(26 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...Heaven and Hell. I’m excited about my next book, being published on March 31, Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife. It’s already getting good reviews in the trade journals, the publications that announce which books are soon to come out and have experts review them in advance, so those booksellers, book stores, libraries, and so on know whether they want to buy them, and for booksellers and stores, in what quantities. So that’s all good.
A while back I decided to try to encapsulate the essence of the book in a short essay, a kind of 2000-word summary of what it’s all about and why it matters. I will give it here, over the course of two posts. Here’s the first half.
Ehrman Hell & Heaven
The fear of death has been among us for as long as we have had human records, from history’s oldest surviving tale, the Epic of Gilgamesh, to the now final season of the Good Place, soon to enter its own eternal rest. The views of these two cultural artifacts are wildly different, but they share a constant. The eponymous hero of the Mesopotamian epic writhes in agony at the prospect of spending eternity groveling in dust and being eaten by worms; Eleanor Shellstrop desperately works to avoid the afterlife she deserves, in the Bad Place and its eternal torments.
Today few people may share Gilgamesh’s actual concern of being conscious forever in the dirt. Plenty, however, tremble with morbid fear before eternal nothingness, entering the void with no hope of return. Yet others cannot stand the uncertainties of the unknown, unsure of what will happen, pleasant, painful, or oblivious to both. But the majority of Americans continue to anticipate some version or other of the alternatives portrayed in The Good Place.
72% of Americans continue to believe in a literal heaven and 58% in a literal hell. Even for those who think most people will avoid the torture chambers of the underworld, some will go there, and how can anyone be sure they will make the cut? No wonder there is such fear.
Christian Tradition
Most of those who hold such views, of course, have received them from the Christian tradition – whether through personal allegiance or osmosis. You die and your soul goes one place or another, based on your faith, your morality, or both. And nearly everyone assumes these views are Christian because they are set forth clearly and forcefully in the Bible.
As it turns out, that’s not true. The idea that a person dies and goes to heaven for eternal reward or hell for everlasting punishment is never taught in the Old Testament. Even more surprising, it is not what Jesus himself preached. Or his earliest followers.
Then where did it come from?
The Origins of Heaven and Hell
Start at the beginning. The Old Testament does not speak with just one voice on any topic, the afterlife included. It comprises thirty-nine writings produced over many centuries by numerous authors with wide-ranging views on just about everything. Even so, the vast bulk of the Old Testament has no real concept of any kind of life after death. Life is available now, before death. When it is over, it is over. After death is only death, for everyone, equally. There is no punishment or reward, just a kind of non-existence.
Many of the Israelite authors hated the thought and lamented it: the joys, pleasures, and experiences of life are all here and now. Afterward, there is no physical pleasure and no social life – no family, friends, or communities. Even worse there is no more contact with God. He forgets those who have died and they can’t even worship him any longer.
Sometimes poetic authors of the Hebrew Bible use the mysterious word “Sheol,” to speak of death. We don’t know where the word comes from or even what it means exactly. In some passages Sheol seems to be a shadowy netherworld where everyone gathers together with nothing to do, bored out of their minds for all eternity. But in most places, it appears to refer simply to the grave, the final resting place for everyone, the Hebrew equivalent of Gilgamesh’s dirt and worms.
But is that kind of postmortem existence fair? If someone is a good person and lives for God, shouldn’t they get something good out of it in the end?
The Greeks
It turns out that ancient Greeks had the same problem. Our oldest Greek literature comes in Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. Here too there is no real “life” after death. The soul does continue to exist without the body, but it is just a shadow of its former self, with no strength, wit, or capacity for pleasure. For Homer, though, souls are not simply abandoned in the grave. They are gathered together in the underworld, in a place called Hades. Everyone goes there, for the same mind-numbingly dull fate, with only a handful of exceptions.
At some point in the Greek tradition after Homer, thinkers began to raise the question of justice. Surely differences now will be manifest then. Isn’t there some kind of inbuilt system of rewards and punishments? Don’t the gods care about how a person lives, about basic morality, religious practices, or celebrated virtues such as honor, bravery, and strength? Surely some people deserve better than others. It can’t be right that I’ll be treated like that schmuck next door.
Plato and Death
More than anyone in the Western tradition, it was Plato who popularized an alternative. Several of his dialogues contain self-designated “myths,” actual descriptions of the afterlife. One of them narrates the most famous description of a Near Death Experience from antiquity. A soldier named Er, killed on the battlefield, is restored to life and describes, then, the realms of the dead he has just observed.
His description is meant to serve an ethical purpose: the realities of death reveal the proper approach to life. Most people, the story suggests, live for pleasure, concerned almost exclusively with enjoying bodily life in this world, pursuing pleasure and power. In doing so, they neglect their souls. But since the soul is what ultimately matters, neglecting it now will lead to a horrible punishment in the life to come.
A few people, on the other hand, live for their souls, not their bodies, pursuing moral and philosophically reasoned lives, virtue, justice, and the relentless pursuit of truth. These will be rewarded with glorious afterlives. Unlike the others, they will not resent the loss of their physical existence; quite the contrary, they have spent their lives trying to distance themselves from the body and its addictive pleasures. Their souls will therefore be rewarded in the life to come.
I will pick it up here in my next post.
Looking forward to it I have almost all your books ! Scholar Hector Avalos points out in his book The Bad Jesus that New Testament Jesus (which at the start of the book he makes clear is not the same as historical Jesus) does threaten people with eternal punishment. I am assuming you believe historical Jesus either never said this or meant something completely different than the way most Christians have interpreted verses like this and others as a literal lake of fire.
Did historical Jesus threaten people who didn’t believe him? Did he threaten them with some type of eternal punishment? If so what did historical Jesus mean by these threats?
