I’m talking about this article, of course.
So, if there was no Hell in the Bible, per se, where were Satan and his renegade angels banished to? Isn’t this something that happens in the Bible? Can that place be reconciled with the modern Hell somehow?
Or was that Lucifer that was banishèd? Someone please set me straight here.
I recall from choral singing a line in the standard Latin Requiem mass “ne absorbeat eus Tartarus”. Our director explained that Tartarus was very low place, much like Hell. Poking around on the Tri-Dub I found this reference.
http://www.pantheon.org/mythica/articles/t/tartarus.html
Which, in part, says: “…in later myths Tartarus becomes a place of punishment for sinners. It resembles Hell…”
I’m not sure how this fits into the answer for this question, but it’s another factoid that’s related to the overall picture.
-bs-
That Encyclopedia Mythica is pretty interesting. Here’s another link that has some relevence.
http://www.pantheon.org/mythica/articles/s/satan.html
-bs-
Answering the OP, I believe the relevant quote from the Bible would be this:
The Bible Gateway - Revelation 12:8-10 :: King James Version (KJV)
Revelation 12
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
Originally Hell wasn’t ruled by Satan, or Lucifer, or pick a name. Hell was ruled by Uri El (means fire of god). Uri El wasn’t evil, he was just the god put in charge of the underworld (contrary to what you may have thought, the Hebrews didn’t have only one god). The god of death was a different god, Samma El. Samma El wasn’t evil either-he just wasn’t very popular with the Hebrews given his job. Both of these gods were Arch Angels, or High Messengers. These lesser gods were around to help God carry out his will.
The name Hell was taken from Scandanavian myth during the spread of Christianity. The Scandanavian underworld was ruled by the goddess, Hel. She was not evil either. She had, on one half, the body of the most beautiful woman, her other half however, was a rotting corpse. Because this didn’t make her very popular with the other gods, she chose to rule the underworld.
The satan was originally a title that was passed around to the different gods in Hebrew myth. It was a job that the gods took turns doing. All they were supposed to do was to test man’s faith to God. Again, the satan wasn’t evil, just more of a survey of humanity it seems. He was a sort of Devil’s Advocate (pun intended).
The concept of Dualism (good vs. evil) was borrowed from Persia during the Hebrew’s Babylonian captivity. The Hebrew’s tried to find several aspects of their religion that could be transformed into an evil being that opposed God. The turned the satan into Satan, and borrowed from Samma El and made Satan the king of the underworld. Satan became a true character around 200 B.C.
By the time Christianity came along, Satan was already well known. Christian scholars wanted Satan to be a fallen angel, so St. Jerome, the head translator of the Torah, found a passage in the book of Isiaiah that read, “How thou art fallen, O Lucifer child of god.” So the story was made up that Lucifer (originally named Azazel), was the most beautiful Arch Angel. He had a great following and he grew so proud that he revolted against God. God sent Micha El (meaning like-god), and his army to kick Lucifer out of heaven. They succeed except that as Lucifer is falling, he grabs Micha El’s robe and is about to pull him with him, when God blasts Lucifer. Lucifer falls for 7 days and 7 nights to the underworld where he decides to become king.
Will that cover it?
Matt
Many thanks to Wallrat9 for the amazing essay. From the link I posted earlier we see that:
“According to the Greek poet Hesiod, a bronze anvil falling from heaven would take nine days and nights to reach earth, and an object would take the same amount of time to fall from earth into Tartarus.”
I guess anvils don’t fall as rapidly as angels. Odd, one would think it would be the other way round 
-bs-
If we’re talking historic “Bible”, please note that we have at least three different collections of books:
Concepts such as hell, satan, reward/punishment, etc all evolved over time. Thus, there is no mention of hell in the Old Testament (that is, a place of eternal torment). There is an underworld, an abode of spirits, as mentioned is David’s Staff Report.
And BTW, Milton used the “nine times the length that measures night and day to mortal men” to describe the fall of Satan.
Wallrat, where did this information come from? I consider myself reasonably well versed in Old Testament literature, and I’ve never heard of Uri-el or Samma-el in that context.
