[net.religion] Hell: Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna

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)