Thanks Bart !
Yup, this is a major discussion in my book. I try to show that he *did* threaten them with an “eternal punishment,” but it did not involve conscious eternal torment. They would be annihilated. And it would be forever. Hence a punishment that was never-ending, eternal.
As an Eternal Punishment, have you encountered the concept of denial of the sight of God? If yes, do you discuss it in your forthcoming book? Thank you.
Yes indeed, and no I do not discuss it, as it is not a major element in the early Christian tradition. (I do mentoin it about the Old Testament though: not in those terms exactly, but hte fact that in Sheol someone cannot worship God, because he is not present there, and God actually forgets about the people who are there)
Hello Bart. I joined your blog specifically because of your latest book. So I happen to be trilingual (English, Spanish and Greek).
Maybe about a decade ago, I independently confirmed that Jesus was in fact, speaking about annihilation and not eternal torture. It actually made sense to me why there are sects that reject eternal torture as a sound doctrine (7th Day Adventists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc).
Even the Greek Orthodox Church rejects active torture as a valid interpretation. If I remember correctly, the Orthodox view on the matter is that its a “separation from God” whatever that means, and that this separation itself is hell itself.
Anyway, I will comment further on your latest blog.
Hi Bart,
Am an avid reader of your books and am currently reading Jesus Interrupted. Does this book deal with purgatory? It appears to me to be a particularly cruel and destructive concept with no biblical authority. I have seen the upset this concept causes devout people and would like some arguments to debunk itto help those affected, as kindly as I possibly can.
Not really. But I do deal with it in my new book on heaven and hell.
Man, there are a couple of specific verses in the Bible where Catholics base their idea of Purgatory.
I think Peter’s “the spirits in prison” is one of them, but I know there’s more.
Oh yes, every doctrine every Christian group has ever had can find support in one verse or another of hte Bible. it’s a glorious and very large book!
Bart, I don’t think you really understand the Christian religion…the Christian God Jesus is Satan the devil… Christians worship Satan with a human sacrifice of Jesus to Satan… this religion is evil… just look at their works… constant war…Rob the widow, cheat the orphan, hate the poor, destroy the environment…
Now Jesus is coming tomorrow
So send in all your money today.
You’re right. If that’ the Christian religion, then I definitely don’t understand it.
What do you mean with that?
Do you believe Jesus is the Satan himself?
I don’t know what you’re asking. I don’t believe in Satan. And I think Jesus was a great teacher.
Christianity is the culmination of a bunch of beliefs of people that meant well, but were perhaps ignorant of many things. Other than the general human nature (which is always siding to evil because it’s easier to do so), I don’t think Christianity is purposely a malevolent philosophy.
Enjoyed this post – looking forward to Part 2!
You’re misinterpreting Plato, his perfect republic is where soldiers get to rape women just as long as they’re not nobles with a philosopher king like Hitler. His heaven is one of perfect forms, the true form of the raping soldier etc of which the philosopher king gets to join Hitler and anybody else who enjoys book burning, art burning and dictatorship for the common good!
I think you must be reading a different translation from mine.
Are you going to stay with Biblical/NT concepts or get into other idea such as reincarnation, total annihilation, near death experiences and such? You wrote a good overview of the basic Biblical ideas. Thank you.
Yup, I cover a wide range. Chronologically from the epic of Gilgamesh up to St. Augustine (and a bit beyond). And yes, I will definitely be with reincarnation, annihilation, and *ancient* near death experiences. I’m not bringing it up to the modern phenomenon, but I originally wanted to and read about 20 books about it, trying to figure it all out! But then I thought it wasn’t as appropriate for the book, and would stick out as an anomaly (since I don’t talk about anything else in detail from modernity, other than the fact that so many people believe that the soul dies and goes to heaven or hell)
Do you anticipate conservative Christian scholars will take issue with the evidence and argument of the book, and maybe release a counter book assuring people that no, really, God will send the unbelievers to hell? It would be fascinating to see if they create something like their response to ‘How Jesus Became God’ for this work.
Ha! I wouldn’t be surprised!
It doesn’t happen with anyone that can legit read and understand the Greek words. This is why any arguments for the Eternal Torture Hell always comes from the KJV, and not any other source.
They can say whatever they want, but the meaning of the original words and the theme agrees with Dr. Ehrman
According to the Timaeus, men who weren’t interested in philosophy were reincarnated as (horror!) women.
Sorry, that would be cowardly men.
Imagine being a woman! Imagine being a man!
Ezekiel 18 talks about the righteous man who turns from righteousness to sin will die and the wicked man who turns from sin and does what is right will live.
If the righteous man who turns to sin will die but the wicked man is given time to turn from his sins in order to live, shouldn’t this be read as eternal life in the sense of the NT?
He’s referring to life in this world. God will not cause the person who repents to die prematurely. He will live.
I agree this is an example where ‘live’ and ‘die’ probably do not mean ( to Ezekiel or his contemporaries) physical life and death ( there is no mention of ‘premature’ in the Ezekiel quotes ) Many references to ‘life’ and ‘death’ in NT should be similarly be understood
The New Testament is all about the afterlife. John 3:16, Jesus died for the sins of the world, so believers can live forever. That premise comes from the Old Testament that a messiah will come and overthrow evil and save the Jews. Is that correct?
I’d say not exactly. John has a very different view of afterlife than the rest of the New Testament, in particular that eternal life is not a future event but is “now.” I have a longer discussoin of this in my book. But no the view of John 3:16 is not directly related to Old Testament expectations of a messiah, though the author may well have believed it was.
Doesn’t John 3:36 make it clear that he is talking about “eternal” life Not our current earthly life ?
