This view rather assumes that the target audience is Jewish, with the necesarry pre-knowledge. That it’s written in greek would more likely suggest a greek speaking audience.
Indeed Israel lay within the hellenic sphere, and no doubt the upper class in the area would speak and read greek, but at the time it was written Christianity was already being preached mainly to the gentiles.
It is pretty much a given that the audience was Greek speaking. However, if the names of the places were not interchangeable, than one would expect the author of Luke to have used Tartarus, which was the place to torment sinners in Greek mythology.
I suspect the use of Hades meant, simply, that the audience could accept any name for the abode of the dead, interchangeably.
The apocalyptic writings in which the notion of a punishment of fire appeared, (Esdras, Enoch, Assumption of Moses, etc.) were written in Greek.
I don’t agree 100% with the site. I do however like it as a starting point on which to explain the current translation problems to people like JohnClay, and other who wish to understand the doctrine of the Bible better.
One of the big problems that we run into is that a lot of the Bible tends to be written with a very hyperbolic language. The word “eternal” is such a case. It seems to be used intermittently throughout the entire Bible to refer to things that “could” be eternal, and the it refers to things that are definitely “not” eternal (and it’s the same hebrew/greek words used in both cases). There are tons of examples of this, and I may sit down later on and mention some of them, but I’d have to start looking up passages.
I could start with one, the famous John 3:16:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
Using the 1550 Textus Receptus, on which the KJV was based on partly, it reads like this:
ουτως γαρ ηγαπησεν ο θεος τον κοσμον ωστε τον υιον αυτου τον μονογενη εδωκεν ινα πας ο πιστευων εις αυτον μη αποληται αλλ εχη ζωην αιωνιον
Let me see how literal I can translate that (correcting for grammar):
“God loved they, the people so much, that he gave his only begotten son to you, so that whomever believes in him does not disappear but have life eternal”
In particular, apolitai and all forms of this word are translated “destroy” when it comes to non living object, or abstract concept of life (such as the soul) almost 100% of the time. When it refers to living beings, it is usually translated as "perish, as in the above case.
So why would it use such a word to refer to people who do not reach the goal of eternal life?
Traditional Christian doctrines already believe everyone has “Eternal Life” already, it’s just a matter of “choosing” where to spend it. This is in fact, in tune with what the Greeks of Jesus’ time used to believe in a way.
The concept of Hades is a strange one. It is a place that is both “heaven” and “hell” depending which side you are on. If you were good, you were sent to the Elysium fields for spend them in bliss. If you were bad (whatever the gods deemed to be bad) you were send to the bad side of Hades. Even then, it wasn’t insane torture. It was more like a gloomy place akin to being in a cave with lava pits all other the place (but you not directly in the lava, just near it).
This actually is an almost exact replica of the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man. The whole parable plays out like mockery of the concept. It’s almost like Jesus is making fun of them for this stupid belief. He uses it as satire to tell them the evils of their greed (the whole thing was about money). He showed them that yes, “Hades” existed and they would end there but not literally, more like a symbolic falling where they would receive some sort of punishment for their greed, while those people who struggled would receive comfort.
Not quite. Elysium was not for those who were just “good”, it was where the warriors went, the heroes.It was akin to Valhalla.
It wasn’t for the commoners.
One of the main appeals of Christianity was that it promised a wonderful afterlife to the common people.
Latro, are you sure about this? I thought the Greek Hades was a place where the
dead recognise each other and that one is able to talk to his/her parents,
former battlefield comrades, friends and enemies.
Doesn’t a sun shine in Hades that gives off a dim light but no heat ?
Aren’t the Greek dead like ghosts in that they cannot harm one another?
I have read that many Greek heroes like Ulysses and Socrates inhabit the
world that is across across the river Styx.
Well I’m honestly not too well versed in all the history behind the belief. I know that it started being exactly as you describe, but at some point in time the belief evolved to include regular people whom the gods considered worthy.
