I’m not sure about the meanings of specific words – but the scope of the evidence suggests a paradox to me. As far as I can see in the Inter-testament and first century Jewish apocalyptic literature – whether the texts are talking about annihilation or ECT for the unrighteous – we have an essentially chauvinistic eschatology. As Kenneth Bailey notes in ‘Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes’ in the Book of Isaiah 25:6-9 we have a universalistic vision of the Messianic Banquet at the close the age to which both Jews and Gentiles are invited when death will be at an end and all tears will be wiped away. However, in later Jewish apocalyptic Enochian literature, the Rabbinic Targums (Paraphrases) of the Hebrew Bible, and the Dead Sea Scrolls of the Qumran sect (who may or may not have had some connection to the Essenes) we get a chauvinist exclusive eschatology. The Gentiles are invited to the banquet but once present are either afflicted with plagues or massacred by the heavenly hosts (and in the Messianic Rule from the Dead Sea Scrolls people with all manner of physical afflictions which render them ritually unclean are also destroyed). Whatever words are used in this literature, the most important thing to me seems to be that Jesus challenges and subverts this vision, returning his hearers to Isaiah’s universalism.
Regarding the more generous vision of the Talmud – well the Talmud is not all generosity. The scope of its personal eschatology is merciful but many of the attitudes and legal rulings it gives regarding the Gentiles are chauvinistic and exclusive – although there are also passages of greater generosity and universal concern and application. I always want to remember that Jesus was also Rabbi Jesus as well as being our saviour – and as well as challenging the exclusivism of developing Judaism, he was also affirming its finest and more generous vision. (It’s a real tragedy that Esdras 2 has had such a big influence on Christian tradition - according to Jan Bonda)
I do have the Talmud references for the quotation from Tentmakers you asked about in an earlier post:
It seems to occur in three (four?) places in the Talmud according to Farrar (who was a very competent scholar). They are:
Nedarin 8
Midrash Rabba 1 and 30
Resh Lakish 3
I think the citation in Midrash Rabba is your best bet if you wan tot search for it on the net (seems to be well known/often used).
I wonder if Professor Ramelli will look at the Talmudic and Jewish Apocalyptic sources, as well as the Biblical and Patristic ones, in linguistic detail regarding terms for punishment in the afterlife. Hope so – that will clear up a lot of the linguistic questions that dated sources like Hanson can no longer be seen as authoritative about.
I do have the Talmud references for the quotation from Tentmakers you asked about in an earlier post:
It seems to occur in three (four?) places in the Talmud according to Farrar (who was a very competent scholar). They are:
Nedarin 8
Midrash Rabba 1 and 30
Resh Lakish 3
I think the citation in Midrash Rabba is your best bet if you wan tot search for it on the net (seems to be well known/often used).
I wonder if Professor Ramelli will look at the Talmudic and Jewish Apocalyptic sources, as well as the Biblical and Patristic ones, in linguistic detail regarding terms for punishment in the afterlife. Hope so – that will clear up a lot of the linguistic questions that dated sources like Hanson can no longer be seen as authoritative about.
I will answer in this thread concerning Gehenna, I think it is better to seperate the discussion about Gehenna from the discussion about the intertestamental period and the earlier apocrpyha.
I was aware that Rabbi Kimhi’s view lacks historical evidence. However I read here or elsewhere that Gehenna was located downhills in Jerusalem and that according to this location it would have been the most natural place for a waste dump.
If there were some tombs at the corner of that valley, I think this would not change the understanding of Gehenna.
If the whole valley would have been a burial site, where people were buried properly I do not know how this would affect our understanding of Gehenna. Maybe criminals or outcasts (suiciders, hangmen and the like) were buried at the corner of the valley whereas the valley itself would have been used as a waste dump - but this is mere speculation.
Did battles take place in Jerusalem before the overthrow 70 AD?
Maybe the book of Enoch presents the beginnung of development of the idea of Gehenna, when it alludes to an accursed valley?
Did something horrible take place in Gehenna between 300 and 100 BC apart from the child sacrifices earlier?
Jeremiah 19,6:
*Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but The valley of slaughter. *
Did such incident take place before 70 AD?
Concerning the Targumim, they partly predate the New Testament and the positions on Gehenna appear not as elaborated as in the Talmud but seem to refer to physical destruction without giving it further attention, e.g. if it equates annihilation or if only the body is destroyed and the spirit continues to exist elsewhere, or if it affects body and soul and rather “damages” the soul as to literally destroy it, is there no verb for the noun “perdition” in English?
As the Old Testament strongly suggests the extinction of the wicked I thing the most natural way to understand Gehenna in the Targumin is literal desctruction.
We had the topic here:
I think Matthew 5:22 is an interesting verse:
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:
and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council [the Sanhedrin]:
but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire [shall be liable to the Gehenna of fire].