John 3:36
Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
Yes, it is eternal life. And it starts NOW, not after death (for John). Someone who believes in Jesus “has” eternal life (i.e. “has” not “will have”)
John, let’s say was written more than 50-60 years after Jesus death, most certainly knew that those with ‘eternal life’ still faced physical death
Most reasonable then that ‘eternal life’ meant something other than immortal physical life on earth, even 50 years prior (I.e. during time of Jesus preaching)
Eternal life for John was not about the body dying or not.
“O God, I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams.”
Coincidence, I’m sure.
It’s interesting to me that so many people who ought to know better think Plato (and by extension Socrates) were modern rationalist skeptics. Perhaps rationalists in the sense that their ideas influenced later schools of philosophy that fall under that category. But in no sense modern, and their skepticism was highly selective. We misunderstand them at least as much as we do the founders of Christianity, if not more. Because we project the values we’ve extrapolated from them backwards in time.
Plato, like Augustine (who was influenced by him through Neoplatonism), is looking for a way to leave the passions of the flesh behind (even though both men greatly enjoyed those passions when young). Both seek a life of the mind and spirit, abstracted from the body, because the body gets in the way. For them, leaving earthly distractions behind would be paradise. And being shackled to the flesh forever would be hell.
The mind/body dualism of western thought does not derive directly from Christianity and Judaism. But Christianity was powerfully influenced by pagan thinkers like Plato (Jesus, after all, left no writings, Paul a few letters). Having converted the pagan world, Christianity became heir to its ideas, a delivery system for them, even though Jesus’ ideas were quite different–not dualism, but duality. Body and soul joined in a perfect union in the Kingdom.
Looking forward to the book.
“Plato, like Augustine (who was influenced by him through Neoplatonism), is looking for a way to leave the passions of the flesh behind (even though both men greatly enjoyed those passions when young).”
I mostly agree with what you say about Plato and his influence but I’d add that Neoplatonism is less dualistic than Platonism, and Augustine is less dualistic about the body vs. spirit that the gnostics (even Plato was somewhat less negative about the material world than the gnostics, since his Demiurge wasn’t evil). In Neoplatonism we have a series of emanations from the One, so matter is lower in the hierarchy than mind but not in a more radically distinct sense than the world of ideal forms is lower than the One itself. Similarly for Augustine the material world is still God’s creation and hence “good”, though “subject to corruption” which was a privation of their goodness and hence evil. He also thought that pursuing material things as ends unto themselves was bad, mainly because this was a partial perspective that ignored the greater whole they were part of, and ultimately the God that created them…see book IV, chapter 11 of his Confessions at https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110104.htm
Looking forward to this book. I was listening to a talk you gave at the Commonwealth Club in 2011, about your book,* FORGED*. Interestingly, the subject of Heaven and Hell came up about halfway in your talk. This apocalypse of Peter, was discovered along with other texts in 1886. This book, you mentioned, almost made it in the Bible. The talk was from 8 eight years ago. You seemed very excited in talking about these texts written, supposedly, by Peter himself. Was * HEAVEN and HELL* in your pipeline back then? I find it fascinating how you spoke enthusiastically about the subject back then and it is coming out soon. In the same talk, I chuckled at Dr. Allan Jones last comment, ” Your a much needed troublemaker”. How true.
It wasn’t in the pipeline then, but being intrigued by the Apocalypse of Peter is indeed what sparked my interest in writing it, some years later.
Missed out an important thought not only does the new testament not buy into the pagan ideology of retribution beyond the grave it teaches the opposite ideology in forgiveness.
Beyond the grave?
Dr Ehrman,
Fear of death is expressed by many. So is happiness to be able to meet God. Job 19 -25-27.
(Why would one fear death while the other yearn for it )
Clear indications of life existing after death in the OT also resurrection / waking up from the dust…
Isaiah 26-19 “But your dead will live; their bodies will rise. You, who dwell in the dust, wake up and shout for joy. Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead.”
Daniel 12–1-3- “—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.”
Some with joy or everlasting Life or everlasting contempt [ ( disgust not happy ) not very clear but definitely not Joy ) ].
Enoch 22 — Ezraa 7 ( the 2 ways … destruction or paradise )
In the NT :
Mathew 10-28 “Stop being afraid of those who kill the body but can’t kill the soul. Instead, be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell.”
John 5:24 “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.” … He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.”
Life is about of trials and tribulation …. test after test… our response to the tests have consequences – good or not.
We all make mistakes. God Almighty knows that… He created us. What he is looking for is our humility and whether we are willing to overcome and fight our inner arrogance to repent to Him and be thankful understanding that he is All Wise and we are not.
GAL 6-5 ” For every man shall bear his own burden.”
John 1:8-10 ” If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.”
Dr Ehrman, why would we care if we bear a burden or even forgiven if there isn’t the 2 ways – paradise or destruction?
As you might imagine, I deal with these passages in my book. Why do we care if we have difficulties in life or if others forgive us? Because we’re human!
One of the things we Evangelicals tend to overlook is the chronological order to the ideas in the bible. We sort of lump it all into one pot and think it was all there all along. When you line out the scriptures that undergird doctrines on afterlife and then set them against the backdrop of the development of beliefs in surrounding civilizations it becomes a very enlightening narrative indeed.
One of the big arguments Universalists pose is that if eternal hell is real and revealed by God, why did he wait so darn long to talk about it!
It becomes a very enlightening narrative? Correction, a very wish fulfilling narrative.
I’ve been looking forward to this book for some time – just pre-ordered the book and CDs!
Tom
Really looking forward to the book, infact book recommendations are what I’ve appreciated most from subscribing.
