The Myth of Hell, part 4 

Here’s what we’ve seen so far:

* The mistranslation “hell” should not be in the Bible

* The actual word, Gehenna, fits within the audience, cultural, and covenantal context

* The Hebrews never had a concept of God’s torture chamber

* The criteria for escaping God’s eternal soul torture varies within religion

Today I want to deal with two other terms that people try to make fit into the Hell doctrine, but they just don’t work.

1. Tartarus 2. Hades

A big issue within Christianity, but not exclusive to Christianity, is equivocating. Equivocating is taking a topic or term and muddying it with another topic or term. In this case, Christians take terms or examples and misapply them to the philosophical construct they’ve created called Hell. Remember, Hell is said to be God’s torture chamber for disembodied souls that didn’t meet a certain varying criterion of belief. Is that what Tartarus and Hades mean?

Tartarus -

4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell[a] and committed them to chains[b] of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; (2 Peter 2:4)

1. Notice the footnote next to the word hell (again)? That’s because the word isn’t hell. The word is Tartarus. Some more academically driven translations translate it correctly. Unfortunately, most of the erred translations Christians carry around have the mistranslation. This is not at all a light matter. You’ll realize why shortly if you keep reading.

2. Tartarus is a word used for a person and/or a place in Greek mythology. It first appears 700 years before Christ in Hesiod’s poem Theogony. It was said to be below Hades (this is a critical point – but missed or ignored by people).

3. Tartarus was originally a place for just the Greek gods to go who were a threat to Olympus. It morphed over time (as we’ve seen words do) to include a general populace. However, people could be released from Tartarus, which was said to be under Hades.

4. Peter relegates this mythological place to “angels.” Angels, as I pointed out in part 1, means messengers. He does not employ this term to denote God’s torture chamber of disembodied souls for disbelief in a certain varying criterion.

5. Peter says that Tartarus was a holding place for these messengers until judgment. What happens after judgment? According to Christian tradition, those judged burn in God’s Hell. How can people be in Hell awaiting judgment so that they can then go to Hell? This is called an equivocation.

6. If we are to take Peter’s use of Tartarus to affirm what Tartarus teaches, i.e., a place of eternal conscious torment for disembodied souls (which it doesn’t even teach), then we must affirm all that Tartarus teaches. In other words, it would be dishonest to say “Tartarus means x because that’s what Theogony implies” but then ignore the rest of what Tartarus is based upon Hesiod’s own work. If we are going to take a single word, in a single verse, and construct an entire doctrinal construct from it, then whatever that single word teaches is critical to the construct. This means that Christians must also believe in the Greek gods, the release of disembodied souls from Tartarus, and the rest of what Hesiod’s work teaches.

7. Hesiod’s poem is a mythological cosmogony about how all the Greek gods came about. Does Peter’s use of Tartarus affirm the existence of all the Greek gods, their powers, and their fates? If not, isn’t this picking and choosing truth from literature and philosophy.

Tartarus does not, and in fact cannot, mean what Christians want it to mean. Hades -

1. Like the word Tartarus, Hades originates in Greek mythology and is a person and/or a place.

2. The definition of the word Hades means “grave” when referring to a place. Here’s an important consideration. Don’t skip over the weight of this.

If Hades is defined as Hell, then shouldn’t the two words have the same meaning? If Hell means God’s torture chamber for disembodied souls, then shouldn’t Hades mean God’s torture chamber of disembodied souls? The definition should be consistent. Yet in some places it is wholly different. The definition isn’t static at all. The definition of the word Hades fluctuates based upon the text and the bias. Were it defined as it is used, it would become incredibly embarrassing to Christian doctrine (as it should be).

Consider this example:

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption (Acts 2:27)

a) Even though Hell and Hades have 2 completely different definitions and origins, the word is mistranslated and misused all over the Bible with no regard. This is just one example. If the word is Hades, why is Hades used in some translations but mistranslated as Hell in others? If the 2 words have different meanings, why is the mistranslation accepted amongst translators? More importantly, why are you okay with such a gross mistranslation? If the word Hades carry the same definition of Hell, why are you okay with it being mistranslated and skewing the perspicuity of the Bible?

b) If we replace the word with its actual definition, does the text make more sense?

Because you (God) will not leave my soul in a place of eternal, conscious torment; nor suffer your Holy One to see corruption.

Because you (God) will not leave my soul in the grave; nor suffer your Holy One to see corruption.

If this verse is about a disembodied soul being eternally and consciously tormented in God’s creation of Hell, why would the author mention anything about corruption which is attached to the biological body? If, however, this verse is an inference of the resurrection of the body/person of Christ coming out of the grave, then doesn’t this make more sense?

In fact, let’s look at the rest of the context:

31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades (the grave), nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses.

The author of the Acts of the Apostles juxtaposes the grave of David, their patriarch, to the grave of Christ. One was filled with the corruption of David; the other was empty.

Let’s look at another example:

18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; (Matthew 16:18)

Some translations say Hell while others say Hades. Even though the 2 words have different definitions, no one bats an eye. Even though the 2 words have wholly different philosophies and doctrinal implications, no one bats an eye. This is mainly because people don’t care enough to know the truth, as a rule.

Is Christ telling Peter that he (Peter) is a rock and that upon Peter (the man) the entire Church would be built? Is Christ teaching that the gates of God’s torture chamber where disembodied souls writhe in eternal, conscious torment would not prevail against the Church? If it sounds completely discombobulated, that’s because it is.

If we remove our Western lens and read this in its proper cultural and covenantal context, understanding the history behind what is being said, this all makes a lot more sense. You see, the Israelites had no concept of Hell. None! In fact, most of them didn’t believe in an afterlife at all. Job and the author of Ecclesiastes both thought you lived and then you died. The Sadducees of the New Testament, which reached back before the New Testament writings, didn’t believe in “the resurrection” at all. So to presume that this verse is talking to Jews, who are still under the Old Covenant, who had 0 idea of the myth of Hell, and who were awaiting the fulfillment of their Old Testament prophecies regarding “the resurrection” to be fulfilled by the Messiah, about a torture chamber of disembodied souls in a non-spatial location created by God is, not only fiction at its worst, but a horrific manipulation of the text.

Let’s read it correctly defined and in its proper context:

18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of [the grave] shall not prevail against it; (Matthew 16:18)

Peter and the Disciples would have thought “Ohhhhhh. I get it. God is living and loving. The finality of the grave will not win against the God who gives us eternal life because Christ will be resurrected for us in fulfillment of our prophecies.” Voila! The text becomes infinitely clearer. No more Scriptural gymnastics must be done. No assertions of employing the “analogy of faith” need to be thrusted upon us.

Words mean things. Words are important. Definitions are important. Translating words with a bias is a sick tendency. Regurgitating mistranslations is utterly dishonest. The masses (most Christians) read their translations filled with mistranslations and are none the wiser, because critical thinking and questioning tradition are not welcomed. In fact, it’s met with intense opposition.

Fear of eternal damnation by God is a great tool within “the Church.” A lot can be accomplished by those in power when those living in fear must toe the line!