Short answer. Largely yes. The Hebrew Bible mostly treats a person as an animated body (Hebrew nephesh means "living being," not a detachable soul) and its late hope is bodily resurrection, not a soul's natural deathlessness. The naturally-immortal soul is a Platonic stream that later fused with that hope. Strongly grounded, still debated at the edges: tier: resonance you can lean on.
What Cullmann actually claimed
The most influential case here is Oscar Cullmann's slim, explosive lecture, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (Ingersoll Lecture 1954-55; pub. 1958), which argued that the New Testament's view of death is "diametrically opposed" to Plato's: in the Phaedo, Socrates meets death serenely because the soul is already immortal and the body a prison it sheds; in the Gospels, Jesus in Gethsemane trembles, because death is a real enemy to be defeated, not a release to be welcomed. For Cullmann the Christian hope is not that part of you never dies but that the whole dead person is raised by God's act, anchored in Christ's resurrection as "first fruits" (1 Corinthians 15:20-23). The two pictures are not the same idea in different words; they answer death in opposite ways. Cullmann's essay caused an uproar precisely because most pew Christianity had quietly assumed Plato, that "going to heaven" means a soul surviving on its own. His point, hedged honestly: the immortal soul is a Greek import the church absorbed, not the New Testament's native hope.
Nephesh: the Bible's word that isn't "soul"
The English word "soul" carries Platonic freight the Hebrew nephesh does not. In Genesis 2:7 God forms the human from dust, breathes in breath of life, and "the man became a living being" (nephesh hayyah), the human does not have a nephesh, the human is one. The same word is used of animals (Genesis 1:20-21) and is bound up with blood and breath (Genesis 9:4-5). James Barr, no minimalist, granted in The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (1992) that the Old Testament generally has no doctrine of an immortal soul surviving death intact. The grave-realism is blunt: "the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10), "in death there is no remembrance of you" (Psalm 6:5), and on the day a person dies "his plans perish" (Psalm 146:4). Sheol is shadow, not reward. This is not a soul flying free: it is a living being that, when breath leaves, simply stops. Tier-honest: a few late texts strain toward more (next section), so "no afterlife at all in Hebrew thought" overstates it.
The Hebrew alternative: resurrection, not deathlessness
Where biblical hope sharpens, it sharpens toward resurrection of the body, not the soul's escape from it. The clearest Hebrew text is Daniel 12:2 ("many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake") language of sleep and waking, a whole person restored, not a soul that never slept. John J. Collins reads this as a genuinely new, second-century-BCE apocalyptic hope, not a recovery of something always there. Jon D. Levenson, in Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel (2006), shows this hope grows from Israel's own soil (national restoration imagery (Ezekiel 37's dry bones) hardening into personal resurrection) rather than being a mere Greek borrowing. N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003) presses the same contrast: pagan antiquity knew the dead did not come back bodily; Jewish-Christian resurrection was scandalous because it wasn't Platonic immortality. The shape is consistent: God reverses death from the outside. You are not naturally deathless; you are raised.
How the two fused
So why does most Christianity now sound Platonic? Because the streams merged. Already the Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-4 (a Greek-language Jewish text) says "the souls of the righteous are in the hand of God," sliding toward an intermediate, surviving soul. Paul holds the tension: he insists on resurrection but of a transformed "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), and comforts the Thessalonians with the dead being raised, not already in heaven (1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). As Christianity moved into a Hellenized world, church teachers increasingly read the resurrection through the immortal soul, the soul survives in an interim state and is later reunited with a risen body. Bart D. Ehrman's Heaven and Hell (2020) traces how this hybrid hardened into the default Western picture of death as a soul departing to its reward. The honest verdict: the New Testament's load-bearing hope is resurrection; the immortal soul is the Greek partner it married. Useful, ancient, deeply woven in, but a partner, not the root.
Common questions
What does nephesh mean in the Bible?
The Hebrew nephesh means "living being," not a detachable soul. In Genesis 2:7 God forms the human from dust, breathes in breath of life, and "the man became a living being" (nephesh hayyah): the human does not have a nephesh, the human is one. The same word is used of animals (Genesis 1:20-21) and is bound up with blood and breath. The English word "soul" carries Platonic freight the Hebrew does not.
What did Oscar Cullmann argue about the soul?
In his 1958 lecture, Cullmann argued that the New Testament's view of death is "diametrically opposed" to Plato's. In the Phaedo, Socrates meets death serenely because the soul is already immortal and the body a prison it sheds; in the Gospels, Jesus in Gethsemane trembles, because death is a real enemy to be defeated, not a release to be welcomed. For Cullmann the Christian hope is that the whole dead person is raised by God's act, not that part of you never dies. His point, hedged honestly: the immortal soul is a Greek import the church absorbed, not the New Testament's native hope.
Does the Bible teach resurrection or an immortal soul?
Where biblical hope sharpens, it sharpens toward resurrection of the body, not the soul's escape from it. The clearest Hebrew text is Daniel 12:2, "many who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake," the language of sleep and waking, a whole person restored. N.T. Wright presses the contrast: Jewish-Christian resurrection was scandalous precisely because it was not Platonic immortality. You are not naturally deathless; you are raised.
Is the immortal soul a purely pagan idea?
Calling the soul "purely pagan" overstates it; calling it "biblical bedrock" overstates the other way. The two streams merged: already the Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-4, a Greek-language Jewish text, slides toward a surviving soul, and Paul holds the tension by insisting on resurrection but of a transformed "spiritual body" (1 Corinthians 15:42-44). As Christianity moved into a Hellenized world, teachers increasingly read the resurrection through the immortal soul. The honest verdict is resonance you can lean on, not a clean either/or you can bank.
This settles a frame, not every verse: the Bible's center of gravity is resurrection, and the naturally-immortal soul is a Greek idea the church absorbed and harmonized, resonance you can lean on, not a clean either/or you can bank. Calling the soul "purely pagan" overstates; calling it "biblical bedrock" overstates the other way.
Sources
Genesis 2:7; 9:4-5; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10; Psalm 6:5; 146:4; Daniel 12:2; 1 Corinthians 15:20-54; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; Wisdom of Solomon 3:1-4; Plato, Phaedo. Oscar Cullmann, Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? (1958); James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (1992); Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel (2006); N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003); John J. Collins on Daniel; Bart D. Ehrman, Heaven and Hell (2020).