As a (relatively) new blog member, I’d be interested in knowing how you moderate the discussion. Specifically, are there times when you read a comment and say, “No, that’s just too bizarre (or irrelevant or nonsensical or …)”? As far as the new book is concerned, I’m eager to read it. A fella at church recently told a group of us (quite sincerely) that he looked forward to becoming an angel when he died. I wonder where that notion came from. It’s certainly not in the UCC Statement of Faith.
No, I only delete comments that are completely unrelated to anything connected to the blog, or are overly politically partisan and inflamatory (unrelated to the blog), or are rude and snarky. People dying to become angels is ancient; it is found already inthe Martyrdom of Polycarp (I mention the idea in my book)
Reading Enoch and Revelations 10:20 there seems to be evident that the evil angels will indeed be tormented eternally. Not people but to the Angels who ticked God off. Do you agree?
I don’t agree that they *will* be, but I agree that 1 Enoch defintiely says they will be. Revelation 19:20 (not 10:20?) says that the beast and the false prophet will be as well, but these are not angels in the book of Revelation.
Bart, what do you think of the idea that the “Smoke of their Torment” is simply a Jewish Euphemism for “the knowledge of this event will endure for the ages” but not actually meaning the event itself.
At this moment, I don’t remember the passages that speaks of “The Smoke” of something being a sort of “idiom” to speak of the memory of an event enduring (hence, the smoke of it rising forever).
I could find specific passages if you like. I don’t believe the Revelations passages speak of actual eternal torture either.
It’s a good question. I’ve never looked into it.
The fear of nothingness as brought out by Albert Camus in “ The Stranger”
“ Better to burn than to disappear”!!!
So said the condemned prisoner.
Dear Bart, I am a new member of your Blog and really do applaud your scholarly works.
I do however think that there are some Biblical pointers in the Old Testament that attests to an afterlife and judgement. Reference the verses that Zak 1010 highlighted – Daniel 12:1-3, Isaiah 26-19, Job 19 -25-27 etc.
Aren’t these verses in the Hebrew Bible that teach an afterlife?
Again, I think your statement ” The idea that a person dies and goes to heaven for eternal reward or hell for everlasting punishment is never taught in the Old Testament” is in direct contrast with Daniel 12:1-3.
And lastly, please does the phrase ‘I am’ in Mark 14:62 have the same meaning as expressed in John 8:58 which may be read as Jesus calling himself YHWH?
Thank you and I look forward to your response.
Yes, good point. There is indeed an afterlife in passages like Dan 12:1-3 — but it’s not a life of the soul in heaven. Quite the opposite — it’s a physical resurrecton of the dead to life here *on earth* not a spiritual life in heaven. The Job passage is about the afterlife with God *ONLY* in English translations. The Hebrew is almost impossible to understand — in fact I’d say it *is* impossible. Hebrew scholars (Jews and Christains both) have debated what it means for a very long time (centuries) and about the only thing they agree on is that the King James rendition that is still used more or less in modern translatinos is not what it can mean. I deal with the Hebrew Bible at length in my book — I hope it makes sense there!
I just took a look at the passage in the Septuagint. A lot of euphemistic words there.
The implication to me, seems to be that Job believes his body will be resurrected (no soul or lifeforce involved)
οἶδα γὰρ ὅτι ἀέναός ἐστιν ὁ ἐκλύειν με μέλλων ἐπὶ γῆς. (I see that the Eternal is/exists, at the end of the future, (he) is on the Earth (The implication that Job knows The Eternal (God) will be at the end of time (or end of the age?)
ἀναστήσαι τὸ δέρμα μου τὸ ἀνατλῶν ταῦτα·παρὰ γὰρ κυρίου ταῦτά μοι συνετελέσθη (my flesh will resurrect, it will continue – Toward The Lord until the end) – Seems the implication here is simply that Job believes in the resurrection after his death, and he expects to see The Lord there.
The other part of the passage that comes to mind is at the end:
εἰ δὲ καὶ ἐρεῖτε Τί ἐροῦμεν ἔναντι αὐτοῦ; καὶ ῥίζαν λόγου εὑρήσομεν ἐν αὐτῷ· (If you say “what else can we say to him”? since the root of his word is rooted in him) – Presumably implying they are blaming him for something he said, hence invoking punishment on himself.
So Job, at this point gets angry and says:
εὐλαβήθητε δὴ καὶ ὑμεῖς ἀπὸ ἐπικαλύμματος· θυμὸς γὰρ ἐπʼ ἀνόμους ἐπελεύσεται, καὶ τότε γνώσονται ποῦ ἐστιν αὐτῶν ἡ ὕλη. (Warning to you about your cover (pretext) – The Anger towards this lawlessness will come and then you will know that you are in the forest. (I’m not sure what ὕλη means in the Koine, but if I look it up it says “Forest”. In modern Greek, Ilikos is like the base material to build something, like wood) The other words are clear though “Be careful of your conniving, the anger of such unrighteousness will come upon you, and you will know that you are in deep @#@%!)
That’s what it seems to imply from the Septuagint, at least to me. I don’t see any evidence that there’s a soul or lifeforce spoken of here, nor is there evidence of what the anger upon his friends will be. It seems to be a general “Stop bothering me or God will eff you up).
Right. And teh Septuagint translators were surely as spooked by the Hebrew as modern scholars are.
Hmm, does the Hebrew present the concept in any other way? I guess I don’t know why the Septuagint translators would find it shocking. Is it because it’s one of the first times in the OT that the concept of a resurrection pops up?