It is an interesting enhancement:
Who is angry with his brother is in danger of judgment, maybe a kind of arbitral court - since the next escalation is the Sanhedrin? I think the Sanhedrin was able to sentence a death penalty, but I do not think they sentenced people to death for insults, but maybe they imposed a huge fine in such instances or maybe a prison sentence is also possible.
The last enhancement is Gehenna, one can hardly believe that there is a swearword so horrible that pople who use it deserve to burn alive forevermore.
So I think most natural way to understand the verse is this:
#1 A mere quarrel might bring one to an arbitral court, where one must apologize and maybe pay a kind of fee.
#2 Insulting somebody might bring one to the Sanhedrin, where a huge fine may or a prison sentence can be imposed.
#3 Calling somebody this swearword deserves the death penalty and a shamefull death.
Everlasting torment would be a strange and unnatural enhancement after the Sanhedrin.
It should be noted how little Jesus actually spoke about Gehenna:
1st occasion: Matthew 5:22-30
2nd occasion: Matthew 10:28 and Luke 12:5
3rd occasion: Matthew 18:9 and Mark 9:43-47
4th occasion: Matthew 23:15-33
It also found in James 3:6, thats all. Those who say that Jesus spoke more about hell than heaven outrightly lie.
I think the most problematic passage is Luke 12:5.
I believe the judgment of Gehenna from Matthew 23 already took place at the destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD.
James 3:6 might imply that Gehenna is an actually existing place with a real fire well known to his audience, so Kimhi might have been right though?
Hi Sven –
I think you are right this stuff should be kept separate. The Apocrypha, the Pseudepigrapha, the Targums, and the development of Eschatology in the Hebrew Bible – these are all huge subjects and way beyond my understanding. I think I’ll just write up the stuff I produced about the Pharisees properly – because Jason requested that. But pulling the rest together!!! You can always do that yourself someday because I’m not the man. It seems that the conversation about these things has gone on for some time and in some depth.
I’m still learner – but I understand that the Targums do speak about annihilation rather than ECT despite the use made of them by Dr Pussey. And when I was looking into it I found the following text on Google Books which I believe is a standard authority –
‘Teḥiyyat Ha-metim: The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums’
By Harry Sysling
Regarding Matthew 5:21-22, I’ll give you may take on it.
This portion of the ‘new law’ concerns Jesus inward interpretation of the commandments. ‘Thou shalt not kill’ in Torah means a person who takes the life of another unlawfully is liable to judgement in a legal Rabbinical trial and faces the appropriate penalty (different for murder and manslaughter). ‘But I say unto you’ – well what follows suggest that just because I am not a murderer doesn’t mean that I am truly loving my neighbour and my God. I think Jesus is making very serious point using the poetic device of exaggeration in what follows –
The judgement –is referring to a local Rabbinical Court or ‘Beth Din’ (because the next step up is the Sanhedrin). Beth Din had jurisdiction punish with small fines, warnings etc. So Jesus seems to be saying that people who get angry are in danger of being dragged before the Beth Din (I note that the qualifying phrase ‘without cause’ is not found in the earliest manuscripts). However, I can’t see that Jesus meant spontaneous expressions of frustration or irritation by anger here – of this type of anger Paul tells us ‘Be angry but do not let the sun go down on your anger’ . He’s talking of anger that is stored up in feelings of rivalry that foment into studied hatred. An external court cannot police what we do with our emotions. But Jesus is talking about the law of the heart we need to follow to truly love our neighbours. The anger of resentment stored up is the beginning of a slippery slope.
The Council – yes that’s the Sanhedrin – because in reality in Jesus’ time the local Beth Dins referred serious cases to this ‘supreme court’. The Sanhedrin was empowered to issue large fines and orders of corporal or capital punishment (although the latter was rarely done – and these powers were much curtailed by Roman law). I understand that ‘Raca’ is an Aramaic word of obscure meaning. But all of the stuff I’ve seen suggests it is an insult to someone’s intelligence – like calling them a think idiot, or a numbskull. So Jesus seems to be saying that anyone who calls someone an idiot has committed an extremely serious offence that need to be tired in the highest earthly court. He’s talking about bearing false witness; and in a legal sense this means lying in a court of law - this can be policed and people can be brought to justice for it. Calling your neighbour a fool in gossip and back chat is not a legal offence – but according to the law of the heart this is the escalation of anger into false witness.
‘The Gehenna of fire’ is of course divine judgement. Whether we see the sentence as purgatorial or not, it is evidently the most serious punishment we can conceive of. I understand that ‘Fool’ here is an insult to suggest that someone is morally corrupt and impious. It’s an insult to their character – a bit like calling someone a slime ball huckster. So Jesus seems to be saying that this carries the terrible punishment of Gehenna. But again he is talking of the law of the heart – once we begin to defame a neighbour in public or in private gossip things are getting very serious indeed and this sort of behaviour can lead to murder (that’s the implication) – so in according to the laws of the heart we must strive never to let things come to this. And perhaps the figurative reference to Gehenna here is especially appropriate. Gehenna was the valley of human sacrifice – and murder is human sacrifice.
