Talk:Sheol

More Explicit and Briefer Description of Origin of the Actual Word "Hell"

I've always found this information to be the best cited, the most clear, and the most concise.

"An English translation of the Hebrew word Shoel, hell signifies an abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. “Gehenna,” or “Gehenna of fire,” is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a deep glen of Jerusalem where the idolatrous Jews offered their children to Moloch (2 Chr. 28: 3; 2 Chr. 33: 6; Jer. 7: 31; Jer. 19: 2-6). It was afterwards used as a place for burning the refuse of the city (2 Kgs. 23: 10), and in that way became symbolical of the place of torment (Matt. 5: 22, 29-30; Matt. 10: 28; Matt. 18: 9; Matt. 23: 15, 33; Mark 9: 43, 45, 47; Luke 12: 5; James 3: 6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the impression produced on men’s minds by the sight of this ceaseless burning, and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully disobey God." --MCP 22:06, 26 September 2007 (CST)

Uberpenguin's edits

I originally contributed the following text:

Indeed, Sheol in many cases does not seem to be an afterlife destination or a location at all, but merely "the grave". In Ecclesiastes, for example, it is stated that "...the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten." and "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave [Sheol], where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." (Ecc. 9:5-10, NIV) This concept of death was of a final oblivion, interestingly contrasting with the idea of a soul and a consciousness that survives the body, as later writers believed.

Afterwards, I found someone tacked on a sentence at the end, an unrelated conclusion about Jehovah's Witnesses, which does not flow from the statements of the paragraph. In the spirit of NPOV, I tried to preserve this edit while moving it into its own paragraph, separate from the Hebrew interpretation above. Yet UberPenguin, probably not knowing I was the same person who wrote the original lines and probably not realising the last sentence was tacked on, cites me for NPOV reasons and re-mistakes my work (a temporary state is not the same as oblivion). It would have been better for the advocate of JW to create a new, JW-interpretation paragraph rather than altering a Hebrew one. I have separated them again with minimal editing. People with JW experience, please fill out the new paragraph, as I cannot add to that perspective.

--ToucheGnome 22:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm very sorry for lumping your edits in with the others and for blaming you for that badly written sentence. Many apologies! What I would like to see discussed is some clarification of the phrase "final oblivion." JWs interpret Sheol to be the common grave of mankind (and by extension the unconscious condidition of the dead, as your edits mention), from which there is the possibility (not necessarily the guarantee) of revival. The concept of "final oblivion" for JWs would more appropriately be described by the connotation of the term "Gehenna." Perhaps something to this effect should be added for additional clarification. -- uberpenguin 02:41, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

In re-reading the article as a whole, the JW view of She'ol is actually very much in line with how the article already describes it aside from the fine point I mentioned about "final oblivion." I'm not even sure that the article needs to hint at any distinction with the beliefs of the Witnesses. -- uberpenguin 02:44, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Ah, that's where one with more experience with JW would be better to fill out that part. My understanding of JW philosophy is virtually nonexistent (I specialise in Ecclesiastes, in this area), so my edit was only attempting to preserve the apparent meaning of the person who added that sentence. Perhaps you or someone else could create a more accurate and/or detailed picture, perhaps contrasting it with Gehenna, as you mention.

--TouchGnome 04:19, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes

I think the reference "Ecclesiastes" should be comented further. By following this link I learned that the Ecclesiastes doesn't seem to be considered body of Hebrew poetry but a later greek text, therefore no wonder the similarities to Hades of greek mythology.