Similarly, whilst “the satan” is indeed a title in Old Testament text (basically the role of prosecuting attorney), I’ve never heard of it being “passed around”. In Biblical text, it appears infrequently (I think only in the book of Job, although I’m not at home so I can’t search). While I’m sure there was considerable Midrashic speculation about “satan”, that would be much later – say, 200 BC to 200 AD or thereabouts.
In short, I’m curious about your source, which seems somewhat at variance with most other sources I’ve seen.
**
Sorry Wallrat9, but I’ve got to disagree with you there. First of all, Judaism (including the ancient Hebrews) have always had one God.
The term Sammael as the angel of death does occur in the Midrash. I think you might be taking the fact that his name ends in “El” as an indication that he was a god. This is incorrect. Just about all angel’s names end in “El” (Gabriel, Michael, Rafael, etc.). To say that the ancient Hebrews regarded them as gods (as in a pantheon) is patently false.
**
Again, I believe you are mistaken. Judaism has never held of a being that stands as God’s opposite number. There are quite a few works existing from the time period you mentioned (Midrash, Mishnah, etc.), yet none of them mention an angel or other celestial creature that rebels against God. The concept of a Satan or Lucifer who is banished from Heaven is strictly a Christian one.
**
Chapter and verse, please??
**
Not exactly. Cha-El means Godlike. Micha-El is a question. The word “Mi” in Hebrew means who. The name means “Who is like God?” It is a statement of praise about God, not stating that Michael is Godlike.
Zev Steinhardt
Then they must have chosen to call him by a confusing number of names: the Most High God, the Merciful God, the Just God etc. all appear in Genesis along with the “host of heaven.” From the context it’s difficult to determine whether this latter “host” is composed of gods or not, but it’s not ruled out in the ancient texts as I understand them.
If all these names mean the same thing, then the ancient Hebrews are the only instance of a completely monotheistic group known to history. It makes more sense to some to assume that the Hebrews originally worshipped a pantheon of gods, just as other ancient peoples did, including some they did not originate such as Ba’al, Astaroth and Moloch. Under this assumption Hebrew monotheism developed later, probably during the Babylonian captivity.
It’s certainly true that the “Yahweh-only cosmogony” was a stroke of priestly genius: the idea that the chief Hebrew god, who did not prevent his city, Jerusalem, from being destroyed not once but twice or his people being taken into foreign subjugation and captivity, was not only not a schlemiel but in fact decreed all the tsurris to punish his people from falling away; was not only the most powerful god going but the only god there was. Brilliant apologetics, IMHO.
P.S. What was that again about “thou shalt have no other gods before Me?” I don’t remember hearing “there are no gods other than Me.”
Firstly, Tom Arctus, welcome to SDMB.
Secondly, it was me, not CKDextHavn who made the statement you quoted above.
**
**
So, what’s wrong with the many descriptions appearing before the word “God.” You can call me Fat Zev, Short Zev or Ugly Zev, but there is still only one me.
As for a “host”: A host could just as easily be any number of lesser beings. Angels come to mind. An earthly king can have a “mighty host,” but that doesn’t mean that every one of his “host” is himself a king.
**
Maybe.
**
**
I’m afraid that’s simply not true. Even if you put aside Jewish tradition which holds that Judaism was monotheistic since Abraham, they were surely so by the time the Temple was built.
**
Whatever.
It is clear from the text of the Bible, plus from Jewish tradition, that there is only one God. The point of the verse is the prohibition of setting up any other being (real or imagined) as a deity.
Zev Steinhardt
Genesis 1:26
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our own image, according to Our likeness.”
[bolding mine] ???
Let me anticipate Reb’ Zev: that was an editorial “we.” 
Where did I use the word “we?”
Zev Steinhardt
Now zev, in the early sections of the OT, they certainly talk about the other Gods (of other peoples), and even give them names, and even indicate that they have power over their own. “Y” was certainly considered the only god of the Isrealis, and thus, perhaps, the only “true” god- but the others, even tho often called “abominations” were only later considered to be “non-gods”. Early Judaism was “Henotheistic”, ie they beleived that the other gods had power only over their own worshipers & lands. Note, that there was rarely any idea that ALL folks should worship “Y”, nor was it always thought wrong for other peoples to worship their own god- but what was REALLY wrong was for one of His people to ever worship another.