Now specifically with the Bible, it only mentions Hades as a synonym for Sheol. I don’t believe that Jesus taught of Hades as being anything like what the modern doctrine of hell teaches people. However, if you notice, Jesus never really corrected anyone, whether it was Pharisees, Saducees, or even his own disciples (only when they specifically asked) because it wasn’t important enough to warrant correction. Jesus simply wanted people to believe in him as the Son of God. The concept of hell/hades was unimportant because he knew it didn’t exist, so he let people believe whatever they wanted.
Except in Luke 16, of course.
Then he should probably not have made reference to Gehenna and Hades (or whatever he said in Aramaic) in ways that exactly paralleled the references in Enoch, Esdras, etc., leading the people to whom he was speaking to believe he was talking about those things.
Interesting bit of theology, but it is still just one group’s interpretation.
I suppose you could say it’s one group’s interpretation. I know what the Greek words mean. This is the reason why the Greek Orthodox Church does not believe in physical hellfire. They believe that hell is more of a “removal” from the presence of God (which is what the Greek words seem to imply) and this in turn is suffering because you are away from the presence of God.
This along with the doctrine of the Pope being the Vicar of Christ here on Earth are the two major reasons Orthodoxy rejected the authority of the Vatican.
I can give you many examples that would seem strange if Hades was a literal place.
Take the resurrection of Lazarus. We are told that he was in the tomb 4 days, and Jesus resurrected him. Some people have tried to tie this Lazarus with the one in the parable, but the evidence doesn’t seem to support that theory.
So if this is a different Lazarus, was he also resting in Abraham’s bosom? Was he able to see the damned on the other side of the chasm (the river Styx). And most importantly, already having achieved a place of comfort in the afterlife, why the heck would Jesus bring him back to the same suffering on Earth? And why is there no mention of Lazarus remembering anything in the afterlife?
Want more examples?
For what? I have no need to wrestle with straw men.
I have no problem with the Orthodox arguments that led to the Great Schism, but if you think that the RCC believes in a hell with physical fire, you are not paying attention to anything coming from that church. “Separation from God” is pretty much the definition most frequently found in RCC discussions.
Similarly, there is no serious belief in Hades as a physical place in the RCC.
As to the two persons named Lazarus, I have never heard a claim that they were the same person. I am not even sure why that would come up in this or any conversation.
As to knowing what the Greek words mean, you are still left with Luke using the word Hades in the context of a place of punishment by fire when there is no such tradition regarding Hades in Greek mythology. The words used in the New Testament had etymologies that suggested various meanings, but there was enough cross-cultural exchange of ideas in the first century that basing an interpretation of a first century statement on the third century B.C.E. meaning of a word is pointless.
I suppose so. So the other alternative then is that it’s all a bunch of bs that men made up back in the day. Is that what you believe?
In the OT there are a couple of verses that indicate Hell is a place of flame and torment:
Isaiah 30:33
For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.
Now it’s true, this seems like a special place just for the King of Assyria.
There is not “one alternative,” there are several. My beliefs are irrelevant to this discussion.
I simply note that, while it is fine to marshal one’s facts to support one view or another, (or one belief or another), it is important that one actually look at all the facts.
One need not see scripture as “bs” that “men made up” to recognize that any given author would use the words and images with which he was familiar in ways that he felt would be familiar to his audience.
It is my contention, based on the way that several ideas arose in the two hundred years prior to the life of Jesus, and the ways that those ideas were disseminated in several books that were not, ultimately accepted as scripture, that people who knew the Hebrew Scriptures, (but often only in Greek translation in the Septuagint), as well as knowing the books of Enoch, Esdras, the Assumption of Moses, and others, would have expected their audience to have a different notion of the afterlife than is portrayed in the earlier works of the Hebrew Scriptures, and in a different way than the words might have been used in Greek mythology, and, quite possibly, in a different way than it came to be regarded within Christianity as that faith spread and developed. From that perspective, I find stolid declarations that there can only be one interpretation to various passages to be less than persuasive.