I took a quick look at the Hebrew words (using BibleHub) as sadly, I don’t know any Hebrew. (The Hebrew is all Greek to me 🙂 But if their translation is correct, it seems the key word is (וּ֝מִבְּשָׂרִ֗י ū-mib-bə-śā-rî,- In my flesh). If I look it up in the Strong’s, it implies that word mean physical organic flesh, like what covers your bones. So that would mean Job is implying that even though his body will decay, that same body will be brought back, resurrected.
So that means that the Septuagint translators understood it that way, and made us a “favor” to translate it as “anastinsai to dherma mou” (literally “My skin will revive”). May I ask what the evidence is that they were confused about the subject? Unless I’m misunderstanding the Hebrew, which is 100% a possibility.
I think you misunderstood me. It is impossible to make sense of what the Hebrew text is saying (or so people far more expert than me in Hebrew say). And the Septuagint translators then would have done what English translators do: make the best sense out of it they can, so it makes sense in translation even if it doesn’t so much in the Hebrew. That is, they guess at what the author was trying to say and translate their guess rather than what doesn’t make sense.
That’s interesting, i didn’t know that. Then why the church is teaching us about afterlife, repent or you will burn in hell…..all that?
Ah, that’s what my new book is about!
The original Greek and Hebrew words have all been basically translated to Hell in English, and that’s the biggest part of the misunderstanding.
Sheol, Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus, and the Lake of Fire are all different places, but in modern theology are all assumed to be the same place. I would say that 60% of the concept of Hell comes from the Book of Enoch. That was like the foundation which got cemented in popular culture with Dante’s Inferno.
Was wondering what you thought of this NYT editorial and if you were familiar with the author’s work?
Thanks…
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/opinion/sunday/christianity-religion-hell-bible.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I’ve got it on my phone but haven’t read it yet. He’s the fellow who came out with a fairly widely talked about translation of the NT a few years ago, a controversial scholar in the (eastern) orthodox tradition.
I should look this guy up. In Greek Orthodoxy, the concept of Hell is nebulous. I’m not Orthodox myself, but I’ve spoken with bishops to get their input. The consensus is usually that Hell is separation from God. That’s not a physical state, but rather a state of mind. Being separated from God’s love, on its own, becomes a Hell.
So it does’t surprise me an Orthodox Scholar might push the boundary further, once actually reading the words in question and understanding the context behind them.
Recently a tour guide in an Etruscan museum in Tuscany related to me that at the time of the first Christians, pagans were essentially ancestor worshipers who, in order to get to the nicer afterlife, had to sacrifice to and honor the ancestors who were in control of the gates to the afterlife. The tour guide at this museum said that the Christian alternative was essentially a cheaper way to get to the better afterlife, an alternative the poor and the slaves could afford; these people understood God as God the Ancestor rather than God All Mighty. I hope the book provides a good understanding of the afterlife as understood by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Hebrew, et al. Also, it seems likely that Greek philosophers and the every-day Greek probably had different thoughts on what the afterlife might be.
Yeah, I’m afraid that’s not right. I’ll be talking about pagan views of the afterlife in my forthcoming book. I won’t be talking much about Egyptians (since I dont’ believe their views affected Judaism and Xty much), but lots on Greek, Roman, Hebrew Bible, early Jewish, and Christian (and some Mesopotamian)
Thanks, I look forward to reading it. Didn’t some Romans adopt and worship the Egyptian gods because the Egyptian gods offered a deeper emotional bond to the worshipper? In my casual understanding of Roman gods, I understand Roman gods as offering a transactional rather than emotional relationship. The Roman gods weren’t seen as perfect beings with an aspirational message, were they? I think that they are usually shown to grant wishes, foretell the future or place curses but not appeal to man’s higher sensibilities; in the pre-Christian west it was agnostic philosophy that taught how to live a better life. In short, the roles of the Roman gods played to Romans seem quite different to those the Christian God and Jesus play for modern Christians.
BTW, I was astounded to learn recently that the names of both the roman Jupiter and greek Zeus Phater are derived from the Proto-Indo-European Dyáuṣ Pitṛ́. They weren’t very original were they?
Thanks!
1. There was very limited borrowing from Egypt — though the mystery cults of Isis and Serapis are an obvious exception. 2. I don’t really know!
I never believed in The Devil as a literal being. But lately I’ve been doing research on near death experiences, now I’m really starting to wonder. People have had so many terrifying experiences. I’m wondering what you make of them? It’s always the people who admit to living selfish, materialistic lives.
Thank you for your time 🙂
Yes, about three years ago I got really interested in them too. So I read about 20 books, on all sides. Now that I’ve seen the evidence, I think they can quite easily be explained on physiological grounds.
If the historical Jesus did not “invent” eternal torment in hell, why did he tell the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where the rich man was tormented?
All his parables derived from a reality the listeners around him understood, they understood “sheep”, “fatted calf” but how could they understand the rich man feeling tormented by fire if they had never heard of the possibility that someone could be tormented after death?
In my book I’ll be arguing he didn’t tell the parable; it was put on his lips by later story tellers or Luke himself (just as many of his sayings in John’s Gospel are not things he really said.)
If you read the parable with a critical mind, there are things in there that don’t make sense.
1. Why is Lazarus named, but the rich man isn’t?
2. Why did the rich man ask for a drop of water on his tongue, and not, you, know, a swimming pool of it?
3. Even more confusing: Why didn’t he scream for help *immediately* to get him out of there. Nobody in their right mind would fall into a furnace and ask for a drop of water, instead of screaming in agony for someone to get him out.
4. Why was Abraham even able see him? That would be like us, watching someone in the other room, which has a huge glass window, watching someone else get tortured by being burnt alive. The Black Mirror episode “Black Museum” deals with that concept if you have seen it. What man of goodness would be able to stand watching that without at least trying to help?
