Translating Sheol as “Hell”: A Clear Case of Cultural Imposition?

1

Translating Sheol as “Hell”: A Clear Case of Cultural Imposition?

Timothy Martin Lewis

The King James Version of the Bible (1611) translated Sheol (lwOav.) thirty-one times as “the

grave” and thirty-one times as “hell.”1 Thus Ps 9:17 in the KJV reads, “The wicked shall

be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.” Since the psalm is intending to

say how the wicked are crushed to dust in battle and vanquished from the face of the

earth (cf. 9:10 “their name you wiped out forever and ever”), the use of “hell” here seems

suspicious. Assuming that the concept of hell postdates the OT, it is easy to allege that the

English translation of Sheol as “hell” is a clear case of cultural imposition. The New

International Dictionary of the Bible attempts to explain the KJV’s procedure of translating

Sheol:

[Sheol is] the place to which all the dead go, immediately upon death. Sometimes

KJV translates it “grave,” sometimes “hell,” depending on whether or not the

individuals in the particular passage were viewed as righteous, but this procedure

involves importing distinctions into the OT that were not clarified until Jesus’

ministry.2

1 The KJV rendered the remaining three occurrences (not counting the Apocrypha) as “the pit.”

2 J. D. Douglas and Merrill C. Tenney, eds. New International Dictionary of the Bible: Pictorial Edition (Grand

Rapids: Zondervan, 1987), 247, 431, 931–32. The NIDB also advocates following the NIV footnotes

for certain times where Sheol represents “the special doom of the wicked,” saying, “for if KJV was

2

Other Bible dictionaries do not explicitly concern themselves with either justifying or

condemning the KJV’s practice of rendering Sheol as “hell.” However, entries on Sheol

and Hell indicate that they would hardly justify the translation of Sheol as “hell” since

they stress that Sheol is to be understood as the abode of all the dead and not a place of

punishment for the wicked.3 Apparently no one previously had argued properly that

“hell” was a theological imposition made by the KJV translators, thus the original intent

of the present essay was meant to demonstrate that the translation of Sheol as “hell” was

indeed a result of cultural imposition, a consequence of the seventeenth-century’s

fascination with hell.4 5 6

At first glance it would have been easy enough to argue that the

inaccurate in translating Sheol as "hell" (e.g. Ps 9:17), NIV is equally inaccurate in formalizing it as

"the grave."”

3 David Noel Freedman, ed. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 572–73, “In

Jewish eschatology, death meant the separation of the body and soul. Yet no harm occurs after death,

for the soul remains secure. . . . The OT makes no reference to torture once persons are relegated to

Sheol.” Adela Y. Collins, “Hades,” Harper’s Bible Dictionary 365, “Sheol is not a place of punishment in

the OT.” W. E. Vine, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (Old Tappan: Fleming H.

Revell, 1981), 187, “In the A.V. of the O.T. and N.T., it [Hades] has been unhappily rendered "Hell."”

4 David Powys, ‘Hell’: A Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New Testament Thought

(Cumbria: Paternoster, 1997), 90, implicates earlier English translations (esp. KJV) with theological

imposition regarding the renderings of lav (š’ôl) and vpn (npš): “It is hard to avoid the conclusion that

the doctrines such as unending punishment and of the [Greek notion of] immortality of the soul were

imported into earlier translations, and that these translations have in turn perpetuated the doctrines.”

3

5 Piero Camporesi, The Fear of Hell: Images of Damnation and Salvation in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge:

Polity Press, 1990), 28: “Probably no other century regarded this world more disconsolately through

the eyes of the other world; over no other age did hell exert such an attraction and repulsion, and in so

spasmodic and obsessive a fashion as the seventeenth-century.” Although Camporesi’s comments

concern Catholicism in Europe they are equally satisfactory as a description of the Church in early

modern England. See also, D. P. Walker, The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth Century Discussions of Eternal Torment

(London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1964); Philip C. Almond, Heaven and Hell in Enlightenment England

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); and Geoff Rowell, Hell and the Victorians (Oxford:

Clarendon, 1974), 1–17.

6 It seems that during the seventeenth-century the torments of hell were considered part of the official

doctrine of the Church of England and held by most church clergy but not necessarily embraced by the

common people, many of whom instead continued to hold notions of rewards and punishments in the

present life. But I am unaware of research concerning clerical versus non-clerical beliefs in hell.

Alexandra Walsh, Providence in Early Modern England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), has shown

that the notion of providence was a dominant force throughout England permeating across all classes.

Powys, ‘Hell’, 19, 25–41, 54, sees hell as an official Church doctrine imposed by the Church of England,

since it was only in the nineteenth-century that doctrinal aspects (e.g. unending punishment) were

apparently challenged within mainstream/orthodox circles in “the English-speaking world” and that

“the doctrine of immediate unending torment survived the Reformation fully intact and was not

substantially challenged until the nineteenth-century.” However, exact beliefs concerning hell seem

more idiosyncratic than that granted by Powys’ position. Powys also overlooks the influence of

Luther’s and Calvin’s views.

4

KJV translators had consciously or subconsciously imposed the ‘doctrine’ of hell onto its

texts and readers.7 The argument appeared initially strong, given the following four

suppositions. (1) Unlike the NT, “hell” is a theological concept not promoted in the OT

so that using the word “hell” is anachronistic and misleading.8 (2) Unlike “hell” Sheol

7 It would not be the first time that the KJV has been charged with importing Church of England

theology into the text. The KJV committee was forbidden to translate as

“congregation” and was instructed to translate it as “church” in line with the traditional rendering

supposedly for the sake of legitimating the Church of England unlike the more radical Puritan proposal

(following Tyndale) to translate it as “congregation” which might undermine the Church of England.

For some of the polemic incited against Tyndale’s renderings see Benson Bobrick, Wide as the Waters:

The Story of the English Bible and Revolution It Inspired (NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 112–14. Richard

Bancroft’s fifteen “rules of translation” for the KJV translators are reproduced also in Alister McGrath,

In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language and a Culture (London:

Hodder & Stoughton, 2001), 173–75. Rule no. 3 stating: “The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz.

The Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.”

8 Usual definitions are themselves misleading. Hell is supposedly a NT concept entailing ongoing torture

or punishments. But eternal punishments have often been confused with eternal punishment. The notion of hell

in the NT predominantly concerns the perpetual disgrace of final annihilation by fire (as the ultimate denial

of the life of resurrection/renewed kingdom) rather than ongoing tortures or punishments. See the

detailed study by Powys, ‘Hell.’ Cf. esp Isa 66:24 cited in Mark 9:47–48 (permanent destruction and

denial of [a body for] resurrection). Based on such a NT concept the question is then raised: Can a

future fiery destruction be considered hell if those persons entering it are annihilated? The NT’s supposed

understanding of hell (supposedly the source used to theologically define ‘hell’) hardly fits the usual

definition of hell. ‘Hell’ as an ongoing place of tortures is a notion influenced by various extra-biblical

speculations—speculations that the biblical texts challenge.

5

denotes a non-hostile abode or resting place of all the dead.9 (3) “The grave” translation is,

theologically, more neutral. (4) Translating Sheol as “hell” originated with the English

Bibles of the sixteenth and seventeenth-centuries.

However, all four suppositions happen to be incorrect. Rather (1) Sheol was an

equivalent term for the widespread mythological notion of the dreaded Underworld.10

(2)

The OT only ever employed Sheol in a figurative way to refer to the worst possible fate

(somewhat similar the English use of “hell” in colloquial speech).11

(3) Authors in the

Hebrew Bible chose to use Sheol largely in connection with the fate of the arrogant or

9 H. Köster, “Sheol,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, ed. Berard L. Marthaler (2d ed.; Detroit: Catholic

University of America Press. 2003), 13. 7913:79, provides a typical definition of Sheol: “In the Bible it

designates the place of complete inertia that one goes down to when one dies whether one be just or

wicked, rich or poor.” The entry also mentions that Sheol “occurs more than 60 times in the Old

Testament to signify the nether world” and that “its etymology is very uncertain.”

10 See Philip S. Johnston, Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove: InterVarsity

Press, 2002), 16, 18, 70-75, esp., 73, “‘Sheol’ means the underworld, the realm of the dead deep below

the earth. This is almost universally accepted.”

11 “The notion of Sheol is theologically significant in that being banned to Sheol creates distance from

God. Hence, metaphors of the underworld express anxiety in the face of death as well as the experience

of being saved from great distress.” L. Wächter, “lwOav.,” Theological Dictionary of the OT, ed. G. J.

Botterweck, H. Ringgren, and H. –J. Fabry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–), 14:239–48.

6

wicked.12

(4) The English translation of Sheol as “hell” dates back to at least a

millennium prior to the sixteenth-century.

WIDER CULTURAL CONTEXT: MESOPOTAMIAN, EGYPTIAN AND GREEK

MYTHOLOGIES OF THE UNDERWORLD

Ancient Israel was surrounded by a variety of mythological notions concerning the

dreaded Otherworld/Underworld or ‘world below.’13

The Underworld in Mesopotamian mythologies was called the Land of No Return,

Land of Dust, Foreign Land, Place of Lying Down of the Sun and the House of

Darkness.14

It included the notion of the dead as shades (who, as in Egyptian mythology,

are ferried across the river by a boatman), who exist in virtually unlivable conditions,

eating mud and drinking foul water, but occasionally receiving food offerings from the

12

James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality: The Read-Tuckwell Lectures for 1990 (London:

SCM, 1992), 29. Johnston, Shades, 73, thinks that the KJV was naturally influenced by precisely this

fact: “Because Sheol is often associated with the wicked the term was frequently translated as “hell” in

the Authorized or King James Version.”

13 There are many overlapping notions from these periods and it would be futile to attempt to argue that

every notion has a single origin. For example, the imagery of the Underworld being fortified by gates

which is found in Mesopotamian, early Greek, and Egyptian mythology.

14 Charles Penglase, “Some Concepts of Afterlife in Mesopotamia and Greece,” The Archeology of Death in

the Ancient Near East, eds. Stuart Campbell and Anthony Greer (Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1995), 192–195.

By Mesopotamian, I am attempting to be quite broad (including Assryrian/Akkadian, Canaanite, and

Babylonian).

