Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Rolf Furuli" <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Rodney,

I am not sure I fully understand the meaning of your words below. I was 
discussing the condition or state of dead persons according to the thoughts 
of the writers of the Tanakh, and I was neither denying nor promoting the 
view that dead persons may have some king of future life.

The issue is: Does man have an intrinsic immortality, i.e., is there a part 
of man that cannot die and that continues to live after the death of the 
body? In Greek writings from Plato onwards the view was that man has an 
immortal soul that continues to live after death. This Greek view (perhaps 
with Babylonin and Persian influence) was adopted by the Hebrews in the last 
centuries B.C.E., and it was later adopted by persons professing to be 
Christians in the first centuries C.E. The consequence of this view is that 
man has two alternatives, either to receive blessings from God after death 
or to be tormented forever and ever.

I find absolutely no traces of such a view in the Tanakh, neither do I find 
any traces of the Ugaritic or Babylonian view that man (the whole man 
including his body) lives a miserable life in the netherworld after his 
death.

The passages you quote do not tell of any intrinsic immortality, nor do they 
tell that a part of man lives after death. But they do suggest hope, they 
suggest that the Hebrews did not view death as the final end of everything. 
But it is very important that we do not translate this hope into modern 
religious views, or old Greek, Persian, or Babylonian views. The words of 
Daniel 12:13 express in a clear way the view by the writer of that book: NIV 
says: "You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to 
receive your alloted inheritance." The hope is not connected with an 
intrinsic immortality, but with God`s ability and desire to give life to a 
dead person, i.e., to resurrect or recreate that person. In fact, the view 
that every man has an immortal soul (intrinsic immortality) and the view of 
a resurrection of the dead are mutually exclusive concepts. A person needs 
not be given life (immortality) if that person already possesses life 
(immortality).

The view of future life as a gift from God, not as a possession of every 
man, is clearly expressed in Daniel. But in my view, it is implied in a host 
of other passages in the Tanakh as well. The Babylonians believed that man 
continued to live after death, but the future was bleak. The writers of the 
Tanakh believed that death was the termination of life, but they expected a 
grand future in the hands of God. Hosea 13:14 NIV says: "I will ransom them 
from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. Where, O death, 
are your plagues? Where, O grave, is your destruction?"

The subject of the thread is "hell," and I would like to give a few comments 
on that from a translational point of view. As every translator knows, a 
clause in Hebrew or Greek can be rendered into English in different ways 
without violating any translation rule. This means that we can argue against 
a particular rendering, saying that it is not accurate, it is misleading, or 
it is tendentious. But very seldom can we point to a rendering saying that 
it definitely is wrongly translated. But in connection with the redering 
"hell" in Bible translations we can say just that. The Greek word translated 
"hell" is GEENNA, and that is a geographical place, namely a valley outside 
Jerusalem (GY) BN HNM, Jer 32:35). The physical nature of GEENNA is seen by 
the fact the the *body* of a man can be thrown in GEENNA (Matthew 5:30). The 
rule of translation is that a proper name that refers to one particular 
person or one particular place should be transcribed according to the stock 
of phonemes of the target language and not be substituted with another word. 
The substitution of GEENNA with "hell" is a clear violation of that rule; It 
simply is a wrong translation! The problem with this rendering is enchanced 
by the great baggage of connotations the modern word "hell" has (from Dane 
onwards), most of which are not found in the Tanakh or in the New Testament.
True, GEENNA was used in the New Testament to signify something, but whether 
it stood for eternal torment or eternal annihilation is a matter for the 
theologian not for the translator. A proper name is a proper name and should 
not be substituted with another word.

If anybody would claim that death is not the termination of life according 
to the Tanakh, on has to find passages that show which part of man that 
survuves death or is eternal. Just to show that the writers of the Tanakh 
had a hope for the future is not enough.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
Univesity of Oslo


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "B. M. Rocine" <brocine AT twcny.rr.com>
To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2006 6:18 PM
Subject: [b-hebrew] hell


> Forwarded on behalf of Rodney Duke:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I am writing in response to Rolf Furuli, who said:
>
>     In Hebrew thought the NP$ dies and and go down to $)WL, to the grave,
>     where there is no life. So any "afterlife" in the sense that man
>     continues to live after the body dies, is not found in the Tanakh
>     (including Daniel).
>
> I lean toward the conclusion that in Hebrew thought there WAS a belief
> in life after bodily death, based on such passages as: Psalm 73:23-28,
> Psalm 49:15-16 (H), and Proverbs 12:28.  I agree with those who have
> said that there is no emphasis on afterlife in the Hebrew Bible, which
> is somewhat true of the NT as well.  The concept appears to be that
> walking with God in the present results in a lasting life, because of
> God's faithfulness, as opposed to the notion that one dies, goes to
> heaven, and begins eternal life as a kind of reward.
>
> blessings,
> Rodney
>
> --
>
>
> --
> Dr. Rodney K. Duke
> Dept. of Phil. & Rel., Appalachian State Univ., Boone, NC 28608
> (O) 828-262-3091, (FAX) 828-262-6619, dukerk AT appstate.edu