's 'Share in the World-to-Come'," EXOAH (Schole) 9.1,137-141.
Tantlevskij, I. R. (2016) King David and His Epoch in the Bible and History. Saint Petersburg: The RChGA Publishibg House.
Tsirkin, Y. B. (1987) Carthage and Its Culture. Moscow.
Wehrli, F. (Hr.). (2005) Die Schule des Aristoteles. Texte und Kommentar. Klearchos. H. III. 3. Aufl. Basel: Schwabe Verlag.
Wood, A. (2012) "Incorporeal Nous and the Science of the Soul in Aristotle's De Anima," International Philosophical Quarterly 52.2,169-182.