7

living.15

Each grave becomes an entrance to the Underworld where earthly distinctions of

prestige are almost worthless.16

It took three days to journey to (or from) the

Underworld.17

Here the dead are incapable of much activity but they could be contacted

for information or might be inadvertently disturbed and so needing to be placated.18

Thus

a dead person might haunt family members in order to obtain the proper burial or

memorial (hence the notion of exorcistic rituals).19

The Mesopotamian Underworld was

15

T. J. Lewis, “Dead,” Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, ed. K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, and P.

W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 223–31.

16 Jerrold S. Cooper, “The Fate of Mankind: Death and Afterlife in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Death and

Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions, ed. Hiroshi Obayashi (Westport: Greenwood, 1992), 19–33.

17 Mesopotamian mythologies provide the earliest attested notion of an otherworldly descent by a divine or

human figure. Richard Bauckham, “Descents to the Underworld,” The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish

and Christian Apocalypses (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 9–48, 16–17; an almost identical version appeared in

ABD, 2:145-159. Mesopotamian mythology also provided the notion of an otherworldly vision of the

Underworld. Richard J. Clifford S.J., “Near Eastern Myth,” The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism: Volume I The

Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity, ed. John J. Collins (New York: Continuum, 1999), 1–37,

15.

18 Lewis, “Dead,” 225–26. In the Sumerian texts the return/resurrection of Tammuz to the land of the

living is spoken of in terms of awaking from sleep or stirring from sleep. Cf. the House of Rest as a euphemism

for death. William W. Hallo, “Disturbing the Dead,” Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies Presented to

Naum M. Sarna in Honor of his 70th Birthday eds. Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane (Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic, 1993), 183–92, 185–87.

19 There is also the notion of Death (Mot) as a personified power. John F. Healey, “Death in West Semitic

Texts: Ugarit and Nabatae,” The Archeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, 188–91, 188.

8

ruled by Ereshkigal (the queen) and Nergal (the consort king). The Underworld was

home to all the dead along with numerous other gods, monsters and demons.20

Egyptian mythologies of the afterlife contained (besides the beatific notion of the

god-like king ascending to or reigning with the stars/astral deities): the notion of an

Otherworld called Tuat (and sometimes the House of Eternity);21

the notion of being at

the ends of the earth as a place with hazards (like the Four Crocodiles of the West)

preventing one from reaching the restful Field of Reeds; 22

the notion of a judgment of

the dead based on the principle of maat (truth/justice) and/or one’s proper allegiance to

the correct god.23

Human souls here are sentenced to live at the edge of a lake of fire

while at the entrance to the land of the blessed enemies of Osiris are rounded up (under

direction of Horus) and destroyed in four pits of fire. Also a huge fiery serpent breaths

fire into the faces of twelve enemies of Osiris who can only escape if they know the

correct ‘words of power’ to use against him.24

The fire annihilates these enemies.

20

Penglase, “Some Concepts,” 193.

21 Ronald F. Youngblood, “Qoheleth’s ‘Dark House’ (Eccl 12:5),” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society

29/4 (1986), 397–410, 409.

22 John Baines and Geraldine Pinch, “Egypt,” World Mythology: The Illustrated Guide ed. Roy Willis (London:

Duncan Baird, 1993), 36–55.

23 Notions from Egyptian mythology are taken summarily from Baines and Pinch, “Egypt,” 36–55, and

Alan E. Bernstein, Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian Worlds (Ithaca:

Cornwell University Press, 1993), 11–18.

24 Bernstein, Formation of Hell, 18, gives an example of one of the typical spells/words of power: “Oh

flame, backwards! You that burn there, I shall not be burnt. I wear . . . the white crown.”

9

Earlier Greek mythology resembled much of Mesopotamian notions.25

It contributed:

the notion of the hero (“the extraordinary person who is destined to acquire divine status

in death”);26

the notion of eternal revenge or punishment for enemy supernatural beings;

the notion that the manner of one’s death determined the type of suffering/shame

experienced.27

Later Greek mythology (c.400 B.C.E.) contributed: the notion of the immortality of the

soul (although Plato already refers to this as “an ancient and holy doctrine”);28

the notion

that death is the liberation of the soul from the “prison” of the body (where the divine

spark might potentially return to the Absolute Soul/Goodness);29

the notion of a universal

fire (“conflagration”);30

the notion that people were assigned distinct fates by being

25

Cf. The notion of a dark, dusty place; the notion of providing food offerings to the dead and the notion

of contacting the dead. Also, like Egyptian mythology, early Greek mythology was occasionally

ambiguous as to whether or not the Otherworld was always subterranean since it was entered via the

edge of the earth.

26 Helen F. North, “Death and Afterlife in Greek Tradegy and Plato,” Death and Afterlife, 49–64. 55

27 Cooper, “The Fate of Mankind,” 27.

28 Bernstein, Formation of Hell, 52–54.

29 Hiroshi Obayashi, “Introduction,” Death and Afterlife, ix–xxii, xvii.

30 The conflagration melted everything and everyone down, restoring the universe back to normal again—

a notion developed by the Stoics. Pieter W. van der Horst, “‘The Elements Will Be Dissolved With

Fire’: The Idea of Cosmic Conflagration in Hellenism, Ancient Judaism, and Early Christianity,”

Hellenism – Judaism – Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction (2d ed. Leuven: Peeters, 1998), 271–92. The

notion was adapted by Persian eschatology into the notion of purgatorial streams of molten metal which

10

grouped into distinct regions in the Underworld according to their degree of

sinfulness/propensity to impurity based on the body’s previous life;31

the notion of

reincarnation (developed by the end of the sixth-century B.C.E.); the notion that human

rulers could be eternally punished along with the superhuman beings; the notion that the

judgment of the dead occurs immediately upon death;32

the notion of a purgatorial

punishment for the curable; the notion of Tartarus (a deep chasm into which the four

great rivers empty) as the pit of fire capable of tormenting or punishing the immoral dead

for eternity;33

and the notion that Hades should be feared (so as to help maintain a stable

society).34

Many of these mythological notions are shared and overlap. What is most surprising

is that these widespread notions find little acceptance with the OT authors/texts. Ancient

Israel was hardly isolated from or immune to such notions. Since most of the above

attested notions predate the Hellenistic period by several centuries, it seems that the realm of the

dead more familiar to us from literature of the Second Temple period is much more

will one day flow over the earth and through which all humankind must pass. Anders Hultgård,

“Persian Apocalypticism,” Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, 40–83.

31 Bernstein, Formation of Hell, 55, 78.

32 When in the popular descents to Hades the Greeks described punishments occurring in the Underworld,

it is likely that they merely describe future scenes/visions rather than current events. Expecting

immediate judgment upon death in Jewish circles only really developed in the first-century C.E.

according to Bauckham, “Descent to the Underworld,” 34.

33 Bernstein, Formation of Hell, 55, 78.

34 Bernstein, Formation of Hell, 107–22.

11

indebted to the above notions already widespread in the ancient Near East.35

It is hardly

necessary to suppose that the unpleasant notions usually associated with hell (such as

darkness, terror, punishments, demonic beings, underworld gods, monsters and fiery

judgments) were foreign to ancient Israelites simply because the Hebrew scriptures

themselves seem largely disinterested. Biblical evidence suggests the contrary.

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE OF THE UNDERWORLD

35

Mark S. Smith, for example, indicates that a so-called later tradition, such as resurrection, can be older

than it appears. “Occasionally later tradition tapped into mythic material generally known but for

various reasons not attested as used (as far as is known) by the monarchy, the priesthood or other

authoritative groups in ancient Israel until the Persian period. The post-exilic concept of resurrection

gives the appearance of this phenomenon . . . Dan 12:3 provides hope to a community in the late

Seleucid period, and Ezekiel 37 and Isa 26:17–19 visualize restoration from the diaspora. These texts

reflect traditional mythic materials, specifically a notion presupposing the image of a person’s rising

from the dead, and this imagery has pre-exilic roots (e.g. Hos 6:1–3) in Israelite popular religion

continuous to some degree with ideas represented on the royal level of Ugaritic material (Spronk, 293–

306). . . . These motifs seem to hibernate from our perspective, because the religious texts from the

Bible and early rabbinic sources rarely mention them and certainly give them no sanction.” Mark S.

Smith, “Mythology and Myth-making in Ugarit and Israelite Literatures,” Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings

of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible Manchester, September 1992 eds. George J Brooke, Adrian

H. W. Curtis and John F. Healey (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994), 293–341, 308 n58. See also Walter

Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld, “Hell’s Pre-Christian Origins: Hell, Hell-fire, Dragons, Serpents, and

Resurrections,” n.p. [cited 13 July 2004]. Online: http://www.bibleorigins.net/hellsorigins.html.

12

Biblical evidence suggests that throughout the early part of the first millennium B.C.E.

much of Israelite society was syncretistic.36

For example 1 Kgs 11:5–7 makes reference

to the worship of Milcom of Ammon, Chemosh of Moab and Ashtoreth (Astarte) of

Sidon instituted by Solomon.37

Astarte/Ashtoreth is referred to in Jeremiah (7:18, 44:17–

19) as the “Queen of Heaven” who is revered by the Israelite women who baked cakes

for this fertility goddess (modeled on the widespread Mesopotamian goddess Inanna)

who has clear associations with the Underworld.38

Jeremiah (2:28 NRSV) asks, “But

where are your gods that you made for yourself? Let them come, if they can save you, in

your time of trouble; for you have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah.” These

gods known and worshipped by many in Judah presumably had mythologies associated

with them, many of which would have included notions of the Underworld.

36

Cf. Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (London: Continuum,

2001), 667, “Israelite religions in general were characterized by tolerance.”

37 Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel

and the Origin of its Sacred Texts (New York: Touchstone, 2001), 242, “From the indirect (and pointedly

negative) evidence of the book of Kings, we learn that priests in the countryside also regularly burned

incense on the high places to the sun, moon, and the stars.” Ronald M. Meldrum, “Ashtoreth,” A

Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, ed. David Lyle Jeffrey (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992),

60, asserts that the name Ashtoreth “derives from the deliberate conflation of the Phoenician Ashtart

with the Hebrew word boshet ("shame").”