5. Why is the story essentially a warped version of the Greek Hades myth? It has the same beat by beat points: 2 sections, one where the good people go, and one where the bad people go. And a “chasm” that separates them (the river Styx)
6. And the most confusing thing of all. Why did Jesus not mention anything about believing in him to be saved? The rich man is specifically told by Abraham that he is there because he had all the good things in life, and Lazarus had the bad things, so now Lazarus is comforted and the rich man is tormented for it.
The agenda in whoever wrote that was clearly to tell the Pharisees that they were going to Hades for being extremely greedy and only caring about wealth and riches. I would have to agree with Bart on this one: It’s most likely added by someone down the line, possibly the writer himself.
Dear Dr.Ehrman,
I have many questions, sorry for that !
1. Do you discuss the Rephaim (shadows) in your book?
2. And the view of the afterlife by the Pharisees ? According to Josephus they believed in heaven and hell, and an Immortal soul. Jesus calls the Pharisees hypocrites, but does not argue with their belief system. He even says “do as they say, not as they do.”
3. Why do you think there is so little information on the afterlife in the Old Testament ? Since even children ask this question, why no answer in the OT ? When people asked the Hebrew priests would they just answer: “I don’t know ?”
4. Could it be that the Old Testament is a history book, and the religious books of the Hebrews were lost somehow ?
(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible)
1. No. 2. They appear to have believed in the future resurrection of the body. Josephus is describing them in terms that will make them attractive to Romans 3. Because ancient Hebrews didn’t believe in an afterlife. 4. I would say they aer highly religious books. If you’re interested you may want to look at my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction.
In “The coming judgement of Paul” you confirm the interpretation of Paul as someone who describes a future reckoning for individuals. What about a slightly more situational reading of Paul, where he outlines existential consequences based on personal choice? Paul indicates that those who remain with Jewish Christianity 1 follow the Torah law in an uncritical and pathological way. He thinks those who move on, or change, to the Jesus of Jewish Christianity 2 can live in an interactive and reflectively engaged way with the text. In version 2, by applying discretion, there is more flexible meaning so that the law becomes a force for forgiving others and for gracious living. Jesus didnt necessarily destroy ‘sin’. He offered a new alternative that revives the law as a kind of accessible reasoning tool for everyone in the community of faith – instead of a specialised, virtuoso dogma confined to experts. The key difference that can perhaps be discerned in Romans is that individuals in that redefined community have opportunity to connect in everyday to the transcendental God of Israel – and so to everlasting life as a present kind of sensibility. ‘Judgement’ isn’t necessarily postmortem. Paul’s platonic edge is potentially intended to modify the faith system of Israel internally – not in the traditional ‘antinomian’ sense.
It’s certainly possible, but my sense is that this line of moral and psychological reasoning fits well in a 20th and 21st century context, and not so well in ancient moral discourse.
So thrilled to be in the blog! Semi conservative church of Christer and long time admirer of your work here ???? you mention 2 Esdras ch 7, what Greek word is used in that chapter that English translators render as hell? Is it Gehenna? Tartarus?
Remind me the verse. The text is in Latin, not Greek, and ch. 7 is 139 verses long; I’d rather not read the whole thing to find out!
My bad. Knowing that the manuscript is in Latin partially negates the question but here’s verse 36 of 2 Esdras 7
36 The pit of torment, the fires of hell, will appear, and opposite them the Paradise of joy and rest.
I was just trying to see if ANY source outside of Jesus himself ever used Gehenna. Btw the book, to coin a phrase, “rocks the party that rocks the piñata” ???????????????????????? I know you get that a lot ????. Myriad of more questions… I know I know one per day ????
The verse in Latin is: [36] et apparebit lacus tormenti et contra illum erit locus requietionis, et clibanus gehennae ostendetur et contra eam iucunditatis paradisus. “clibanus gehennae” means “the furnace of gehenna” Here, yes, it does appear to be the place of torment, in fire, in contrast to “Paradise”
May I ask what manuscript you guys are referring to?
In the Septuagint, 2nd Esdras 7 only has 28 verses, and it’s some kind of genealogy of a bunch of Kings and their sons.
In the Latin Vulgate, there is no 1 Esdras, and 2nd Esdras is actually just “Esdras”. and “Esdras 7” matches the 2nd Esdras 7 in the Septuaging word for word (A genealogy of Kings and their sons)
Both only go up to verse 28, and nowhere in the entire chapter is mention of paradise or gehenna, or hell.
We are referring to 4 Ezra.
Hello Bart. I apologize. I am still unable to find that passage. 4 Ezra in the Latin Vulgate renders something about Samaritan opposition to the construction of the temple. Nothing about Gehenna or Paradise.
I went to look it up in the Clemetine Vugate, and other than some minor differences in grammar and punctuation, it seems to be about the same thing: Opposition to construction of the temple.
I’m curious to read it, in either Latin or Greek, because the concept of paradise and hades being beside each other is identical to the Greek myth of Hades (you have the Elysiun Fields on the good side, separated by the river Styx, and then Hades on the bad side). Now my confusion is how did the idea of Gehenna get confused with Hades. If I search Gehenna in the Vulgate, there are only 2 passages in Joshua that appear, and the other passages are worded differently, such as in 2 Chron 28:3 “ipse est qui adolevit incensum in valle Benennon” (the valley of Benennon). But Joshua is also referring to the valley when he says “Gehennum”, not the afterlife place.
Soooo… A quick peek at the Septuagint for those passages: Hmm, Joshua 15:8 has “φάραγγα Ονομ” (Valley Onom) and 2 Chron 28:3 has “ἐν Γαιβενενομ” (In GaiBenenon, presumably a transliteration from the Hebrew “Gar-Hinnom”. Damn, that’s weird.
