Judaism holds mixed messages on the soul

The argument

Judaism does not speak with one voice on the soul, and its position has shifted considerably over time — which is part of what makes it a useful case in a discussion of how religious ideas have handled the question for centuries. Historically, Judaism preached of a soul that was inseparable from the physical body. The soul was the thoughts, emotions, and life-force of the body, but it did not and could not exist separately. Although it was not a physical organ, it acted as a part of the body and could not continue on after death. On this understanding the soul is closer to what a living body does than to something a living body contains, which is why its end and the body's end are the same event rather than two. This idea of the soul was based on what was directly stated in the Torah, the Jewish equivalent of the bible. The picture changed as Jewish thought came into contact with other traditions. Over time, as ancient Greek philosophy on the soul and Christian and Muslim ideas made their way into Jewish scholarly discussions, many Jewish thinkers began embracing the idea of dualism, the soul and physical body existing separately. In these conceptualizations, the soul exists more apart from the body and is more connected to the divine and spiritual planes. In addition, because it is no longer a function of the body, it can exist after the body dies and ceases to exist. Neither view displaced the other. Today, there are many sects of Judaism that embrace both ideas of the soul, so the tradition holds mixed messages rather than a single doctrine — and centuries of religious discussion have produced a range of answers about the soul rather than one settled account.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Only the original idea of the soul should be counted a Judaism. The dualism ideas of later years where influences from other philosophies, so they don't truly represent the Jewish idea of a soul. At its core, the soul is tied to the body and exists in the same subsequent plane.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The early picture is less settled than presented. The Hebrew vocabulary for the living person is varied, and rendering it as 'soul' is itself a later interpretive move; Second Temple texts already contain ideas of survival after death. [Rejecting P2] Influence is not adulteration. Traditions develop by engaging with their neighbours, and the medieval material treated here as foreign import was produced by rabbinic authorities working squarely within Jewish law and exegesis. [Rejecting P3] Different sects holding different views shows internal diversity rather than a mixed message. A tradition can have a centre of gravity while accommodating disagreement at its edges, which is what the opposing reading claims.