38 Michael Jordan, Encyclopedia of the Gods: Over 2,500 Deities of the World (London: Kyle Cathie, 1992), 33. J.

R. Porter, “The Middle East,” World Mythology, 56–67, 64.

13

Ps 20 appears to be a prayer that was also dedicated to Horus (the son of Osiris who

avenges his dead father in the Egyptian Otherworld) who seems to have been linked with

Baal-shamayn in an Aramaic papyrus of a similar prayer to Horus.39

Ancient sacrifices to chthonic/Underworld gods were generally slaughtered at

nighttime or face down or at a lower level than for heavenly gods. Such sacrifices were

“not so much for worship as for placation, the aversion of evil, and for obtaining dreams

or other signs for divinatory purposes” thus the OT insistence that the Israelite altar be “a

platform raised noticeably above the immediately adjacent terrain most likely has to do

with the fact that YHWH was perceived essentially as a celestial deity.”40

Exod 20:22

makes it clear that Yahweh was not an Underworld god (“I spoke to you from the

heavens”) since offerings close to the ground “would have been considered dedicated to

chthonic deities.” 41

1 Sam 14:32, however, describes a sacrifice which would have been

interpreted as divination.42

39

Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 671. The silver foil inscribed with Num 6:24–26 found in an Iron age

Judean tomb might also be evidence of the influence of Egyptian notions of the Otherworld. Gabriel

Barkay, Ketef Hinnom: A Treasure Facing Jeruslame’s Walls (Jerusalem: Israel Museum, 1986), cited in

Richard Elliott Friedman and Shawna Dolansky Overton, “Death and Afterlife: The Biblical Silence,”

Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part 4 Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of

Antiquity, eds. Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 35–59, 37.

40 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 281.

41 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 280.

42 Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 653 n76 also mentions that Lev 17:4 refers to rituals “that could be

considered chthonic worship.”

14

Israelite religious language often resembles something of the Canaanite religion (e.g.

worship of El) and many biblical passages presuppose Canaanite mythology.43

Granting

that altars (and prophets) of Baal were prevalent throughout much of Israelite history,

then it is natural to assume that the mythology of Baal was widely known. In one of the

Baal ‘cycles’ or episodes familiar to scholars from the Ugaritic texts, Mot forces Baal

into the Underworld.44

Chapters 5–6 and 13–14 in Hosea appear to be aware of this

Underworld mythology.45

43

John Day, “Ugarit and the Bible: Do they Presuppose the Same Canaanite Mythology and Religion?”

Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible Manchester, September 1992,

eds. George J Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis and John F. Healey (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994), 35–52,

48. Cf. also Job 38:7 ~yhiOla/ ynEB.-lK' “all the sons of God” reminiscent of “all the sons of El.”

44 Baal’s descent to the Underworld causes a summer drought and so El requests Asherah to nominate her

son Ashtar to replace Baal. Meanwhile Anath finds Mot (on earth), kills him, threshes him and burns

him but then descends to the Underworld and demands that Mot release Baal. The sun-god intervenes

and Baal is returned home. Mot then completely leaves the Underworld and challenges Baal to a fight

face to face, ending in a tie. Porter, “The Middle East,” 65. See also Wayne P. Pitard, “Voices From

the Dust: The Tablets from Ugarit and the Bible,” Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explanations, eds.

Mark W. Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 251–75, 257.

45 Further evidence of knowledge of the mythology of the Underworld can be seen in the references to

Sheol personified (Is 5:14; Hab 2:5) probably influenced from the personification of Mot at Ugarit

(modern Ras Shamra)—both Sheol and Mot are described as swallowing the dead with their vp,n< (npš i.e.

throat). Resheph (@v,r, Pestilence or Plague) was also a deity associated with the Underworld. For the

Canaanites Resheph was the sun-goddess’ gatekeeper who guarded the Underworld after sunset.

Resheph accompanied Baal in the slaying of the dragon and accompanied Yahweh in his battle against

15

The ancient story of Ishtar/Inanna and Tammuz/Dumuzi shows how even a

god/goddess could not simply return to the land of the living. The Sumerian version of

the story tells how the fertility goddess Ishtar descended to the Underworld through an

entrance in the far East to confront her elder sister Ereshkigal.46

Tammuz/Dumuzi the

young husband ends up having to share the sentence spending half the year in the

Underworld. Several Babylonian hymns contain laments for the departed Tammuz and

his ‘death’ was mourned during Autumn in the fourth month (named after him).47

Ezekiel

saw Jerusalem in a vision detailing the various “abominations” which included women

sitting at the entrance to the north gate “weeping for Tammuz” (Ezek 8:14 NRSV).48

the waters in Hab 3:5. The phrase “sons of Resheph” is used in Job 5:7 but without mythological

connotations. At Ugarit Resheph was equated with Nergal in the underworld.

46 Bernstein, Formation of Hell, 5–6.

47 David Adams Leeming, Mythology: The Voyage of the Hero (3d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press,

1998), 160–61. I suggest that there might be some etymological connection with the words autumn and

Tammuz.

48 Daniel Block believes that the article before Tammuz simply “denotes a special genre of lament, rather

than the deity himself . . . these women have either equated Yhwh with Tammuz, or they are expressing

their grief at their own deity’s departure by adapting a Tammuz ritual.” Daniel I. Block, The Gods of the

Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1988,

2000), 140 n69. Block concludes that the “vital worship of the living God” is being replaced with

“lamentations for the dead.” Zevit, Religions of Ancient Israel, 559, seems correct that the expression

bewailing the Tammuz “may have become a frozen idiom to describe a ritual wailing of a certain type that

did not necessarily indicate to whom or on behalf of whom the ritual was dedicated.” Nevertheless,

16

If true that prior to Josiah’s reform Jerusalem and Judah were both filled with

“mediums, wizards, teraphim, [and] idols” (2 Kgs 23:22–24 cf. Deut 18:10–12) then we

should not be too quick to dismiss a history of popular speculation concerning the

Underworld. 1 Sam 28 is the classic example indicating that in a time of fear and

desperation, a person (in this case a king of Israel) could turn to a medium as a last resort

for information on the future (and succeed in contacting the dead Samuel).

HOW SHEOL WAS AND WAS NOT USED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE

Since Sheol never occurs with the article and is associated with a downward direction it

is clearly the Hebrew equivalent (and proper name) for the Underworld.49

Besides tw<m'

(death), Sheol’s most common synonym is raeB. /rwOB or tx;v; “[deep] pit.”50

The nature of a

pit is that it is entraps the unwary (Ps 35:7; 94:13) and provides a chasm for disposing

dead bodies or for imprisoning criminals and enemies (cf. 2 Sam 18:17; 2 Kgs 10:14; Is

14:19; 24:22). Thus Sheol could suitably be translated “the Big Pit,” or “the Pit of No

Escape” (or given that !wODb;a} , “destruction” is also a synonym, as “the Pit of

Destruction”).51

that Tammuz gave his name both to a month (used in Israel) and a type of lament may indicate

widespread knowledge of him.

49 Johnston, Shades, 71; Desmond Alexander, “The Old Testament View of Life After Death,” Themelios 11

(1986), 43.

50 Ps 16:10; 28:1; 30:3; 88:3–6; Job 17:13–14; Prov 12:1; Isa 14:15; 38:18; Ezek 31:14–17; 32:21–25.

51 Cf. Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; Ps 88:11; Prov 15:11; Prov 27:20; Isa 38:17; Ezek 26:20; 28:8; Hos 13:14.

17

Psalm 88 provides one of the most explicit biblical descriptions resembling the

Mesopotamian Underworld.52

Yahweh is said not to continue a relationship with those in

Sheol (Is 38:18 ; Ps 6:5) but even Sheol is not beyond Yahweh’s reach (Ps 22:29, 139:8;

Job 26:6; Prov 15:11).

However, unlike the Mesopotamian Underworld, Sheol is considered to be

predominantly a destination befitting the wicked. James Barr noted that Sheol is mainly

linked with “persons disapproved, the evildoers, the ones who after a rich, powerful and

successful life had to be cast down to the lowest and worst of states.”53

For some reason

52

The Psalmist’s lament of his tormented state in Ps 88 describes the Underworld as a dreadful place of

hopelessness, a place “in darkness” and out of Yahweh’s reach (“cut off” from his hand), in “the Pit”,

where there is no escape, and where the “shades” do not praise Yahweh. Cf. the Mesopotamian account

of Ishtar’s descent to the Land of No Return: “The house of darkness, the house the inhabitants of

which lack light, the place where dust is their food and excrements their nourishments, where they see

no light and live in darkness.” Cited in Th. P. van Baaren, “Afterlife: Geographies of Death,” The

Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Mircea Eliade (New York: Macmillan, 1987), 1:116–20. Cf. the Akkadian

version of the Epic of Gilgamesh describing the Underworld: “He brings me down to the house of

darkness, the dwelling place of Irkalla, to the house whose entrants do not leave . . . Light they do not

see; in darkness they dwell.” Cited in Youngblood, “Qoheleth’s ‘Dark House,’” 409. Cf. also biblical

texts referring to the “Land of No Return” (2 Sam 12:23; Job 7:10; 10:21; 16:22) and other foreboding

descriptions of Sheol (Job 10:9,21–22, 17:16, 34:15; Ps 90:3, 104:29; Eccl 3:20, 12:7).

53 Barr, Garden of Eden, 29. Cf. the first part of the definition of Sheol given by J. Bruce Long,

“Underworld,” Encyclopedia of Religion, 15:126–134, 131: “Heaven and She’ol are thought to be the two

furthest extremities of the universe (Am. 9:2). She’ol is positioned at the nadir of a dark pit at the very

base of the universe, into which the blasphemer who aspires to be equal with God will fall.”

18

the biblical authors did not speak of Abraham, Moses or David as going to Sheol when

they died.54

Indeed, Sheol is only used in first-person contexts of speech (in ‘psalmodic’, ‘reflective’

and ‘prophetic’ literature).55

Only two passages clearly suggest that Sheol is the

depressing fate awaiting all people (good and evil).56

Consequently Sheol, widely

recognised to be a mythological term (and affirmed as the worst possible fate), was

consistently rejected as a general ‘narrative’ term for death or dying.