Do you mean Ecclesiastes or Ecclesiasticus? AnonMoos 21:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Historical-critical, not non-theistic

The article seams a little bit confused about what view it is presenting. The interpretation of Sheol as where the dead are and similar to Hades is a historical-critical idea. It is not necessarily a secular or non-theistic idea. Most critical Bible scholars are Christians or Jews, after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Who wrote this first paragraph, William Faulkner or Cormac McCarthy? BrianGCrawfordMA 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sheh-ole Merge

The article Sheh-ole discusses the alternative spelling of Sheol as used by Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. It's not exactly clear to me from this that Sheh-ole is actually the alternate spelling vs. a pronunciation guide. However, if that can be sourced, then it should be dealt with in this article vs. a separate article. Alternate spellings do not require separate articles and any variances in meaning should be dealt with in a central place. Any other thoughts on this? -- JLaTondre 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Checking my (printed copy of Strong, Sheh-ole is clearly a pronunciation guide, not an alternative spelling. The standard transliteration is Sheol. If we're going to include a pronunciation guide then we need a proper rendering in modern phonetics, not Strong's attempt at it (which is, after all, well over 100 years old). I haven't time to do the merge myself, but it definitely needs to be done. JGF Wilks 12:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Shelob

The term Shelob actually translates as 'she-spider', 'lob' being an Old English term for spider, so is it okay to remove that reference?

NIV?

The NIV should never be used as a source for the understanding of Judaism. Try citing some sort of rabbinical interpretation.

Has mainstream Judaism believed in an afterlife?

I don't understand if Sheol is a concept that most Jews believe(d) in. It was my understanding, from what I was taught in Hebrew school, that there is no Jewish afterlife. You die, your body decomposes and that's it.

At the very least, this article needs to be reconciled with Jewish eschatology#The afterlife and olam haba (the "world to come").--Mathew5000 16:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't get a grip on wheter there is an afterlife in Jewish belief, or if there's not. I understand that there probably are many answers, but like Mathew5000 said - this article needs to be reconciled with this one. /Chebab 14:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

2023

The immortal soul is one of the concepts that every Jew is obligated to believe, according to Jewish law. 84.110.218.18 (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It's certainly part of Judaism, but post-Biblical (see comment of 01:52, 2 January 2022 below)... AnonMoos (talk) 00:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Josephus & Catholicism

If one refers to the discourse on Hades by the ancient Jewish historian Flavius Josephus it will point out conclusively that Sheol IS a holding place of the dead prior to their Judgement by God.

Also, there is an old Catholic saying of how Jesus, after his death, "Desended" into Sheol to retrieve the souls of the righteous and lead them into Heaven. I don't believe this is used any longer due to the negative connotation concerning Jesus entering "Hell".

It's not "an old Catholic saying". It's current theology and is stated on a daily basis by (likely) 100s of millions of Catholics via the Apostle's Creed (which is also used by Lutherans as well as many other denominations). You can reference the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 631-637 for more information . 68.99.131.137 (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Secular outlook

I changed "academic" to "secular." The idea that Sheol is the Christian Hell can be taught in an academic setting. Someone else just made the same change (academic to secular) on Purgatory. Jonathan Tweet 05:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed this section to "interpreted as not hell," which is wrong because there are also religious interpretations that make sheol out to be not hell. Jonathan Tweet 20:31, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That was exactly my point: it is wrong to label a non-hellish interpretation as "secular". For that matter, it is consistent with secular views to say that the concept of hell pervades through the bible. BillMasen 22:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The article needs a "secular outlook" section so that readers can learn what the secular view is (alongside various religious views). If there is secular scholarship equating sheol to hell, add it to the section and cite it. Jonathan Tweet 23:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Removal of all the Mentions of Sheol Having a Jewish Origin - Possible Deletion

Where this concept of 'Sheol' may exist, it has no basis, whatsoever, in Judaism. All the references to it in the Jewish Torah, Tanach, or Bible (choose your term of choice) are all incorrect. The translations for the term are based on words which are similar to 'Sheol' such as 'Sheola' (Genesis 37:35) which in Hebrew has completely different meaning. As an Orthodox Religious Jew I have never heard or read this term in all the years I've had of formal Yeshivah education - until this article. It is possible this term was invented as a joke and somehow it gained weight. This idea likely gains strength considering that the original article, in its entirety, was, "Sheol, the hebrew abode for the dead, or departed spirits. A subterranean region of darkness, from which return is impossible." In addition it only has 3 references, not to Jewish articles. Alternatively, it may be a true term, however, not Judaically. --Preceding unsigned comment added by Asthenization-Creator (talk o contribs) 02:59, 12 February 2007

