Hell in the Bible?

There is actually no word for hell in the old or new testaments specifically, but rather 3 different words, Sheol in the Hebrew and Hades and Geenna ( more commonly transcribed as Gehenna because of the vowel sound) in the Greek. The word “Hell” comes from Germanic “Hellan” which describes a place of punishment according to the ancient Germanic cultural traditions. The common pictures of hell that we use in western culture (fire, torment, etc.) are images that started with and were integral parts of these Germanic culutres. The Greek and Hebrew words Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna are completely unrelated.

Sheol – literally just means “covered” and in the old testament is used to describe the unknowable or mysterious/unimaginable etc. realm of the dead, for good and bad souls alike. Hades is the Greek translation of this Hebrew word.

Gehenna – the Greek translation of the Hebrew word Hinnom which was an actual geographic place spoken of in Isaiah, a ravine where the peoples of the Old Testament burnt funeary fires constantly and it seemed as though the fires were never put out. The meaning given by Jesus here was the meaning that all Jewish people historically associated with Hinnom’s physical location, that you would be put to death as punishment and then your body would be thrown into this ravine as further disgrace. It is in Isaiah 66:23,24 where Gehenna is given theological significance for what it will be in the future, and this seems to indicate that those who were killed and whose bodies were then thrown into Gehenna will not be deemed worthy of being resurrected in new bodies. The implication here is not of a final-state, but rather as “being cast into the lake of fire”. Think of it as cremation without the dignity of a burial.

There is actually no word for devil in the Biblical Greek or Hebrew either, but rather a whole lot of aliases such as tempter, slanderer, liar, the enemy etc. The actual word “devil” never surfaces anywhere in the Bible outside of these vague references which are often taken out of context. In Greek you have diablos which means “one who is prone to slander, liar”.

Good Night and God Bless,

Laura

A Response to the Question of Violence in Scriptures

I recently find myself replying to weblogs and online journal postings, websites, and the likes when it comes to issues of religion and theology. Maybe its the aggressive young Bible scholar and professor inside of me waiting to jump out and spread her wings, maybe its a little bit of hostility toward certain perspectives due to some painful experiences in my past, or maybe its a little bit of both.  Either way I feel the need to pursue the truth, and for me theological study is one way to feel close to God.

That said I recently replied to a post I found on the irregular times (www.irregulartimes.com), the gist of which gave citations of passages in support of the idea that the Bible condones genocide (The actual article I replied to can be found here http://www.irregulartimes.com/secrets1.html). This is the abridged version of my reply. I do urge you to check out their website, there are many interesting topics and good and informing debates and discussions, and this reply was by no means meant to be an attack. So without further adieu, the reply:

 The Bible is a very complex work of Literature, like a library or anthology of different books by different authors spanning thousands of years ( and even longer if you considerthat before alot of these allegories were written down they were passed along as oral tradition). The different books themselves are usually composed by several different authors (and usually more than one author appears in each book) who’s names are unknown and are known to us only by sources and accronyms ( for example, in the Old Testament we have the Priestly source, the J/E source, the D source etc.). Therefore, many of the stories, especially in the case of Old Testament Literature, are symbolic or were written by the different authors to try to explain the realities of life to a confused and scientifically challenged ancient population. (And actually the literary content of the Old Testament mirrors the content of the religious traditions and mythology of many of its contemporary ancient cultures who were also scientifically challenged primitive societies trying to understand the realities of life: plague, faminine, creation, evil, war etc in relationship to God or a Creator.) The main function of the text then was to explain life and provide allegories teaching things such as approrpiate hospitality, ettiquette, approrpiate behavior etc. in the culture of the society that wrote them. What they teach us today relies on the interpretation of the scripture by (hopefully) qualified and theologically educated religious officials and so forth. So Leviticus itself (the article refered specifically to Levitucs 26.7-9)  does not teach that Genocide is okay, but rather tells a story, a narrative. In the case of the passage cited from Exodus 34.11-14, I would venture to say the purpouse would be explaining the history of their people (how they left one place and came to be in another), and explaining religious protocal (in our socieity you only worship God this way, and if you do this he will protect you from enemies who may try to harm/kill/stop you). 
 
 
 Does this mean that Moses wasn’t a real person? Many scholars, myself included, believe he was. Did these battles actually happen? According to other historical accounts outside of the Bible, evidence shows that the struggles out of Egypt etc. did take place. The ancient world was a warlike and unsafe place in general and these allegories help to explain that reality to the ancient peoples in light of questions such as “If there is a God why do bad things happen?”.  Does this mean that God is not anywhere in the creation of the Old Testament? No, of course God is still at the heart of the text. interpretation of this text, but it is important to understand that it isn’t functioning as a historical account of wars, but rather is offering a symbolic explanation, lessons and messages that were not written for us. They were written for a culture thousands of years old and foreign to us in which such violence was a way of life, and when we take them out of context and try to make them our own and force them into our own modern cultural context, this is what happens: people opt for literal, simpler interpretations and skip over the complexeties of the text. The stories of the Bible are of deep composition with innumerous subtexts and meanings that far surpass the surface.
 
Furthermore all religions have such allegories. Islam and Judaism, like Christianity, teach values of love and peace in everday practical ministry (Worship service, Sunday school, youth groups etc.) even though within their holy scriptures lie comparable seemingly violent allegories. It is only a small fraction of Islamic communities that teach violence and jihad no matter what it may seem like to westerners who watch the News and read best sellers etc., and in Christian communities you also have very small sects which seem to have some scary and violent practices and beliefs. This also brings us to the point that just because these allegories exist in the text doesn’t mean that they neccesarily get used at all, and if they do, most of the time in mainline Christian churches, which require at least a Master of Divinity degree for pastors, they are given an appropriate interpretation, none of which would ever be excusing genocide. In short, we should not attack an ancient and sacred work such as the Bible with so simplistic and literal a claim as “It Teaches This” or “It Does That”.
 
Also the remarks and connections made by the author of this article to the New Testament are interesting. There were actually entire groups of Christians (called the Gnostics among others) around the second century who could not theologically reconcile the differences between the God (or the personality of God) in the Old Testament and the God (or personality of God) in the New Testament. They developed an entire theology around this which in general said that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament were two different beings. This shows how even the ancient and early Christian groups had problems with the violence in the Old Testament, for they were also many hundreds of years removed from this ancient culture which wrote the text. TheseOld Testament passages which exist in the Bible are not the center of Christian practice, especially as Christianity in general seems to focus most on the values prescribed in the New Testament. Food for thought.

- Laura

Hello world!

Hey everyone,

I am a graduate student of Theology, Language and Literature on the track to becoming a professor. I recently decided to start a blog for the safe keeping of my everyday thoughts and ramblings which fall outside (or inside) my regular academic papers and work. Hopefully something I write will be inspiring, some things I write may make you upset, but the idea here is the open, safe, and free discussion of ideas, not to attack ways of thought or traditions. I will note that this blog presents the archaeology and scholarship of the Bible, and it may present ideas in a way that is different from what is accepted dogma, doctrine, and tradition in the church, if that makes you uncomfortable you may want to leave now. Feel free to express your opinions, and if you have questions feel free to ask them, if I do not know the answer I will research it until I find it.

 God bless you and good night,

Laura