Similarly Tobit (c.250–175 B.C.E. extant in Gk) rejects the notion of resurrection

being advocated since the third-century B.C.E.57

58

The book of Tobit still at this late stage

54

According to Rosenberg in most cases “Sheol is associated with the concept of premature or ‘evil

death.’ R. Rosenberg, The Concept of Biblical Sheol Within the Context of ANE Beliefs (Ph.D.diss., Harvard

University, 1980), 178–252, cited in Lewis, “Dead, Abode of the,” 2:104.

55 Johnston, Shades, 71 n11: “In the sole exception (Num. 16:33), the narrator simply repeats the

phraseology already attributed to Moses (v. 30).”

56 See Eccl 9:10; Hab 2:5 which suggest Sheol is the depressing fate awaiting all people. Note, however,

that the OT assumes humans do not go to heaven when they die since heaven is God’s dwelling place (and that

of other supernatural beings). The earth is the inheritance of the “sons of Adam” (Ps. 115:16–18). Even

Dan 12:2-3 (c.167 B.C.E.) when mentioning some of the dead being raised to life (“the wise”) it seems

originally to have envisaged them being raised back to life on earth rather than ascending to an astral

sphere. George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jr., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism

(Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972), 30. Ben C. Ollenburger, “If Mortals Die, Will

They Live Again?” Ex Auditu 9 (1993), 33.

57 George W. E. Nickelsburg Jr., “Judgment, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection in the Apocrypha and

the Non-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha,” Judaism in Late Antiquity, 141–62, 145, suggests that Tobit’s view

on death is conservative considering that 1 Enoch had already articulated a belief in resurrection.

19

interprets Sheol to be the dreadful mythological Pit rather than a restful abode or a

synonym for death.59

Thus Tobit follows the earlier tendency of the OT to avoid either

neutralizing or historicizing Sheol as a narrative term (e.g. in otherworldly ‘visions,’

‘descents’ or use as a euphemism for death).

Thus Sheol’s absence is conspicuous in the picture of the God-made cycle of life and

(complete) death in the mythological-type story in Gen 2–3 which might be read as a

response to the fear of a literal Sheol. Especially given that the expression “return to dust” (3:19)

would have been obvious to many readers/hearers that the story’s language resembled

common language for the Underworld (Land of Dust, Land of No Return). In this case

Gen 2-3 would be asserting something relevant concerning the Underworld—namely that

“returning to the dust” does not (contrary to widespread belief) involve being consigned

to dwell in a frightening underworld environment but is a natural end to the life cycle.

Readers are thus comforted that there is nothing fearful about natural dissolution—

meaning relief from pain! The otherworldly fear/judgment of Sheol is transferred to a this-

worldly fear/judgment of weeding and giving birth. Gen 2–3 thus could be a polemic not

58

It is most likely that Sheol should be read at the three points where our Greek Tobit has

/ “[House of] Hades.” Tob 3:10; 4:19 (following a), and 13:2.

59 In Tobit Sheol is not used as a general term for natural death due to its negative mythological

associations. Thus when Tobit asks to die he does not use the term Sheol (instead: “take my spirit from

me”; “released from the face of the earth”; “become dust”; “to die”; “released from this distress”; and

“go to the eternal place”). When, however, Tobit does refer to Sheol/Hades it is in more figurative and

judgmental contexts (see 3:10, 4:19, 13:2), indicating Sheol’s mythological background.

20

only against immortality, but also against any kind of speculation of a human’s afterlife

in the mythological Underworld.60

A similar theological procedure is discernible in other texts. In Ps 9:17 Sheol is

equivalent to “dust” (as disintegration).61

62

Sheol here has lost some of its mythological

connotations (but retains its figurative and judgmental sense). In both Sheol’s deliberate

use (e.g. Ps 9:17) and avoidance (e.g. Gen 2-3) a consistent impulse is evidenced

throughout the OT which, within its biblical context, challenged the theological

acceptance of Sheol as a literal place.

THE SEPTUAGINT: THE INTERPRETING COMMUNITY AND THE BIBLICALLY

GENERATED CONTEXT

The first known Bible translation was that undertaken in the early third-century B.C.E. by

those in Egypt who required the Torah in Greek. Of the two types of translation

techniques used in Ptolemaic Egypt the LXX translators generally took a middle course

60

This point has, to my knowledge, not previously been seen. It seems so obvious that I had expected to

find it at least mentioned in the following: T. Stordalen, Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the

Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature (Leuven: Peeters, 2000); Howard N. Wallace, The Eden Narrative

(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985); Claus Westermann, Genesis 1–11: A Commentary (Minneapolis:

Augsburg, 1984). My argument does not conflict with the themes dealt with in these otherwise

comprehensive works.

61 See John Goldingay, “Death and Afterlife in the Psalms,” Judaism in Late Antiquity, 61–85, 63, 73.

62 It seems likely that the same theology in Gen 2–3 has also influenced Eccl 3:19–20; 9:10. Qoheleth

could similarly be rejecting both notions (immortality/reward and Underworld/Land of the Dead).

21

between precise translation (used for commercial and judicial transactions) and free

translation (used for literary works).63

The LXX also tended to use stereotyping (using the

same equivalent for a term regardless of its context).64

The LXX translated Sheol as / (“[House] of Hades”) very

consistently (including in the Prophets and Writings) and so is a stereotyped translation

of Sheol.65

The various translators possessed no lexicons to assist them in their task.66

When they sought equivalents for Hebrew terms “several equivalents had already been

determined by previous generations.”67

Hades’ was likely one such equivalent already

existing as the traditional equivalent for Sheol in prior centuries. This supposition

accords not only with the fact that Sheol was itself the Hebrew equivalent for the

63

Emmanuel Tov, “The Septuagint,” Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in

Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. Martin Jan Mulder (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1988), 161–88, 169.

64 Tov, “Spetuagint,” 174.

65 There are only three exceptions: 2 Sam 22:6 renders both twm and lav with (“Death”).

Isa 7:11 hl'a'v, “Sheol-wards” (MT) becomes in the LXX (“to [the] deep”), and

Prov 23:14 lwOaV.mi “from Sheol” (MT) becomes in the LXX “from death.”

66 Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2001), 17.

67 Tov, “Spetuagint,” 171. It seems that transliteration was only ever used if no suitable equivalent could

be found or if the Hebrew term had already entered Greek usage.

22

Underworld but also with the fact that Mesopotamian and early Greek (pre–650 B.C.E.)

mythological notions of the Land of the Dead were quite similar.68

Considering that Hades’ had, by the beginning of the third-century B.C.E., become

accepted in Greek philosophical circles as a place of torment (with distinct categorization

and punishment by fire for the impure and eternal punishment by fire for all those

unworthy of returning to the Absolute Good), it is striking that rather than Sheol’s

repugnancy increasing by association with Hades, the meaning of Hades itself was being

influenced by a perceived biblically generated meaning of Sheol (in Jewish-Greek usage)

as ‘neutral death.’ Thus to go to Hades’ became a neutral Jewish euphemism for to die.

According to Pieter W. van der Horst, Hades was an acceptable term for Sheol in the

LXX simply because Hades had lost its mythological connotations.69

But this explanation

(besides overlooking Hades’ increasingly hostile sense in philosophical circles) already

presupposes that Sheol was less mythological to begin with than Hades!70

It seems,

68

Penglase, “Some Concepts,” 194–95. E.g. offerings made to the shades; the dead person’s existence is

to some extend a continuation of that begun in on earth; the dead person’s spirit having wings; the dead

person’s ghost can return to haunt the living if necessary; the place is gloomy and lacks clean water; the

Underworld is ruled by a divine queen and king; entering the Netherworld involves crossing the River

Ocean (Acheron/Hubur) at the edge of or below the earth; no moral judgment of the dead occurs; no

blessed afterlife is available. Cf. also the Greco-Roman myth and cult of Adonis with that of

Tammuz/Dumuzi whereby underworld-god Hades/Pluto abducts Persephone.

69 Horst, “Jewish Tomb Inscriptions,” 25, 28, 47.

70 The Jewish writings selected by van der Horst use quite figurative language. Note also that van der

Horst acknowledges that it is manifestly in “Jewish writings [that] ‘Hades’ had lost its religious-

23

rather, that it was the biblical use of Sheol (i.e. by its figurative use; by denying Sheol as a

literal abode; by treating it as merely “dust” in Gen 3 and Ps 9:17) which was largely

responsible for “(going to) Hades’” becoming a euphemism for death in Jewish circles.71

Moreover, the various LXX translators into Greek found it more appropriate to use

the mythological equivalent to Sheol (Hades) rather than words for grave or death.

“HELL” FIGURATIVELY SPEAKING

The first account in Gen 37:34–35 of Jacob’s distress at the horrifying news of his

youngest (and favourite) son’s untimely death affords an example. The story portrays

Jacob’s response of extreme mourning. When his family tries to reassure him he cries out

that the news will bring him down to Sheol (i.e. his son has been killed indicating harsh

judgment and the bad news will utterly torment and destroy him too).72

Jacob does not

mythological meaning (God of the underworld).” Horst, “Jewish Tomb Inscriptions,” 40, 35. More

satisfactory is Bernstein, Formation of Hell, 139, who acknowledges that the conceptions of Sheol and

Hades were already close.

71 This is my own observation. It provides a better explanation of how Hades diminished into a mere

euphemism (in Jewish circles) at the very time it was peaking in its development as a place of hell-

purgatory (in Greek philosophical circles).

72 Premature death as a ghastly or ‘evil death’ was in complete contrast to ‘natural death’ (‘unification

with kin’) according to Rosenberg, cited in Lewis, 2:101–5.

24

say, “I will go down to the grave“ (as rendered in the NIV).73

Rather Jacob’s trauma is

highlighted by showing him expressing that his worst fears are coming true. Jacob’s hope

of (favoured) descendants are suddenly being dashed.74

The word “hell” here works

successfully as a linguistic equivalent for Sheol—Jacob believes that he might as well be sent,

tormented, down to Sheol too.75

The narrator is not suggesting that Sheol is a real place to be

feared, but is depicting (with suitable figurative language) how badly Jacob took the

news. Ironically, the four occurrences of Sheol in Genesis (all on the lips of Jacob) are

the only occurrences never translated as “hell” in English since 1534.