This whole article is basically noncence, I don't even think christians believe this, certainly jews don't. I have a feeling it's an invention of bible critics. Ariel. 14:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Does the article say that Christians or Jews believe this? Jonathan Tweet 15:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it does not. Which I why it should probably be deleted. It talks about the Hebrew Bible, but if not Jews, and not Christians, then who? Like I said, I think it's an invention of bible critics/scholars. Ariel. 15:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right that this article gives the "Bible criticism" side of the issue, but not the Jewish or Christian sides. Instead of deleting this information, add information about the Jewish and Christian views. Then people will be able to see for themselves how far out this Bible criticism view is. Jonathan Tweet 17:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys are kidding, right? Sheol is a term used by early Jews whose views on an afterlife hadn't really developed yet. Just because their views eventually developed into modern Judaism and Christianity views doesn't make this some kind of attack on religion. Here is a very excellent explanation of Sheol by a very Christian organization: http://www.crivoice.org/dead.html. Randvek 00:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The Christian POV is not the Jewish POV, which is still absent from the article. -- THF 02:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Jewish POV are you talking about exactly? If The author of Ecclesiastes POV was that all dead went to Sheol, as well as the authors of other Hebrew scriptures (most notably Psalms, Proverbs) then I do not understand why it can be said that it has no basis whatsoever in Judaism. -- Tylocook 00:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold on--I came to this article because I saw the world "Sheol" in my bible and I wanted to know what it was all about. Was it hell? Please don't delete this article, because I am sure there are others like me who want to know what it is. I saw it in Psalms, and in Ecclesiates. If Sheol as a concept has no basis in Judaism, then WHY is it in my old testament?? Who put it there?129.1.21.22 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

2022

For example this sentence in article: "With the codification of Rabbinical Judaism and the Talmud, Jewish theology concerning the afterlife had largely abandoned the concept of a single destination for all mankind after death and adopted the more recognizable model which espoused a place of reward for the righteous, and a place of punishment for the wicked called Gehinnom."

This is incorrect. Gehinnom may well be equated with Sheol. However, it's a place or state after death somewhat equivalent to Purgatory. Nearly every soul will experience some sufferring in the afterlife according to its deeds, and nearly every soul will then be admitted to Paradise for the Eternal Reward, according to its deeds. This is "Jewish theology concerning the afterlife" apparent "with the codification of Rabbinical Judaism and the Talmud". This is why the description in the article is alien to Jews who read it. Drsruli (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Information About Sheol

This website has a pretty good spiel about Sheol in the Old Testament. It's also called the Pit in the Old Testament. Should consider it as an external link at the bottom of the article? http://www.cupofwrath.com/risen-dust/01-hell-OT.php 71.233.140.67 (talk) 06:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC) I'll add it in as an external link, any objections? There is no Christian view offered in the external link section. 71.233.140.67 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleting it as a personal website. Fails our guidelines and is pushing an online book. Dougweller (talk) 06:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean by that? Aren't most websites someone's property, and there's nothing to buy?71.233.140.67 (talk) 18:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, you did ask if there were any objections, and personal websites, however many there are, are generally not meant to be linked to articles. See WP:ELNO. This is just someone's personal take on various things, and fails the 1st criterion as well. Bits of it fail 2, Creationist links may be ok in Creationist articles but not generally, and whoever Doug Buckley is I've no reason to think he's an expert or even represents any typical view on this. In fact, his website seems a pretty unknown one, with an Alexa rating 3 month avg 0.000005% - in other words hardly ever visited. Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't care if you link to it or not but at this point your saying false things. According to Wikipedia's definition of a personal website, it is a site dedicated to a particular person, as opposed to information on a subject. The website does not fit the definition of a personal website. Second, it is not just opinion, it offers more direct bible research than the wikipedia article does, and that it what the article is about: the meaning of a particular Hebrew word within the context of the bible. Third, there is nothing in the guidlines for linking WP:ELNO that says the number of visits to a particular website should determine whether or not it can be a useful external link. Fourth, what does creationism have to do with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.140.67 (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lazarus and Dives

The story of Lazarus in the new testament is not generally believed to promote the concept of all dead being sent to Hell/Sheol. Although this is used as an arguement for the concept, even those that promote this are known to agree that the righteous are not still sent to Abraham's bosom. I personally do not agree with concept at all, but I definately feel that this concept should be talked about in greater detail instead of being presented as a straight fact.