Not sure fo what to make of the Rabbi Kimhil story. However, even if Gehenna was never an actual city rubbish dump it was certainly a site of acts of shame, the cremation and desecration of bodies, and of moral and physical pollution. So I don’t think it changes the fact that Gehenna is firstly a real place that then becomes a symbol for purgatorial punishment in the unseen world - rather than being a word that siginifies a real place of physical toment and torture.
At 240 pages it’s quite a read - but the synopsis at the end gives you the gist. The thesis confirms some of the things you have been saying, you’ll be pleased to know It is not written with a praticular axe to grind -but certainly the conclusions are dismissive of ECT (and sceptical of the Talmud as a source to tell us anyhing much about Jesus’ concept of Gehenna).
The tradition of the noble “Watchers” who became corrupt is old and described in detail in
the Book of Watchers (1 Enoch 1-36 - hence BW), where the "Watchers"143 are
angelic beings- the fallen “sons of God” of Genesis 6:1.144 The place names Tartarus
and Gehenna, however, do not appear in any of the 1 Enoch books.
So that’s useful and I think it has greater auhtority than Raphael’s book (that I’ve been reading and have citd once ) for accuracy on Enochian matters (it is written later within a context of rigorous peer reivew, while Raphael was working alone - and perhaps knoweldge of interpolations into 1 Enoch had come to light in the meantime); so ignore my previous post. The place of punishment that appears in Enoch is a fiery abbys into which fallen stars and false shepherds are thrown (and it is not certain that it is a place of eternal punishment).
I think this thesis is a wonderful resource and really surveys the sholarly issues involved in this discussion in a clear and consistent manner.
A few simple insights from the above source that I found helpful:
The phrase ‘thrown into the outer darkness’ – just means being thrown into the darkness outside: banquets were held during the evening after sundown in first century Judea.
Crying and gnashing of teeth simply denotes resentful frustration at begin excluded from the party
Bodies consumed by worms that ‘dieth not’ are not metaphors for ECT. The punishment is being killed. The worms (and the fire) are to do with the aftermath of punishment.
In the parable of the wheat and tares the darnel thrown into the fire is not a metaphor for punishment – the focus is on getting rid of the bad stuff so that the good stuff is left in its pure form (and darnel burns very quickly). So it’s about purification – and a Universalist would probably argue that the darnel that needs to be burnt is the bad stuff that we all have in us.
That’s a great finding, I will read it entirely in due time.
So far it seems to support my sentiments, according to page 18 the term Gehenna does not appear in Jewish writings prior to the NT, later it says not prior to 70 AD, which would support my idea that the concept of Gehenna evolved with the destruction of Jerusalem, some people might also have mistaken Jesus’ teachings on Gehenna.
Interesting stuff, appears to be quite a diverse range of opinion amonst Jewish people of the day. No matter what side of the debate you are on I don’t think using people’s understanding of Gehenna at the time would propell any position further because the views are quite diverse. I think there’s basis for belief in UR, Anni and Eternal Punishment there.
btw, in further research I found that Hinnom Valley is also the location of “the field of blood” (Mat. 27 and Acts 1) where Judas committed suicide and the priests to his 30 pieces of silver and bought a field to use as a grave for foreigners, what was once a “potter’s field”. Interesting.
So Jesus’ warnings concerning Hinnom Valley came about in Judas’ life. Because of the torment of his soul for betraying Jesus, unable to find repentance (a change of mind), likely weeping and grinding his teeth, he committed suicide casting himself into Hinnom Valley.
It is very sad that most English translations continue to mistranslate Gehenna as Hell. By doing so they NULLIFY the power of these passages to call anyone to repentance, they nullify thier power to warn anyone of the very real and terrible potential consequences of sin. By misinterpreting Gehenna as Hell, the believer says to himself, “No worries for me because I’m saved!” And the unbeliever says “I don’t care what it says; I don’t believe anyhow.” Thus the passage calls no one to repentance.
On the other hand, correctly interpreting Gehenna as Hinnom Valley reveals Jesus was speaking metaphorically, warning of the devestation that sin can bring in one’s life. If one gives thier life over to sin, the idols of their heart, they can come to a place to where they will be driven to commit suicide, bring destruction to all whom they love, and even sacrifice their own children to their sin! And this is the potential destruction that comes to a person’s life because of sin whether they are believers or not. In fact, I wonder whether or not we run a greater risk of running into such because we as believers should know better! You know, the whole “to whom much is given, much is expected” thing! hmmm
I wish that modern translations would translate Gehenna correctly as “Hinnom Valley” instead of mistranslating it as “Hell”.
) for accuracy on Enochian matters (it is written later within a context of rigorous peer reivew, while Raphael was working alone - and perhaps knoweldge of interpolations into 1 Enoch had come to light in the meantime); so ignore my previous post. The place of punishment that appears in Enoch is a fiery abbys into which fallen stars and false shepherds are thrown (and it is not certain that it is a place of eternal punishment).