73

“Reference to the underworld corresponds to malign death, death in despair.” On the other hand, “The

negative associations attaching to the underworld are absent when reference is made to the grave.” L.

Wächter, “lwOav.,” 14:247–48.

74 The fear of suddenly being trapped down in the Pit whence none can return is reminiscent also of

Joseph’s initial fate. The brothers’ underhanded treatment of Joseph was miraculously overturned.

Joseph’s expected death in the pit and his rise (and fall and eventual rise) to power should also suggest

to the reader that Jacob’s fear of going into the Big Pit will also be turned around.

75 A suggested translation of Gen 37:34–35: “Then Jacob tore his clothes and put on rough sackcloth

around himself and he mourned for his son for many days. Then all of his sons and daughters came

around and tried to cheer him up, but he would not allow himself to be happy, ‘Just let me mourn so

much that I join my son in hell!’ This was how bad his father took the news and was mourning for his

son.”

25

“HELL” IN EARLY ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS

Most early English Bibles were merely intended to be light revisions of previous

versions. Thus the KJV was produced as a revision of the previous English Bible (the

Bishop’s Bible).76

The KJV was greatly influenced by the Geneva Bible (1560) which

had become by far the most popular English Bible.77

Prepared by English Protestant

exiles, the Geneva Bible had come closest to providing a new translation.78

Unlike the

76

Thus the KJV translation committee was instructed to revise the Church’s official Bible (Bishops

Bible, 1568) “as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.” Rule 1 of Bancroft’s fifteen

“rules of translation,” Bobrick, Wide as the Waters, 316. Rule no. 14 stated: “These translations to be

used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindall’s [Tyndale’s], Matthews,

Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s [the Great Bible], Geneva.” The KJV also consulted Latin, Spanish, French,

Italian and German translations. The Rheims-Douai Bible (1582–1602) was also consulted for the NT.

A Wilkren, “The English Versions of the Bible,” Peake’s Commentary on the Bible, ed. Matthew Black

(London: Thomas Nelson, 1962), 24–28, 26.

77 When the KJV preface quoted biblical text it used the Geneva Bible version! McGrath, In the Beginning,

99. Lloyd E. Berry, “Introduction to the Facsimile Edition,” The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560

Edition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), 10, mentions that a large percentage of KJV

vocabulary in the psalms is indebted to the Geneva Bible. David Daiches, The King James Version of the

English Bible: An Account of the Development and Sources of the English Bible of 1611 with Special Reference to the

Hebrew Tradition (USA: Archon Books, 1941), 206, after investigating the text of Isaiah, concludes the

“A.V. [KJV] is more dependent on GenB [the Geneva Bible] than on BB [Bishops Bible].”

78 The Geneva Bible translators had also consulted an array of English, German, French, Latin

translations and commentaries as well as the Hebrew and Greek texts. Bobrick, Wide as the Waters, 175,

26

KJV half a century later, the Geneva Bible had intended to provide something new and

was intended for general readers. 79

80

It is safe to presume that the decrease in renderings

of “hell” and increase in “the grave” renderings in the Geneva Bible is something for

which the Geneva translators were largely responsible. Previous translation of Sheol had

traditionally been “hell” (except for Luther’s four occurrences in Genesis of die Grube,

“the grave”).81

It is reasonable to assume that Coverdale’s Bible (as the first complete

English Bible, based on Tyndale’s work and on German and Latin translations) can be

Daiches, The King James Version, 210, observes that the Geneva Bible was actually more eclectic than the

later KJV.

79 Lynne Long, Translating the Bible: From the 7th to the 17th Century (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001), 172, implies

this. The many marginal notes commenting on the “hard places” indicate this. Note also that English

Protestants were not at the time in power. So it is hardly surprising that the Geneva Bible was the first

version to assist the general reader by providing added English words in italics to help complete the

sense implied by the Hebrew and assisting both lay and clerical readers. Note also, the marginal note for Prov

23:14 (“Thou shalt smite him with the rodde, and shalt deliver his soule from hel” [sic]) which adds:

“That is, from destruction.” Here the Geneva Bible resisted speculation on the fate of an undisciplined

son’s soul recognizing that Sheol in this context signified ruin.

80 Innovative features of the Geneva Bible: (1) The first use of Roman type (rather than the heavy black-

letter ‘Gothic’ type) which made it easier to read. (2) The first English Bible to use adding italics for

English grammar. (3) The first to provide verse numbers. (4) Available in handy quarto size. (5) Very

reasonable priced. (6) Providing extensive marginal notes to assist the general reader. Bruce M.

Metzger, “The Geneva Bible of 1560,” Theology Today 17 (1960), 339–52, 342–43.

81 Die Bibel oder die ganze heilige Schrift Ulten und Neuen Testaments, nach der deutschen Ubersetzung Dr. Martin Luthers

(St. Louis: Concordia, 1902).

27

taken as a good indication of the low number of deviations from the traditional “hell”

(with Sheol being represented by “hell” in fifty-three out of sixty-five cases) just prior to

the Geneva Bible.82

83

Wycliffe’s Bible (translating the Latin, c.1380) had used “hell” as

the English equivalent for infernus (given for Sheol/Hades) but “hell” had already been

used in the English-glossed Psalter’s since at least the ninth-century.84

The widespread use of Luther’s Bible seems to have initiated two different tendencies

in the English translation of Sheol. Firstly, it assisted in collapsing Sheol with Gehenna

by conforming Sheol, Gehenna, and Hades as “(die) hölle” (from the same Germanic base

as “hell”)—whereas the Latin had kept Gehenna distinct from Sheol by transliterating

82

It is informative to look at how Sheol was rendered in Greek, Latin, Wycliffite, Tyndale, Coverdale,

Geneva and KJV Bibles. Tyndale followed closely to Luther’s German as can be seen by Tyndale’s

rendering of Sheol as “the grave” throughout Genesis but as “hell” throughout the remainder of his

published Pentateuch and using “hell” for the NT’s Gehenna. In Hebrew and Aramiac Gehenna meant

the accursed “Valley of Hinnom” just south of Jerusalem where a future fiery judgment was to be

carried out on the wicked thereby turning it into a mass graveyard befitting the profane child sacrifices

by fire once held there (according to Jer 7:32; 19:6,11; 2 Kgs 23:10).

83 Coverdale’s original title page indicated that he did not actually consult the Hebrew: “Biblia, The Bible

that is, the holy Scripture of the Olde and New Testament, faith fully translated out of Douche and

Latyn in to Englishe. M.D.XXXV,” repr., The Holy Scriptures of the Olde and Newe Testamente, with the

Apocrypha: Faithfully Translated from the Hebrue and Greke by Miles Coverdale, sometime Lord Bishop of Exeter.

MDXXXV (2d ed. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1847).

84 The Oxford English Dictionary (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1989), 7:117. Thus prior to Wycliffe’s time

Sheol was already conformed to Gehenna by translating both Gehenna and Sheol into early English

(and Germanic/Teutonic languages) as “hell” (usually spelled as “helle”).

28

Gehenna following the NT’s lead of transliterating this as an Aramaic place name.85

Secondly, Luther’s Bible introduced “die Grube” (“the grave”) via Genesis into the English

versions.

With the advent of the Geneva Bible, the number of deviations from the traditional

“hell” to “the grave” increased to forty-five (leaving only twenty out of sixty-five as

“hell”). Presumably this departure (along with the tendency over time to ‘free up’ the

older ‘literal’ translations) was assisted by the intensification of biblical exegesis and

evidences the importance of the perceived inner-biblical context (i.e. that generated by the

texts) which naturally occurred mid-sixteenth-century when textual and exegetical studies

were in full swing.86

87

The Reformation period thus began to prefer a freer, more

interpretive translation of Sheol as “the grave.” Perhaps the initial impetus for the change

85

Tyndale and Coverdale further assisted in consolidating Sheol as “hell” in English Bibles by following

Luther in translating all three terms with “hell.”

86 The biblically generated context had been steadily gaining prominence since the early-sixteenth-

century due largely to the work of Luther and Calvin. Irena Backus, “Biblical Hermeneutics and

Exegesis,” The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation, ed. Hans J. Hillerbrand (New York: Oxford

University Press, 1996), 1:152–57. D. L. Puckett, “Calvin, John,” Historical Handbook of Major Biblical

Interpreters, ed. Donald K. McKim (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 171–79.

87 Berry, “Introduction,” The Geneva Bible, 7, observes that Geneva in the 1550s was “a center for biblical

textual scholarship resulting in new editions of the Greek and Hebrew texts.” Lewis Frederick Lupton,

A History of the Geneva Bible (London: Burlington, 1990), 44, contends that the design of the Geneva

Bible (1560) “was in fact an exact copy of a Genevan French Bible of the same date printed by Anton

Rebul, and which contained the latest fruits of Calvin’s revision and exegesis.”

29

should primarily be credited to Luther’s translation of Sheol die Grube (“the grave”)

throughout Genesis. This change appears to be due to Luther’s own work of translation

since he understood Sheol to denote the ‘grave’ for the soul. Luther spoke of h'lwOav.

(Sheol)88

and rb,q, (grave) as though referring to the same thing—as a kind of “sepulcher,”

“pit” or “chamber” for the dead soul:

H'lwOav. [Sheol] is a common place – provided that it can be called a place – not for the

body but for the soul. . . . Scripture contains nothing at all about purgatory but says

that the saints and righteous men pass over into their h'lwOav.., where they enjoy the

sweetest peace and rest. . . . But the h'lwOav. [Sheol] of the rich man [Lk 16:24] was fire,

and that state and condition of the ungodly is known to God alone. . . . What the

nature of this rest is we do not know . . . Nor does it concern us greatly to know what

the state of the ungodly is.89

88

Luther prefers to include the final h as though using an alternate spelling but it is probably because

Sheol is often so used with a directive/locative h (i.e. “[down] to Sheol”).