Yeah but the question now is whether it lasts forever and ever for humans.
They seem like they do exist because everyone talks about them but where are they? I have full memory of my reincarnation and can assure you they do not exist. They are only in the New Testament and that was manufactured by the RCC for its own ends. It was compiled by Jerome at the end of the 4th C. He based Matthew on the Vedic Trinity and Christ on the story of Krishna, if anyone cares to check it out.
http://www.squidoo.com/who-wrote-the-new-testament
Random comments:
Where is the torment mentioned?
Btw, Tophet is thought to be another term for the Valley of Hinnom (the Gehenna).
Note that the sulfurous flame is kindled from the breath of Yahweh.
Umm, I think being broiled on a deep & large fire qualifies as ‘torment”. I don’t think the fire was there to roast marshmallows.
Good points.
And this is why I don’t believe in fighting fire with fire..or in this case, BS with BS.
So in the end, yes, it’s all a bunch of bs that men made up then. If there is no clear meaning, and if the concept has changed/evolved depending on the audience and the era, then it would definitely not be God inspired, but rather nonsense based on misunderstanding of nature.
The words a person uses to communicate God’s message hardly requires that the message be “bs,” but you are welcome to your all-or-nothing approach to exegesis. I do not happen to share it.
So you prefer a picking and choosing approach?
If we look at it in the most objective sense, there are really only 3 major interpretations of the afterlife that could be interpreted:
- Eternal Torment
- Annihilation/Conditional Immortality
- Universal Salvation
None is represented 100% in the Bible if you choose to interpret passages literally, and the same if you choose to interpret passages symbolically. All 3 views rely on interpreting a portion of passages literally, and a portion of them symbolically.
For example, the view of Eternal Torment requires every single passage that talks about the wages of sin being “death”, about the soul being “destroyed”, and about life “perishing” be interpreted as euphemisms for “never ending torture” even if the original Greek word never implies such a thing.
Example:
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whomever believes in him does not perish but have eternal life.
In the traditional doctrine of eternal torment, we have to interpret the word “perish” as a euphemism for “never ending torture of the soul”.
So to me it’s baffling that the verse would use a Greek word that implies destruction/disintegration (apolitai), rather than a word that would clearly get the point across, like “basanis” (Greek for torture).
If the idea was to save your soul from the tortures of hell, I would imagine the passage would read:
For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son so that whomever believes in him does not have eternal torment but have eternal life.
And we have to do the same for every single passage in the Bible that uses clear Greek words that mean “destroy/abolish” to twist them into being euphemisms for “never ending torture”
I would say that the doctrine of eternal torment requires over 90% of the passages relating to the doctrine to be interpreted as euphemisms, and only 10% to be interpreted literally (such as the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man)
I find it much easier to interpret 90% of the passages as being literal by using common sense (If the passage says destroy, or perish, or destruction, and the Greek word is clear in meaning, then the passage is literally telling us the object is “destroyed” literally) and then to interpret the 10% of passages as symbolic when common sense clearly tells us they are symbolic, such as the parable of Lazarus. If you use common sense, that parable makes absolutely no sense interpreted literally, for reasons I mentioned above (such as the fact that Lazarus didn’t go to “heaven” because he was a good person or because he believed in Jesus, but rather he went there because he suffered in life and is now to be comforted, while the rich man had a good life and is now to be tormented (forever?). Not to mention absurd concepts like the rich man asking for a drop of water (and not a swimming pool, or what a more rational person would ask: to get them out of that place!)
So I don’t know, what else can I tell you? I believe what the Greek words are telling me. I believe what common sense is telling me, and I believe that the “hard” passages are actually easy to interpret once you look at Old Testament equivalents that are clearly not meant to be literal. (There are such cases which I can get into later on).
What do you believe?
(and yes to me it’s all or nothing. There has to be 1 interpretation, it can’t be a mix. If multiple interpretations are a reality, then the Bible ceases to be God inspired and become simply another book of fables and fairytales)