Tom, yes, it is possible, in the dim early period of Judaism, that “Y” was part of a pantheon, there are several linguistic hints. There does seem to have been a consort that lasted longer than any of the others- there are markings & stuff on ancient buildings. However, besides the Consort, my guess (and that of several experts) is that “Y”, being a sky god had several/many “aspects”, ie lightning/thunder, sun, wind, rain, etc-which was common. That would explain most of the linguistic anomolies, that when He said “WE”, He meant 'all of my aspects". Gradually, and certainly by the time of the 1st Temple, there was considered only ONE, with “helpers”, such as cherubim & the other angels- some of whom might have been earlier considered more as 'aspects" instead of helpers. Besides the Consort, who just maybe lasted into pre-captivity times, Judaism was pretty well entirely Monotheistic by the 1st Temple, and likely a good time before.
Yes, Judaism did seem to take on a slightly different 'flavor" after being introduced to Zorastrianism & Dualism, but there was no radical change, no massive dividing point. Satan was looked on, more & more, as the “Adversary”, and hell as more a place of punishment- but one could say these were simply refinements, or explanations of things that earlier were left unstated. Christianity, too, evolved slowly over the years- but it is still the same basics.
Yes, I know about this verse. Jewish tradition has it’s own answer as to the meaning of this verse. Needless to say, it doesn’t include pantheism.
Zev Steinhardt
Zev, Psalms 82 is rather interesting. It has the hebrew god standing up in the council of El, and telling off his siblings. He accuses them of failing in their duties of looking after their peoples and promises that they shall fall. The person writing the psalm then goes on to say that their god kicks arse and will triumph. It seems to be a bit of “my god is better then your god” that made it into the cannon.
Also:
http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm
I have seen photographs of engravings and pottery of Yahweh and his Asherah (anyone want to look for them?), but this is a nice summary.
First, on the naming, I concur with Zev wholeheartedly: don’t switch things around. Lots of Hebrew names refer to God: Samu-el, Jo-el, Ezeki-el, etc. None of these people are gods. Their names reference to God, but shouldn’t be switched around. Uri-el is “Light of God” not “God of Light.” There is a diff.
Second, Tom, please note that we can refer to Queen Elizabeth II, just plain Queen Elizabeth, Her Majesty, The Queen, ER (Elizabeth Regina), Liz, etc. It doesn’t imply that England has multiple sovereigns. The argument of different names of God can be used effectively as one grammatic point (among many) to suggest that there were multiple authors of the early Bible texts, but it cannot be used effectively to argue that early Judaism was polytheistic. ((DIGRESSION: An alternate reading is that the different names of God refer to different characteristics – when God’s mercy is predominant in the verse, one name is used; when God’s justics is predominant, another name is used. This theory is self-consistent, and is an alternative interpretation to the multiple author theory… but I digress.))
The Torah text does refer to other gods, but the context is usually such that those verses are easily interpreted as lower case-g gods. We refer today to the gods of the Greeks, for instance, or the Norse gods, as having existence within literature and within the culture of those peoples. Thus, when the book of Exodus speaks of the gods of the Egyptians (and God triumphing over them), it doesn’t mean that those gods had physical existence. It was used metaphorically, in the same way that an historian might say that the Christian God triumphed over the Norse gods when Christianity conquered Europe.
On the verse “Let us make man in our image”, there are several interpretations, of course, ranging from the Christian notion that this is the Trinity talking to itself, to the royal “we”, to the editorial “oui”.
And let me amend Zev’s comments slightly. While it is fairly clear that MAINSTREAM Judaism was monotheistic since Abraham, there are some side lines that seem not to be. Rachel stealing her father’s household gods, for instance. The golden calf. So there are certainly instances in the Torah of people who DO believe in other gods, but the Torah itself (mainstream Judaism) clearly does not accept such notions. The Torah is, however, remarkably tolerant in allowing other peoples to worship whatever gods they choose: only the Israelites are prohibited from recognition of other gods.
Again, this does not mean that the Torah acknowledges the existence of other gods, aside from the sense of “things that people worship as gods.”
[Edited by CKDextHavn on 11-17-2000 at 07:48 AM]
Errr… I rather fancy Elijah and others might insert a demurrer here. Seems to me they had a lot of problems with Jews (or Israelites, depending on when you regard “Judaism” as beginning) who weren’t any too monotheistic. Naughty Israelites, to be sure, but Israelites all the same.