89 Luther likens the unknown state of the sleep of death with the unknown state of ordinary sleep, “we

cannot conceive of how a man lives in this life when he sleeps . . . sleep is nothing else than a kind of

migration, as it were, from this life [to another].” Luther also believed that “the Sheol” of the ungodly

was synonymous with Gehenna, “in this passage [Gen 42:38] the Hebraists argue about the word h'lwOav.,

which they understand to mean the grave and translate it with ‘pit.’ But they laugh at us for explaining

it as Gehenna. But we care nothing about those unlearned asses.” Luther’s Work’s, Volume 7, Lectures on

Genesis, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis: Concordia, 1965), 291–98.

30

Though hesitant about understanding Sheol in his Genesis commentary, Luther seemed

ultimately to have conceived of two types of Sheol, with each soul going to his or her

own Sheol or grave.

The KJV evidences its conservative nature by rejecting Geneva’s “the grave” and

returning to the traditional “hell” on eleven occasions.90

This ambivalence between “hell”

and “the grave” remained in translations up until the twentieth-century.91

It was not until

the ASV in 1901 that Sheol was conformed in all of its occurrences (by the

transliteration, “Sheol”).92

“Hell”/“(die) hölle” lingers on in the OT of at least two widely

used twentieth-century revisions (one of the KJV, one of Luther).93

90

In contrast to the Geneva Bible the KJV intended to provide an archaic sounding version. For three

examples where the KJV deliberately maintained language that was already falling out of common use

so as to sound noticeably archaic (using “thou” for “you;” “sayeth” for “says;” “his” for “its”) see

McGrath, In the Beginning, 266–76.

91 In 1885 the preface to the RV attempted to explain why it chose largely to translate Sheol as “the

grave” (or “the pit”) in “the historical narratives” (with “Sheol” in the margin) and to transliterate it

“Sheol” in “the poetical writings” (with “the grave” in the margin) inadvertently acknowledging that

“Sheol” was seen to be more fitting for poetry.

92 Metzger, The Bible in Translation, 103.

93 I count nineteen remaining renderings of “hell” in the OT of the NKJV (1982), with one of the nineteen

being an added extra in Ezk 31:15 (following the RV). I also count one occurrence of hölle in the OT of

the widely used revised Luther Bible (1984) in Job 11:8. Die Bibel nach der Übersetzung Martin

Luthers in der revidierten Fassung von 1984 (Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1984).

31

Before Augustine came from Rome to Kent to convert the Angles (English) in 597

C.E., Christianity was already flourishing due to Irish monasteries.94

Presumably

equivalent terminology for Sheol/infernus was already in use in Old Saxon and in the other

Germanic and Celtic evangelization. This is evidenced by the appropriation of Old

Norse/Germanic mythological terminology for the Underworld whereby Hel (or Hela)

was a monster/goddess who had a palace called ‘Helheim’ (Hell’s Home), a huge walled

estate located in the furthest section of Niflheim.95

Hel’s home was icy, fiery, and dark

and guarded by a vicious dog, Garm.96

As queen of the Underworld, Hel ruled over all

the dead (except for the warriors slain in battle—these went to Valhalla, ‘hall of the

slain’).97

The word hell derives from an old Germanic verb to conceal, hide or cover (hence hall,

hull and helmot). Thus “helle” and “hölle” come from the same Germanic verbal base for

concealed [place] (i.e. confinement [of the dead], concealed from view or covered with earth) and is

ultimately from the Greek verb (conceal).98

94

Long, Translating the Bible, 23–25. Although monastic and scholarly Christianity was essentially Latin,

“the vernacular was the language of preaching” thus during the time of King Ethelbert (c.596 C.E.)

preaching was done in Anglo-Saxon and probably also in Irish, Pictish and Welsh.

95 Kenneth McLeisch, Myth: Myths and Legends of the World Explored (Leicester: Blitz, 1996), 247.

96 Anne S. Baumgartner, A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Gods (New York: Wings Books, 1984), 80.

97 Jordan, Encyclopedia of the Gods, 116.

98 The verb was hele, heal or, helian in Old English. In Old Saxon (and Old High German) it was bihellian,

which was related both to Latin celo/celare and Greek and was a causative verb meaning

to conceal, hide, or cover (with earth). The noun in Old Norse was holl. The New Shorter Oxford English

Dictionary On Historic Principles, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 1:1213. The place of the ‘unseen [world

32

Missionaries thus appropriated the mythological term “hel” (or “Home of Hel”) in the

Germanic language as the cultural equivalent of the Underworld/House of

Hades/infernus.99

This accords with the precedent set by the Hebrew use of Sheol, the

LXX’s use of Hades, and the old Latin’s infernus.100

The New Testament helped to blur the distinction between Hades/Sheol (the

Underworld) and Gehenna (as a future judgment place) with the story of the rich man “in

Hades” able to see Abraham across the “chasm” (Luke 16:19–31).101

Here, the rich man

below]’ covered by earth in the Germanic languages, would correspond quite naturally to the unseen

place of Hades since / looks etymologically to be from - (“un-seen

[place]”).

99 C.f. the Old Norse genitive heljâ and the Gothic and Old Teutonic genitive haljâ. Shorter Oxford English

Dictionary, 1. 1213.

100 Why the Celtic speaking people in the British Isles missed out on having the Underworld god “Donn”

feature for biblical usage (e.g. House of Donn) over the Germanic Hella I am not certain. It is likely

because “Donn” was a minor god who is eclipsed by the Celtic “Great Father” or “Daghdha” (cf. the

Roman god of the Underworld Dis Pater) who as the very important god of the Otherworld in Celtic

mythology is responsible for abundance and fertility. John MacInnes “The Celtic World,” World

Mythology, 176–89, 187, describes the Celtic Otherworld: “Although its powers can be hostile, it is

essentially a place of timeless content, feasting and enchanted music, where old age and death are

unknown.” Lacking a strong enough emphasis on a dreadful Otherworld, left no appropriately equivalent

Celtic term. The malevolent beings (trolls, dragons, and giants) are encountered in middle-earth (the

place where living humans dwell) rather than in the Otherworld.

101 Evidently the author “Luke” was more hellenised than other NT authors. Chaim Milikowsky, “Which

Gehenna?: Retribution and Eschatology in the Synoptic Gospels and in Early Jewish Texts,” New

33

“in Hades” is already said to be experiencing the “torment” (or “pain”) of the “flame.”

But even centuries before, Isaiah and Jeremiah had spoken of Gehenna in terms clearly

linked with the Underworld when they condemned its profane fiery sacrifices to an

underworld god (Molech).102

CONCLUSION

The above has highlighted that originally Sheol was widely recognised as the

mythological word for denoting the Underworld which we might also translate “the Big

Testament Studies 34 (1988), 238–49. Milikowsky has noticed differences between the sayings about

Gehenna in Matthew and Luke. Matt 10:28 speaks of Gehenna as the place where God can destroy the

body and soul (i.e. corporeal judgement in Gehenna after a general resurrection), whereas Luke 12:5

speaks as though God were able to kill and then to cast souls immediately into Gehenna as an

“incorporeal hell of souls,” 242. Also Luke’s version of Jesus’ discussion to the penitent thief (“today

you will be with me in Paradise”) is in contrast to the more Jewish view of resurrection to reward, and

instead presumes immediate reward.

102 “The precise relationship between El, Molech, Baal-Hammon and the Baal to whom Jer 19:5 says the

Judeans sacrifice children remains murky.” Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son:

The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven; London: Yale University Press

1993), 235 n7. The most that can be concluded about Molech is that he was “a netherworld deity to

whom children were offered by fire or some divinity purpose.” George C. Heider, “Molech,” DDD,

581–85, 585. Since valleys are closer to the Underworld, an altar in a valley would likely be used for

communicating with an underworld god (Is 57:5-6) and may even provide a gate to the Underworld.

See L. R. Bailey, “Gehenna: The Topography of Hell,” Biblical Archeologist 49 (September 1986), 187–

91.

34

Pit” (or the “Pit of No Escaping” or “Pit of Destruction”). The so-called later notions of

hell more familiar to us from the Hellenistic period find their precedents in the much

earlier widespread mythological notions of the Underworld (e.g. darkness, demons,

underworld gods, and fiery punishment/s in a place far removed from God and the joys of

life). Thus it is reasonable to grant more knowledge within Israel of the widespread

notion of the dreaded Underworld than a cursory reading of the texts would imply (or a

reliance on some Bible dictionaries would allow). The OT resisted popular speculation

regarding any travels to a literal place called Sheol and adopted the term only

figuratively. The Hebrew writers reserved Sheol for use in first-person contexts (as

expressing personal disaster or ruin as a horrific notion), and understood it to be a notion of

judgment only truly appropriate for the wicked. We must admit that Sheol’s translation as

“Hades” and “Hell” is not completely inappropriate.103

103

Like most scholars, Johnston, Shades, 73, is guided by popular theological definitions concerning “hell”

as an actual place of punishment and so believes “hell” is “inappropriate” since, “the Hebrew Bible

never indicates any form of punishment after death.” However, Johnston’s point is undermined since he

acknowledges that “Sheol is at the opposite theological extreme to Yahweh, and the dominant feature

for its inhabitants is their separation from him” and has accepted Sheol to mean “the Underworld” even

though, “the underworld’s inhabitants were . . . mostly ignored” and “Israel’s religious writers were not

particularly concerned with the underworld.” Johnston, Shades, 75, 18. His conclusions sound more like

assumptions about what “hell” biblically or theologically should signify. Gehenna (“hell”) originally

represented quite a specific future judgment for the purpose of withholding (re)entry into the new

Jerusalem/life. But the noteworthy difference with Sheol is surely the OT’s disinterest in validating various

mythological notions or in Sheol as a literal place rather than disinterest in who deserves Sheol or whether it is

35

The LXX translators’ choice to use the traditional Greek /

(“[House] of Hades”) is similarly informative. Relying on known Greek equivalents, the

translators correctly identified Sheol to be Hades’ mythological counterpart and did not

freely add the term Hades into narrative sections of the OT (i.e. as a synonym for

death/dying). If the translators had used a method of free translation or had had to rely solely

on a perceived biblical meaning to find an equivalent for Sheol then they might have

chosen (“death”) or (“grave”) as a less appropriate stereotyped

translation.104

The suspicion that translating Sheol as “hell” was an example of cultural imposition

has been exposed as unwarranted. The four suppositions underlying the alleged

theological imposition are untenable. As a result “the grave” translation appears much

more guilty of cultural imposition because it overlooks Sheol’s mythological

connotations, and because it neglects Sheol’s figurative use, and because it assumes that

concerned enough with punishment or denial of reward. Yet “hell” in English (which, unlike Gehenna,

is not merely a future notion) is likewise quite figurative and corresponds (more than not) to Sheol in

usage and effect.