4 Ezra is in Latin. You can find it here: http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/ezraapoc.htm Just scroll down to ch. 7, v. 38.
Ok thank you Bart.
4 Ezra. I am not a scholar nor have I followed anything that wasn’t specifically in the Septuagint or Greek NT, since I can speak Greek and am comfortable reading the Koine (not the same as modern Greek, but the words are close enough usually to understand).
If this book is not part of the official Canon in either the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin Manuscripts (at least the Latin Vulgate or the Clementine), then may I ask why it’s important at all?
I read the passage, and I notice a couple of things: It I’m reading it correctly, it says “And appears the lake of torment, and it’s against the place of rest (presumably physically beside it), and the furnace of Gehenna extends against that blissful paradise”
1. When was Gehenna associated with a lake of torment? That is exclusively imagery from Revelation, which to me, says that whoever wrote that book was influenced by the passages in Revelation.
2. You could make the case that this passage is symbolic. It could easily be talking about someone who will be attacked, in conflict with another group beside their kingdom, and hence, his peace and paradise will be turned into a furnace of torment. Is there an English translation? I’ll look for it on my own. I’m basing my Latin on my knowledge of Spanish, so kind of crippled to try to figure out the entire chapter without some help
I can answer only one question at a time, so with respect to 4 Ezra: it was a very important apocalyptic work that appears to have been widely read, and is deeply reflective of Jewish thought from around the time of the beginning of Christianity.
Thank you Bart. I know you are inundated with questions. I appreciate you taking the time to answer mine.
I’m a little late to the dance on this one, but I have just started reading (ok, ok, listening to) Heaven and Hell. I’m only an hour in and already blown away, I’ve just ordered a hard copy from my local Indy shop (which happens to be Quail Ridge). I’ve got a shelf of Ehrman books and several of the old Great Courses, and they are always rewarding, but this concept is one I’ve been waiting many years for.
When I first learned years ago that Heaven and Hell were absent from the oldest Jewish and Christian views and texts (that Sheol was simply a neutral ghost world, a basement of sorts where not much happened), it was a revelation. That the idea of a cosmic battle between good and evil was a Zoroastrian concept, was another. That voting rights, which aren’t actually provided for explicitly in the US Constitution as Heaven and Hell, widely believed to be foundational and textual in Christianity, isn’t, is fascinating and as always, the story of what we believe and why is enlightening, all the more for it being so obscure and poorly known.
That, too, is an area of great interest, why, when we know this information, is it so poorly disseminated? Why when we know professional wrestling is a work (a performance), do we insist that it is a shoot (an unscripted contest)? Having once been a bit of a fundamentalist myself, there were always cracks in the armor, but I intentionally put them aside until I couldn’t anymore.
In a modern world where people still kill and torture to impose fantastical, faith based beliefs (just as people used to stab and assault pro wrestlers, being fully invested in the performance), why do we still continue insisting in the literal and unalterable truth of some texts, but not others? I ask myself as much as I ask anyone else, as I once did this, too. What is the psychology and sociology at work here?
Cheers and congrats on this incredible book, I’ve been waiting for this one for many years.
I’m not Bart, and I am eagerly awaiting his answer. But I’ll give you my take: Human beings are capable of reasoning, but that’s probably literally 10% of our mind. The other 90% is where everything happens instinctively.
1. We don’t think about getting hungry, we just do. AND we can’t shut it off at the brain level, unless we do it the natural way: Eat something and let the stomach signal to the brain we are full, or use hard drugs that shut down appetite.
2. We don’t think about having sex, we just see the other person and is we think they are sexy, BAM! our bodies want to have sex. You too, can’t shut that down unless you give it sex, or take drugs to switch it off.
In the same way, we have instinctive needs to believe we are not alone, and that someone is watching out for us. So I mean, the past is riddled with deities, and now that the deities are getting disproved left and right, a lot of people are replacing the “gods” with a virtual framework of modern gods (AKA “the DC or Marvel heroes”), or outright hoping that there are “gods” in the emptyness of space (Aliens/Extraterrestrials).
It is impossible for a human being to be objective. We have too much instinct that is fooled easily without any input from the rational brain (which appears to be on a complete separate circuit and will not influence the instinctive emotions unless we jam it in there like a jackhammer.
This is why we can shut off our brains and watch Thor and Ironman beat up Thanos for 4hr straight, or watch The Rock and HHH go at it for 2hr. We know it’s all fake, but the instinctive need is satisfied with it.
Just wondering if you believe that there are evil forces at work in the world such as demons?
I think there is plenty of evil in the world, but I do not believe in superhuman spiritual forces of any kind, only material entities (such as volcanoes, hurricanes, and humans)
What about when Jesus said that evil people would be cast into utter darkness where there would be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Is that hell?
Good question! But no, not in my judgment. Jesus doesn’t say their souls are taken off to another place to be tortured forever. They are upset because they are not given entrance to the kingdom. And in other passages Jesus says what then happens to them: they are destroyed.
For reference, the Greek passage would be translated like this:
“Tie that man’s feet and hands, and toss him to the darkness outside, where there is weeping and grinding of teeth”.
The context behind it, appears to be the idea of The Kingdom of God being inside the city of Jerusalem, and Gehenna being the valley literally right outside the gates to the city.
So throwing out people to the darkness outside is tossing them out of the city (the Kingdom of God) to the valley of the garbage (Gehenna).
The crying is due to the fact that they are not allowed in, and the grinding of teeth is in fury that they are not allowed in. It looks like this was a common idiom of the day.