Modern Hebrew

In modern Hebrew this word is used in translations of Greek Mythology instead of Hades. TFighterPilot (talk) 16:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

It seems extremely odd to me that there would be a section that simply states that debate continues, without giving any detail on the nature of that debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.187.164 (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What it's saying is that the state of scholarship in the area is still somewhat unsettled... AnonMoos (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

POV attempts to reconcile Jewish belief/nonbelief in the afterlife with Christian theology

The section "Sheol in the Hebrew Bible" contains a closing statement that smells of POV (and poor Biblical scholarship, to boot):

Such text suggests that the God of the Old Testament does provide an alternative to Sheol, which appears to be "Heaven," or a place or state of being in the presence of God. These two cases seemed to be caused by the individual's closeness to God, or righteousness, which seems to parallel the New Testament text on receiving acceptance into Heaven.

— emphasis added

The first portion of the statement is accurate enough, in that there are a very few examples in the Tanakh (e.g., Enoch and Elijah) of people whom god chose to reward with some kind of ambiguous after-death condition other than Sheol. The objections, however, are the statements equating this Jewish idea specifically with the Christian concept of "Heaven". Equating the vague notion of "an alternative to Sheol" (which is reserved for only a handful of individuals in the entirety of the Tanakh) with the highly evolved New Testament idea of Heaven (which according to the some parts of the New Testament anyone can aspire to receive) is an egregious stretch, and one that I'm not aware any serious Jewish or Christian scholar has made. There are no references given for this claim, and it strikes me as a Christian attempt to argue, through vague implication, that the New Testament concept of Heaven is somehow rooted in and compatible with Judaism. It is not. As well, notice that the statement relies on the use of "weasel words" like appears to be and seems to parallel in order to make its case. As such, I placed a "citation needed" reference at the end of the aforementioned paragraph, and would further stress that any potential references from Christian sources should be treated with skepticism, owing to the ulterior motive that the modern Christian perspective has on "reading into" the Jewish texts ideas that are wholly alien to Judaism.--Kglogauer (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Witch of Endor is the only example

So your only example in this article of Sheol is a forbidden practice of contacting the dead inside "Sheol"; listed among other banned practices like charlatans and human sacrifice. What's going to be remembered of Americans: that most states passed a law banning gambling, or whatever goes on in Vegas stays in Vegas? Gee I hope it's not the 2nd one.72.201.19.165 (talk) 09:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

new to Wiki, but this article needs vast editing.

From what I have studied, 'Sheol' has many meanings that are not related to an underworld, but rather a 'torment of being eternally or perpetually separated from God'. It appears that the greeks were the first to 'assume' when they translated their first bible that Sheol was a place and then the greeks used several words like 'Hades' to suggest a place. This article is written from that perspective. A potentially false point of view and assumption. There are some verses in the bible that suggest a fiery place, but I'm not even sure that's correct, as it appears once again it was the greeks who introduced the word 'fire' into any of it, taking from other translations which might suggest 'burning desire'. This could be a burning desire to have a relationship with God, but God says "you denied me. I don't know you". I will work on this, and do my best, but I am new to editing with Wikipedia, but not knew to studying.WFGpro (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, one translation of Psalm 139 says

"Where can I go from Your Spirit?

Or where can I flee from Your presence?

If I ascend to heaven, You are there;

If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, You are there."

Other translations use "hell" or "the grave" instead of "sheol", but I believe the original Hebrew was שְׁאוֹל which transliterates to :"sheol".