104 The LXX cannot be blamed for introducing Hades into Jewish eschatology as though it were some kind

of foreign mythological notion. 1 Enoch was already working out the precise geography of Sheol (as a

detention chamber in a mountain) along with that of the accursed valley of judgment (Gehenna) and the

abyss of fire for fallen angels (the Watches) by the late third-century B.C.E. with no assistance from the

LXX. In fact 1 Enoch’s cosmography seems closer to early Greek, Mesopotamian and Egyptian

mythologies. See J. Edward Wright, The Early History of Heaven (New York: Oxford University Press,

2000) for a descriptive comparison of the various cosmographies.

36

going to Sheol is a general term for death (as though meaning “to die” or “rest in

peace”).105

Early English Bibles simply followed the traditional way of rendering Sheol

with an indigenous mythological equivalent of the Underworld (a practice dating back to

the first Bible translation in the third-century B.C.E.).106

When English translations shy away from using linguistic equivalents available in

English for mythological terms (e.g. “Underworld,” “Hades” or “hell”) and prefer

theologically influenced interpretations and/or transliterations, they forfeit the

opportunity to see that the biblical texts might refer to a familiar, widespread concept in an unexpected

way. English readers miss the chance to see how the biblical texts do refer figuratively to

the dreaded Underworld of widespread superstitious mythology and therefore miss seeing

how the notion is being reapplied, transformed, or subtly challenged.107

Of course all

105

Indeed “the grave” translation is more dubious precisely because it more noticeably proceeded from a

theological supposition that hell did not properly belong to the OT, and thus sought to remedy the

supposed (theological) misfit (theologically).

106 Similarly the Latin revised under Jerome (383–404 C.E.) rendered Sheol as infernus (lit. “below” or

“lower [regions]”) since infernus was the Latin mythological term for the world below. P. R. Ackroyd and

C. F. Evans, eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible Volume 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1970), 510–40, indicate that much of the old Latin was kept by Jerome

whose purpose was largely to revise not to rewrite.

107 How can we expect the English notion of hell to be in any sense biblically transformed if it is simply

alleged as not being theologically equivalent enough? Such avoidance only denies the chance for any

cultural transformation that might otherwise have occurred.

37

translation is to some extent interpretation and interpretation is by nature ethnocentric.108

One can never expect that a translated work would be anything other than an interpreted

work determined to some extent by the target culture.

The specific details concerning a literal place called “hell” have undergone much

evolution and adaptation in various cultures, times, and places. But as indicated above,

this may not be entirely pertinent to judging the translation of the figurative Sheol. What

has remained fairly constant over time is a similarly figurative use of hell as a dreadful or

horrifying notion in popular speech. Thus modern English use of hell often parallels

Sheol’s figurative reference to the worst possible notion a person might experience.109

Sheol, in fact,

translates quite successfully throughout Genesis as “hell.”

108

It is possible to be too careful. Transliteration simply avoids the difficult task of interpretation by

simply leaving a word as a foreign word (e.g. “Sheol”) without positive links with the receptor

language. Interpretation by nature intends to make something relevant whereas bland, safe irreproachable

interpretations and transliterations achieve less. “An interpretation should speak to the needs of a

specific cultural and historical conjuncture. Interpretations aiming at eternal verities may turn out to be

abstract, empty of content for the present’s self-understanding, and therefore simply

uninteresting.”David Couzens Hoy, “Is Hermeneutics Ethnocentric?” The Interpretive Turn: Philosophy,

Science Culture, eds. David R. Hiley, James F. Bohman, and Richard Shusterman (Ithaca: Cornwell

University Press, 1991), 157-175, 170.

109 E.g.: “All hell broke loose.” “She’s been through hell.” “We had the gym teacher from hell.” Besides

Genesis (37:35; 42:38; 44:29, 31) cf. also: “For a fire is kindled by my anger, and burns to the depths

of the Underworld; it devours the earth and its increase, and sets on fire the foundations of the

mountains” (Deut 32:22 NRSV replacing Sheol with “the Underworld”). Also “the cords of the

38

Sheol’s contextual use, regardless of the chosen lexical equivalent, still determines its

meaning as figurative. It is still possible that a sixteenth-century German reader of

“hölle” or a seventeenth-century English reader of “hell” in the OT could completely

miss the figurative/rhetorical context of the biblical phrases concerning Sheol and instead

interpret them as somehow endorsing or affirming a Church doctrine of the fear of a

literal hell of punishment. But such misinterpretation remains possible for any so-called

biblical words, whether or not in a translation or in Hebrew or Greek (e.g. for “Church,”

“God,” “Satan,” “heaven,” “salvation”).110

Luther and Calvin were (supposedly) “pre-

critical” in their hermeneutical approach.111

They had inherited the popular medieval

beliefs of hell (illustrated famously by Dante’s fourteenth-century work The Divine Comedy)

which saw “hell to be a place in which the damned writhed in agony in sulphur-laden

atmosphere, tormented by fire.”112

It is even more noteworthy, then, that Luther and

Calvin both understood biblical references to hell to be figurative:

Underworld entangled me, the snares of death confronted me” (2 Samuel 22:6 // Psa 18:5 NRSV

replacing Sheol with “the Underworld”).

110 The idea that translating Sheol as “hell” was theologically misguided or misleading primarily indicates

a failure to trust that the immediate biblical context will still shape the meaning of a term (regardless of an

imperfect lexical equivalent). That Job 11:8 in the Geneva Bible included the definite article before

hell (i.e. “the hell”) indicates that “the lowest pit” or “hell-hole” was understood.

111 Richard A. Muller “Biblical Interpretation in the 16th & 17th Centuries,” Historical Handbook, 123–52.

112 Luther was driven to become a monk and study Scripture in order “to avoid hell.” McGrath, In the

Beginning, 42–43.

39

Luther rejected the graphic medieval representations of hell and regarded Jesus’

"descent into hell" as the anguish of his separation from God. Calvin, following

Luther, disputed a biblical basis for a literal place called hell, treating the corporeal

images of hell in Scripture as figurative for the terrors occasioned by willful

sinfulness.113

Translating Sheol as “hell” was one of several legitimate attempts to use a close

linguistic and cultural equivalent to denote the widespread mythological notion of the

dreaded world below. Similar to the figurative hell, Hades, and infernus, Sheol suitably

expressed the worst fate imaginable to the Hebrew mind—the horror and terror of being

separated from God and of the blessing/enjoyment of life.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achtemeier, Paul J., ed. Harper’s Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985.

Ackroyd, P. R. and C. F. Evans, eds. The Cambridge History of the Bible Volume 1: From the

Beginnings to Jerome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970.

Alexander, Desmond. “The Old Testament View of Life After Death.” Themelios 11

(1986), 41–46.

113

Michael Goldberg, “Hell,” A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature, ed. David Lyle Jeffrey

(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 340–43, 341.

40

Almond, Philip C. Heaven and Hell in Enlightenment England. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1994.

Avery-Peck, Alan J., and Jacob Neusner, eds. Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part 4 Death, Life-

After-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Leiden:

Brill, 2000.

Backus, Irena. “Biblical Hermeneutics and Exegesis.” Pages 1:152–157 The Oxford

Encyclopedia of the Reformation. Edited by Hans J. Hillerbrand. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1996.

Bailey, Lloyd R. “Gehenna: The Topography of Hell.” Biblical Archeologist 49 (1986), 187–

191.

Baines, John, and Geraldine Pinch, “Egypt.” Pages 36–55 World Mythology: The Illustrated

Guide. Edited by Roy Willis. London: Duncan Baird, 1993.

Barkay, Gabriel. Ketef Hinnom: A Treasure Facing Jerusalem’s Walls. Jerusalem: Israel Museum,

1986.

Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality: The Read-Tuckwell Lectures for 1990.

London: SCM Press, 1992.

Bauckham, Richard. “Early Jewish Visions of Hell.” Journal of Theological Studies 42 (1990),

357-385.

Bauckham, Richard. The Fate of the Dead: Studies on the Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. Leiden:

Brill, 1998.

41

Baumgartner, Anne S. A Comprehensive Dictionary of the Gods. New York: Wings Books,

1984.

Die Bibel oder die ganze heilige Schrift Ulten und Neuen Testaments, nach der deutschen Ubersetzung Dr.

Martin Luthers. St. Louis: Concordia, 1902.

Bernstein, Alan E. The Formation of Hell: Death and Retribution in the Ancient and Early Christian

Worlds. Ithaca: Cornwell University Press, 1993.

Bloch-Smith, Elizabeth. Judahite Burial Practices and Beliefs about the Dead (Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic, 1992.

Block, Daniel I. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. 2d

ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000.

Bobrick, Benson. Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and Revolution It Inspired. New

York: Simon & Schuster, 2001.

Brettler, Marc, and Michael Fishbane, eds. Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and Other Studies

Presented to Naum M. Sarna in Honor of his 70th Birthday. Sheffield: Sheffield

Academic, 1993.

Brown, F., S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs, eds. A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old

Testament. Oxford, 1907.

Campbell, Stuart, and Anthony Greer, eds. The Archeology of Death in the Ancient Near East.

Oxbow Monographs; Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1995.

Camporesi, Piero. The Fear of Hell: Images of Damnation and Salvation in Early Modern Europe.

Cambridge: Polity, 1990.

42

Chavalas, Mark W., and K. Lawson Younger, Jr., eds. Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative

Explanations. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Clifford, Richard J., S.J., “Near Eastern Myth.” Pages 1–37 The Encyclopedia of

Apocalypticism: Volume I, The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity.

Edited by John J. Collins. New York: Continuum, 1999.

Cooper, Jerrold S. “The Fate of Mankind: Death and Afterlife in Afterlife in Ancient

Mesopotamia.” Pages 19–33 Death and Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions.