What are your thoughts on the Greek word “aionios”? Christians use that as proof for eternal damnation. Now Christian Universalists argue that this word does not imply eternal punishment but age lasting punishment. In response, the eternal damnation crowd responds by saying that can’t be true since “aionios” is used in Matthew 25:46 and if the punishment is not eternal neither is life in heaven. Your thoughts on all this?
Yes, the punishment in Matthew 25:46 is eternal. But it is not used to describe “torment.” It is set in contrast to eternal “life.” The opposite of life is not torture but death. Jesus is saying that someone who suffers that penalty will never, ever have it reversed. It is an *eternal* punishment, death forever.
What are thoughts on the following as stated by Christian Universalist Gary Amirault?
“Just because “aionios” is used to describe life and punishment, does not mean they have to be of the same length and quality any more than a “small” house has to be the same size as a “small” ring because the same adjective is used to describe both. Often adjectives take on some of the value of the word they describe.
Therefore, “kolasin aionion” (mistranslated “everlasting punishment”) does not have to be the same length as “zoen aionion” (mistranslated “eternal life”). Aionion should not have been translated “everlasting” because aion and its adjective are clearly time words that have beginnings and endings.
And “punishment” for the Greek “kolasin” is too strong a word. Kolasin means “to prune a tree to make it more fruitful.” There is nothing fruitful about eternal damnation in burning flames. If Jesus wanted to imply vindictive punishment, the author of Matthew could have chosen the Greek word “timoria,” but he didn’t – he used a much softer word.”
(https://www.tentmaker.org/articles/Matthew-25-46-Commentary-Amirault.html)
It’s a complicated issue with the Greek, and not clear cut.
What are your thoughts on debate that occur among Christians till this day regarding whether salvation can be lost versus not? As a New Testament scholar which side do you think the Bible is on or does the Bible contradict itself on this?
I’d say virtually the entire Bible says that you can lose your salvation.
Hello Professor,
There is a following quote I wanted to share with you and would love to know your comments on it. Here is the following quote in question (see below).
“In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked.” “The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge” by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
Completely wrong.
Hi Bart,
New to your blog and love your articles.
The science that we know now has come a long way. Yet, science still does not have answers to many questions.
To me, the afterlife may be another dimension that we do not yet understand eg our soul just travels to another world, diemension.
Dear Bart,
I wonder have you while writing this book, came across an article or some book on the history of the devil? Where did this idea come from (God’s personal enemy with his own “army” etc.), how did it change (especially) during the Middle ages?
I know this isn’t your area of expertise, but hopefully you can help. It can be in German or English.
Thank’s!
Kind regards from Croatia.
Oh yes. There are a couple of older books by J.B Russell and hten The Origin of Satan by Elaine Pagels (which will be more about gnosticism, of course). Probalby the thing that you would find most useful though is Henry Ansgar Kelly, Satan: A Biography. (You can easily find a lot of schlocky books too from a highly religious perspective, but they probably won’t give you what you want.)
Is it true that the Old Testament mentions people like Abraham and other personalities deemed as righteous in the Bible to be in Sheol as well?
SHeol is actually not used much inthe Hebrew Bible, mainly in the Psalms (not in the historical narratives of the partriarchs). But if you want to read up on it, I talk about it in my book on Heaven and Hell.
For lack of a better place to ask, I age a question: I’m reading your book Heaven and Hell, and on page 262 you mention that “Christian sinners too could be subject to the eternal wrath of God” and that came about around the 4th century. . Was there a time when belief in the resurrection alone, and not following christian morals etc, could lead a person to heaven in Christian eyes? We’re actively sinning Christians believed be resurrected in the world to come prior to the fourth century? I’m under the impression Paul and other earlier writers believed that, of course, belief in Jesus’s resurrection was necessary for salvation, but also following christian codes or what not.
I’d say that there have always been CHristians who thought that salvation came by Christ’s death and resurrection *alone*. Nearly all the time (but not always) they thought that anyone who believed in the resurrection would change how they lived to please God.
Would you then say something like Roman Catholicism’s view, or Eastern Orthodox view of Christians who happen to die in sin developed in the fourth century or were there kernels of this before then? I see quotes from church fathers regarding works or what not, Clement of Alexandria here “ When we hear, ‘Your faith has saved you,’ we do not understand the Lord to say simply that they will be saved who have believed in whatever manner, even if works have not followed.”
I grew up Catholic so maybe this is just weird for me to accept.
I”m not sure there was only one CAtholic or Eastern view — so I’m not exactly clear what you’re asking!
The thought I guess of “dying in mortal sin” for a believer leading to hell. I think the East has some different thoughts.
This comment is prompted by something outside the blog, and I’m posting it here because this is the most recent post that mentions Sheol, according to the search function.
I recently watched some videos from the Youtube channel _Esoterica_, presented by Dr Justin Sledge, and primarily concerned with the history of mysticism and related topics in the Abrahamic religions. One video (dated 17 April 2021) is dedicated to the topic of Sheol, and in it Dr Sledge is not only dismissive, but very sarcastically so, of the notion that Sheol is not an afterlife at all but simply a synonym for the grave.
I have not read _Heaven and Hell_, and to date you have never really explained your current view on the blog, but . . . let’s just say that seeing scholars clash like this sparks my curiosity and makes me want to understand the root of the controversy.
(Incidentally, another respect in which Dr Sledge differs from the perspective I have learned here on the blog is that he sets the birth of Jewish apocalypticism in the Persian era. But this is not the main focus of any of his videos so far as I know.)
My sense is that people who take certain views as commonsense find other views nonsense, often without actually looking at the evidence. I don’t know if that’s the case here or not; I’m not familiar with Sledge or his work.
Do you have a favorite translation of Gilgamesh that you would recommend as a first reading?
I like Stephaney Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia.