david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (03/31/84)
DEC strikes again! We recently had a 4Mb board installed, and the installer put the Unibus cable on backwards. As a result, the disk files were scrambled beyond recognition and we are operating on files a couple of weeks old. This is a two-fold apology; one to submitters in general, as I can't respond to any of your latest articles, and one to the fellow to whom I am now responding. He disagreed with me on the subject of "Hell" in the Old Testament, in which I responded to Jon White, who believed that it didn't appear there. I don't have your name, and I lost the original article, but I have some notes from some research into the subject. I don't think we disagree at all! It is a fact that the word "Hell" appears in the Old Testament, in fact it appears 65 times. It is translated from the Hebrew word "Sheol." The confusion lies in the meaning of the word Sheol; and, if I understand you correctly, that it does not mean Hell in the modern meaning of that word. And you are correct. As usual, knowledge will help to clarify the confusion: We must first dispense with the picture of Hell as given to us in the Middle Ages and stick to the source document: The Bible. First, the Old Testament. "Sheol" is translated 31 times as "grave", 31 times as "hell", and 3 times as "pit." It's usual meaning is "place of the dead." As such, we might expect that good people and wicked people would be there, and we do find this in various verses; the "good" Sheol is referred to as Abraham's bosom in such verses as Psa. 16:10, 30:3, and the wicked portion is mentioned in Numbers 16:33 and Job 24:19 (more references on request). Now to the New Testament. Jesus often refers to "Hell" as "Gehenna," or the valley of Hinnom. It was there that the rites of Moloch (infanticide) were conducted by pagan Jews, and where dead bodies were thrown and burnt. Jesus often used this as imagery of the "second death." "Gehenna" is used 12 times by Jesus in such verses as Matt. 5:22,29,30. "Hades", or Sheol, is also used by Christ in Matt. 11:23, 16:18. (again, full data on request) Christ's resurrection seems to have changed the status of Sheol. We are told in Ephesians that after Christ preached to the souls in Hell, he "led a multitude of captives" when He left. This sheds new light to the crucified thief, who was told by Jesus that he would, on that day, be with Him in Paradise. About the Essenes, I'm not sure how they fit into your discussion. From what I know of them, they were a Jewish monastic sect which began about 200 B.C. and didn't last very long. They were essentially Pharisees, whom Jesus sharply criticized, adhering strictly to the letter of the law, forbidding the anointing of oil (Jesus approved of this, it seems), etc. In summary, then, it appears that Jesus referenced the Sheol (Hades) of the Old Testament, describing it as the "first death." He goes on to explain the "second death" at the Day of Judgement, and uses the imagery provided by the burning bodies at the valley of Hinnom to illustrate (Christ often used such imagery in His teachings). That the Biblical Hell is an unfriendly doctrine, I don't propose to dispute. If this is what Jon meant by saying that the word "Hell" doesn't appear in the Old Testament, I apologize. -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/04/84)
The Essenes were not Pharisees. They were a group of people who were indeed so upset with the evil Pharisees that they went into their monasteries to withdrawn from the world. Recently some translations of the Essene writings have shown prayers which are word-for-word identical with what John the Baptist was saying in the desert. This leads to some speculation over whether John teh Baptist was an Essene -- or an ex-Essene since he preached the forgiveness of Sins, something which was not a part of Essene belief. In palestine, at Christ's time there were three main groups of Jews. There were the Sadducees whom we don't know very much about, except that they had disagreements about the immortality of the body/soul with the Pharisees, the Pharisees, who founded the Rabinical tradition, and hence are the ancestors of modern Judaism (so we know a lot about them) and the Essenes, whose writing are just getting translated now. The Pharisees thought that the way to salvation was through good behaviour. They sat around and read scripture and interpreted what the Law was, and said ``right -- God said do this -- everybody do this, (even if you don't understand it) because God said so, and this is what all good Jews should do and how you win Salvation''. The Essenes were ye-old-tyme Jewish Calvinists. There postition was that God was going to save some people (the Essenes, of course) and damn others. Don't ask why. God just predestines those he is going to save and those he is not. To demonstrate that you are saved you join up with more Essenes and get very heavily into fasting, purifying immersions into water (sound familiar?) and various other ascetic practices which I forget now. You can see how friction might develop. The Pharisees are busy determining what is and what is not to be eaten by Jews with what and when and how, (according to scripture) and the Essenes are saying that all of this does not matter, and that you shouldn't eat very much at all -- mostly beetles and locusts and rats and other desert scum if you want to be a very pious Essene. Eventually, the Pharisses drove the Essenses out (conversely the Essenes were so disgusted by the Pharisees that they left) into monasteries. Periodically one Essene or anotehr would go out into the desert and collect a crowd and berate them for being predestined to wherever the Essenes thought that the not-saved would go. Other than that, they kept to themselves. If John the Baptist was an Essene, then he was an Essene who did not believe in the double-predestination (which doesn't make him an Essene at all, since that is fundamental to their belief -- though it doesn't preclude John from *thinking* that he was an Essene). it is likely that he was not, though undoubtably influenced by Essene thought since he believed that man could be saved if he repented, and through baptism -- whereas the Essenes knew that all the saved were saved ``from birth'' and predestined that way by God -- and that baptism was something that you did repeatedly as you reflected on how luckyu you were to be an Essene and how miserable you were to be a sinner still. -- Laura Creighton utzoo!laura "Not to perpetrate cowardice against one's own acts! Not to leave them in the lurch afterward! The bite of conscience is indecent" -- Nietzsche The Twilight of the Idols (maxim 10)
martillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) (04/10/84)
>The Essenes were not Pharisees. They were a group of people who were >indeed so upset with the evil Pharisees that they went into their >monasteries to withdrawn from the world. Recently some translations >of the Essene writings have shown prayers which are word-for-word >identical with what John the Baptist was saying in the desert. Calling the Pharisees evil strikes me as a wee bit bigoted. Indications are that people would pass back and forth between Pharisees and Essenes fairly easily and that the ideological positions of the two groups were not as distant as between Pharisees and Saducees. >This leads to some speculation over whether John teh Baptist was an >Essene -- or an ex-Essene since he preached the forgiveness of Sins, >something which was not a part of Essene belief. >In palestine, at Christ's time there were three main groups of Jews. >There were the Sadducees whom we don't know very much about, except >that they had disagreements about the immortality of the body/soul with >the Pharisees, the Pharisees, who founded the Rabinical tradition, and >hence are the ancestors of modern Judaism (so we know a lot about them) >and the Essenes, whose writing are just getting translated now. First you call the Pharisees evil and then you state they founded Rabbinical tradition of Judaism. What conclusion is supposed to be drawn about the Rabbinical tradition of Judaism? This description of Jewish sects 2000 years ago shows a lack of study. What about the zealots? >The Pharisees thought that the way to salvation was through good >behaviour. They sat around and read scripture and interpreted what the >Law was, and said ``right -- God said do this -- everybody do this, >(even if you don't understand it) because God said so, and this is >what all good Jews should do and how you win Salvation''. This description also shows a lack of study. >The Essenes were ye-old-tyme Jewish Calvinists. There postition was >that God was going to save some people (the Essenes, of course) and >damn others. Don't ask why. God just predestines those he is going to >save and those he is not. To demonstrate that you are saved you >join up with more Essenes and get very heavily into fasting, >purifying immersions into water (sound familiar?) and various other >ascetic practices which I forget now. Immersion and fasting are standard Jewish practices. >You can see how friction might develop. The Pharisees are busy determining >what is and what is not to be eaten by Jews with what and when and how, >(according to scripture) and the Essenes are saying that all of this does >not matter, and that you shouldn't eat very much at all -- mostly >beetles and locusts and rats and other desert scum if you want to be a >very pious Essene. Eventually, the Pharisses drove the Essenses out >(conversely the Essenes were so disgusted by the Pharisees that they >left) into monasteries. Periodically one Essene or anotehr would go out into >the desert and collect a crowd and berate them for being predestined to >wherever the Essenes thought that the not-saved would go. Other than >that, they kept to themselves. The Essenes were apparently much stricter than Pharisees about what and with whom one should eat. Certain locusts are permissable to eat according to Rabbinical tradition. Essenes certainly did not eat beetles and rats. No known Jewish sect has ever permitted eating such things. >If John the Baptist was an Essene, then he was an Essene who did not believe >in the double-predestination (which doesn't make him an Essene at all, >since that is fundamental to their belief -- though it doesn't preclude >John from *thinking* that he was an Essene). it is likely that he was >not, though undoubtably influenced by Essene thought since he believed that >man could be saved if he repented, and through baptism -- whereas the >Essenes knew that all the saved were saved ``from birth'' and predestined >that way by God -- and that baptism was something that you did repeatedly >as you reflected on how luckyu you were to be an Essene and how miserable >you were to be a sinner still. -- Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo (At the narrow passage, there is neither brother nor friend)