Edited by Hiroshi Obayashi. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1992,

Daiches, David. The King James Version of the English Bible: An Account of the Development and

Sources of the English Bible of 1611 with Special Reference to the Hebrew Tradition.

Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1941.

Daniell, David. Tyndale's Old Testament: Being the Pentateuch of 1530, Joshua to 2 Chronicles of

1537, and Jonah. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.

Day, John. “Asherah in the Hebrew Bible and Northwest Semitic Literature.” Journal of

Biblical Literature 105 (1986), 398–401.

Day, John. “Ugarit and the Bible: Do they Presuppose the Same Canaanite Mythology

and Religion?” Pages 35–52 Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International

Symposium on Ugarit and the Bible Manchester, September 1992. Edited by George J.

Brooke, Adrian H. W. Curtis and John F. Healey. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag,

1994.

43

Douglas, J. D., ed. The Illustrated Bible Dictionary. Lane Cove, Sydney: Hodder & Stoughton,

1980.

Douglas, J. D., and Merrill C. Tenney, eds. New International Dictionary of the Bible: Pictorial

Edition. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987.

Eliade, Mircea, ed. Encyclopedia of Religion. New York: MacMillan, 1987.

Encyclopedia Judaica. Jerusalem: Keter Publishing House, 1972.

Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of

Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts. New York: Touchstone, 2001.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Freedman, David Noel, ed. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Friedman, Richard Elliott, and Shawna Dolansky Overton. “Death and Afterlife: The

Biblical Silence.” Pages 35–59 Judaism in Late Antiquity: Part 4 Death, Life-After-

Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the Judaisms of Antiquity. Edited by Alan

J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

Froehlich, Karlfried. “Problems of Lutheran Hermeneutics.” Studies in Lutheran

Hermeneutics, ed. J. Reumann. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560 Edition. With an Introduction by Lloyd E. Berry. Madison:

The University of Wisconsin Press, 1969.

Goldberg, Michael. “Hell.” Pages 340–343 A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English

Literature. Edited by David Lyle Jeffrey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

44

Goldingay, John. “Death and Afterlife in the Psalms.” Pages 61–85 Judaism in Late

Antiquity: Part 4 Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in the

Judaisms of Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner. Leiden:

Brill, 2000.

Hallo, William W. “Disturbing the Dead.” Pages 183–192 Minhah le-Nahum: Biblical and

Other Studies Presented to Naum M. Sarna in Honor of his 70th Birthday. Edited by

Marc Brettler and Michael Fishbane. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993.

Healey, John F. “Death in West Semitic Texts: Ugarit and Nabatae.” Pages 188–91 The

Archeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Stuart Campbell and

Anthony Greer. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1995.

Heider, George C. “Molech.” Pages 581–85 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, eds.

Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking and Pieter W. van der Horst. 2d ed.

Leiden: Brill, 1999.

Hiley, David R., James F. Bohman, and Richard Shusterman, eds. The Interpretive Turn:

Philosophy, Science Culture. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

The Holy Scriptures of the Olde and Newe Testamente, with the Apocrypha: Faithfully Translated from the

Hebrue and Greke by Miles Coverdale, sometime Lord Bishop of Exeter. MDXXXV. 2d

ed. London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1847.

Horst, Pieter W. van der. Hellenism – Judaism – Christianity: Essays on Their Interaction. 2d ed.;

Leuven: Peeters, 1998.

45

Hoy, David Couzens. “Is Hermeneutics Ethnocentric?” Pages 157–75 The Interpretive Turn:

Philosophy, Science Culture. Edited by David R. Hiley, James F. Bohman, and

Richard Shusterman. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1991.

Hultgård, Anders. “Persian Apocalypticism.” Pages 39–83 Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism:

Volume I, The Origins of Apocalypticism in Judaism and Christianity. Edited by John J.

Collins. New York: Continuum, 1999.

Jeffrey, David Lyle, ed. A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1992.

Johnston, Philip S. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers Grove:

InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Jordan, Michael. Encyclopedia of the Gods: Over 2,500 Deities of the World. London: Kyle Cathie,

1992.

Leeming, David Adams. Mythology: The Voyage of the Hero. 3d ed.; New York: Oxford

University Press, 1998.

Levenson, Jon D. The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child

Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity. New Haven: Yale University Press 1993.

Lewis, Theodore J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Atlanta: Scholars Press,

1989.

Lewis, Theodore J. “Dead.” Pages 223–31 Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. Edited

by K. van der Toorn , B. Becking and P. W. van der Horst. 2d ed.; Leiden:

Brill, 1999.

46

Long, Lynne. Translating the Bible: From the 7th to the 17th Century. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001.

Lupton, Lewis Frederick. A History of the Geneva Bible. London: Burlington, 1990.

Luther, Martin. “Lectures on Genesis.” Luther’s Work’s. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. St.

Louis: Concordia, 1955.

MacInnes, John. “The Celtic World.” Pages 176–89 World Mythology. Edited by Roy

Willis. London: Duncan Baird, 1993.

Marthaler, Berard L., ed. New Catholic Encyclopedia. 2d ed.; Detroit: Catholic University of

America Press. 2003.

Mattfeld, Walter Reinhold Warttig. “Hell’s Pre-Christian Origins: Hell, Hell-fire,

Dragons, Serpents, and Resurrections.” No pages. Cited 13 July 2004.

Online: http://www.bibleorigins.net/hellsorigins.html.

McGrath, Alister. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How it Changed a Nation,

a Language and a Culture. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2001.

McLeisch, Kenneth. Myth: Myths and Legends of the World Explored. Leicester: Blitz, 1996.

Meldrum, Ronald M. “Ashtoreth.” Page 60 A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English

Literature. Edited by David Lyle Jeffrey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

Metzger, Bruce M. The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2001.

Metzger, Bruce M. “The Geneva Bible of 1560.” Theology Today 17 (1960), 339–52.

Milikowsky, Chaim. “Which Gehenna?: Retribution and Eschatology in the Synoptic

Gospels and in Early Jewish Texts.” New Testament Studies 34, (1988), 238–49.

47

Muller, Richard A. “Biblical Interpretation in the 16th & 17th Centuries.” Pages 123–52

Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters. Edited by Donald K. McKim.

Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Inc., 1982.

New Revised Standard Version. Division of Christian Education of the National Council of

Churches of Christ in the USA; Iowa Falls: World Bible Publishers. 1989.

The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary On Historic Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press,

1993.

The New Testament in English: According to the Version by John Wycliffe, about AD 1380, and Revised

by John Purvey, about AD 1388. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879.

Nickelsburg, George W. E. “Judgment, Life-After-Death, and Resurrection in the

Apocrypha and the Non-Apocalyptic Pseudepigrapha.” Pages 141–62 Judaism

in Late Antiquity: Part 4 Death, Life-After-Death, Resurrection and the World-to-Come in

the Judaisms of Antiquity. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck and Jacob Neusner.

Leiden: Brill, 2000.

North, Helen F. “Death and Afterlife in Greek Tragedy and Plato.” Pages 49–64 Death and

Afterlife: Perspectives of World Religions. Edited by Hiroshi Obayashi. Westport,

Conn.: Greenwood, 1992,

Oxford English Dictionary. 2d ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989.

Penglase, Charles. “Some Concepts of Afterlife in Mesopotamia and Greece.” Pages

192–95 The Archeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. Edited by Stuart

Campbell and Anthony Greer. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 1995.

48

Pitard, Wayne P. “Voices from the Dust: The Tablets from Ugarit and the Bible.” Pages

251–75 Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explanations. Edited by Mark W.

Chavalas and K. Lawson Younger, Jr. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.

Porter, J. R. “The Middle East.” Pages 56–67 World Mythology: The Illustrated Guide. Edited

by Roy Willis. London: Duncan Baird, 1993.

Powys, David. ‘Hell’: A Hard Look at a Hard Question: The Fate of the Unrighteous in New

Testament Thought. Cumbria: Paternoster, 1997.

Puckett, D. L. “Calvin, John.” Pages 171–79 Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters.

Edited by Donald K. McKim. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998.

Die Bibel nach der Übersetzung Martin Luthers in der revidierten Fassung von 1984 Stuttgart:

German Bible Society.

Rosenberg, R. The Concept of Biblical Sheol Within the Context of ANE Beliefs. Ph.D.diss.

Harvard University, 1980.

Rowell, Geoff. Hell and the Victorians. Oxford: Clarendon, 1974.

Smith, Mark S. “Mythology and Myth-making in Ugarit and Israelite Literatures.” Pages

293–41Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and the

Bible Manchester, September 1992. Edited by George J Brooke, Adrian H. W.

Curtis and John F. Healey. Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994.

Spronk, Klass. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Neukirchener

Verlag: Neukinhem-Vluyn, 1986.

49

Statham, Nigel. “Dynamic Equivalence and Functional Equivalence: How Do They

Differ?” The Bible Translator 54 (2003), 102-111.

Stordalen, T. Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2–3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew

Literature. Leuven: Peeters, 2000.

Tov, Emmanuel. “The Septuagint.” Pages 161–88 Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and

Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by

Martin Jan Mulder. Assen: VanGorcum, 1988.

Vine, W. E. Vine’s Concise Dictionary of Bible Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999.

Vine, W. E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. Old Tappan:

Fleming H. Revell, 1981.

Vulgate. <http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?language=Latin>. Accessed 08.08.03.

Walker, D. P. The Decline of Hell: Seventeenth Century Discussions of Eternal Torment. London:

Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1964.

Wallace, Howard N. The Eden Narrative. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press, 1985.

Walsh, Alexandra. Providence in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press,

1999.

Westermann, Claus. Genesis 1–11: A Commentary. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1984.

Wilkren, A. “The English Versions of the Bible.” Pages 24–28 Peake’s Commentary on the

Bible, ed. Matthew Black. London: Thomas Nelson, 1962.

Willis, Roy, ed. World Mythology: The Illustrated Guide. London: Duncan Baird, 1993.

Wright, J. Edward. The Early History of Heaven. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

50

Youngblood, Ronald F. “Qoheleth’s ‘Dark House’ (Eccl 12:5).” Journal of Evangelical

Theological Society 29/4 (1986), 397–410.

Zevit, Ziony. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. London:

Continuum, 2001.