70.198.69.227 (talk) 05:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of unsourced material addition

Some unsourced "New Testament revelations" about the Hebrew Bible concept of Sheol were added by an IP, pointing to some unreliable website, and I will revert it. I am explaining it here, because I haven't figured out yet how to have my "rollback" application allow for the addition of an edit summary. It just does it, and I cannot add an edit summary explaining the action. warshy ^(¥¥) 18:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It was two years ago that you left this comment, User:warshy, but if you activate "Twinkle" using your "Preferences" tab, you should be able to rollback with comments. You may have already figured it out, but there it is. If you have any questions about how that works, hit up my talk page and I'll try to explain further. Alephb (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you User:Alephb. It is nice to know that people here look at these types of comments, even if it is 2 years later... Much better late than never! :) I will try Twinkle again when I have a moment. I had Twinkle to begin with a long time ago, before I was even granted the rollback feature, so now it may be a good time to try and reactivate and see if it does the job. Regards, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure thing. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that rollback without Twinkle simply has no way to add edit summaries. 19:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation Needed

This entry claims that Sheol is the same concept as the Greek Hades, especially in the first part of the first sentence: "She’ol , in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life", and in the sentence "The inhabitants of Sheol are the "shades" (rephaim), entities without personality or strength." Yet not a single verse of the Hebrew Bible is quoted to support any of this claim. She'ol usually appears to means "the grave". There are OT verses that speak of the realm of the dead, but I don't know if they contain the word "Sheol" in them. This article should be deleted unless someone can find support in the Hebrew Bible for what this article claims the Hebrew Bible says, and also mentions the other meanings/usages of the word. Philgoetz (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Revamp of the article

I've made quite a few changes to the article. The previous version seemed very disorganized and unfocused. I've kept what was directly related to the subject and added some clearer analysis. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2021 but (UTC)

I haven't have time yet to review all your changes with more time, more in depth, but I know this article needed a serious rewrite, in my opinion. So thank you for taking the time and doing that. Hopefully I will be able to offer some input sometime soon. Good luck, enjoy, warshy ^(¥¥) 14:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Firstly, what do you mean by "newcomer"? I'd like to assume good faith and interpret that in some positive way from you, but I have difficulty seeing how it could be seen as anything beyond WP:KING. Our accounts were both made about five years ago. Secondly, what "academic references and sourced content" do you think was removed that should remain, and why? I discussed why each change was being made as I made it. That form of the article is a confusing mess. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see the issue. In undoing the unsensible reversion of the page to a past version, I accidentally caught a contribution you had made in the meantime. I've re-added your contribution. Let me know if you have further concerns. AlphabeticThing9 (talk) 04:00, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

AlphabeticThing9, all major statements in articles must be sourced, and sources must be academic (at least for academic articles, which this is). Plus, of course, Hades has no connection to Sheol. Achar Sva (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I...what? "Hades has no connection to Sheol"? I don't see how anybody with the faintest understanding of the topic could even begin to make such a claim. WP:COMPETENCE, you should not even be making edits on this page with such a poor understanding of the topic to be frank. 35.137.34.16 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

An incomplete description of Sheol?

I am not Jewish, and I was surprised by the dismal picture painted by the lede:

Sheol in the Hebrew Bible, is a place of darkness to which all the dead go, both the righteous and the unrighteous, regardless of the moral choices made in life, a place of stillness and darkness cut off from life and from God.

Is this all Jewish theology has to say about the disposition of the dead? This is their eternal fate? If there is more to the story - some hope for a future "upgrade" in the status of the dead - the article should say so, in order to lighten the unjustifiably dreary tone of the article.

There is a concept of resurrection of the dead in Judaism. If this constitutes a potential opportunity to get out of Sheol, it should be integrated into the Sheol article. 2601:281:D47F:B960:CF1:566A:9C9B:5CE5 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

What is referred to is the concept of Sheol as it exists in the Hebrew Bible itself. Belief in resurrection as part of a "personal afterlife with reward or punishment" did not exist in Judaism before 200 BC, according to the link you supplied above. It entered Judaism at least partly due to Persian influence. The Sadducees of early Roman times famously refused to believe in such resurrection because there was nothing about it in the text of the Hebrew Bible. It was only after the destruction of the Temple, when the Rabbis/Pharisees were the last significant faction standing, that resurrection was solidly established as Jewish doctrine... AnonMoos (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)