Why is Hades used in Matthew 16:18?

#21

Peter was not using a figure of speech. You must distinguish between word and referent. Whereas Tartarus could be used to refer to a specific account in a Greek tale, all such Greek accounts are disparate referents: As there is no concrete place that is the Greek mythological Tartarus, but all such accounts must share a some conceptual elements in order for the notion of a place called Tartarus (to which all stories refer to) to be coherent. So, there is then the conceptual content of the word Tartarus which is this: A place where those who have rebelled against the Divine are sentenced. Among the Jews (who used Greek as a lingua franca) this concept clearly refers to the rebellion of the Angels.

0 Likes

#22

Yet there is inconsistency in the Bible between use of all of the words. Hell, Hades, Tartarus, Im guessing Sheol, Abrahams Bosom, etc. are all used. If Tartarus was thee word that encapsulated all the other meanings, why the use of the others? It seems as if these are all separate places.

0 Likes

#23

That is a historical question which has already been answered.

0 Likes

#24

Tartarus doesn’t encapsulate the others, though: hades and sheol only reference the place of the dead, whereas Tartarus brings with it the notion more like our concept of ‘hell’ – a place of punishment for the damned.

0 Likes

#25

As a classical Greek listener I can see that it makes sense.

For english, it still isnt clear.

The whole idea is very reminiscent of the Greeks and Romans having the same gods, just with different names.

0 Likes

#26

Indeed, I was not clear there.

There are still two terms for the same place, however. Both are used in the english translations apparently and still remains a bit inconsistent.

0 Likes

#27

Christian messianic reconciliation =/= Roman secularism

I don’t see that comparison. Christianity is the relgion of reconciliation between Jew and Gentile. One may as well raise issue with the use of the proper name "Jesus Christ’ rather than ‘Yashua Mashiach’. Judaizing was condemned because Christianity is not an extension of Judaism like the Talmudic religion, but rather the religion of reconciliation and renewal as St. Paul preached.

0 Likes

#28

If I were, in one context, to refer to ‘New York City’, and in another, to ‘The Big Apple’, that’d be using “two terms for the same place.” However, that wouldn’t imply inconsistency, now, would it? :wink:

In the Semitic world, the abode of the dead was ‘sheol’; in the Hellenistic world, it was ‘hades’. No inconsistency there…

Edited to add:

And, of course, if we use both words, since they’ve both become part of our English language vocabulary, there’s no inconsistency there, either…!

0 Likes

#29

The Big Apple is a figure of speech that refers to NYC, a real place.

Apparently Peter wasnt using a figure of speech and Tartarus isnt a real place, to non-Greeks.

In the Semitic world, the abode of the dead was ‘sheol’; in the Hellenistic world, it was ‘hades’. No inconsistency there…

In this example you are correct. But why in the same Bible, in the same language, were different words/places used that werent figures of speech?

Edited to add:

And, of course, if we use both words, since they’ve both become part of our English language vocabulary, there’s no inconsistency there, either…!

But to an english speaker its confusing when they both have different connotations.

But how has Tartarus become part of english language? Nobody says “get the Tartarus out of here!”

0 Likes

#30

Judaizing Jesus Christs name wouldnt be an issue as theyre the same person.

Having two different Judaized names (not titles) for Him (Jesus) with one meaning something else to another culture, like a Judaized name of Hercules meant to describe Jesus, would be highly confusing.

0 Likes

#31

That’s not the only example, of course. Many places in the Bible were known by multiple names. For example:

“They then turned back and came to En-mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they subdued the whole country of both the Amalekites and the Amorites who lived in Hazazon-tamar.” (Genesis 14:7)

In this example, Kadesh was also known as En-mishpat (“Judgment Spring”). The existence of multiple names wasn’t seen as an inconsistency of any sort, just as a recognition that different people, in different times, called this place by different names. Same with ‘hades’ and ‘sheol’. :wink:

0 Likes

#32

“Judgement Spring” seems to be a figurative description of Kadesh? (Like the Big Apple is to NYC)? Or is “Judgement Spring” the official name of that city?

Hades and Sheol are two official names though, correct? It makes perfect sense that Hades is simply Sheol in Greek, but Jews using Greek intermixed throughout their language seems sort of improper, like speaking Spanglish.

0 Likes

#33

It wasn’t intermixed, though. The Jews in question (both the translators of the Septuagint and the writers of the New Testsment) were writing in Greek, so they used the Greek word. They were using it as a common noun, to mean “the abode of the dead” or “the grave,” not referring to the specific realm from Greek mythology. In English, we can talk about the many Chinese “hells,” but we are not saying they have a bunch of places identical to the Christian Hell, just that those realms in their mythology serve a similar function of punishment.

Usagi

0 Likes

#34

Yes, that was a name that was used – that’s why they felt the need to explain that the two names referred to the same place.

But, if you don’t like that one, then look at Joshua 19:47 and Judges 18:29; they describe how Laish/Leshem (two names in their own right!) was renamed to ‘Dan’.

Really, now… it seems that you’re getting too worked up about this. This is something that any historian wouldn’t lose sleep over: the same place is given different names in various times and by various cultures. It makes perfect sense that a third culture might utilize both names, if both are widely understood…

0 Likes

#35

I think I finally see your point.

So if NYC was officially changed to The Big Apple in 50 years and you’d write that on letters and parcels, it would still go to the same region of NYC or what used to be NYC, but it would be understood that the region is exactly the same both by the people of now and the people 50 years from now?

If so then that makes sense to me. :smiley:

0 Likes

#36

As a last post in this thread I will quote St. Thomas Aquinas:

“We ought not to have even words in common with infidels, so far as possible, lest an occasion for going astray be taken by those who do not UNDERSTAND, it is more prudent for the faithful to abstain from the word ‘fate’, because ‘fate’ is more properly and generally used in the first sense (the word fate is of pagan origin and contains pagan concepts). Therefore Augustine says that if anyone believes in the existence of fate in the second sense (that is, the Christian concept of Providence), he may keep to his opinion but should correct his language.”

In any case, my point is that St. Thomas was writing in a very mono-cultural society, whereas the Apostles were very certainly not. So, it would be inordinate to apply an opinion about language similar to St. Thomas’ to the Apostolic era.

0 Likes

#37

:doh2:

You realize, of course, that Aquinas is saying something about a completely different context, right? He’s not concerned about places having different names in different cultures, but rather, about pagan concepts and the words that describe them being used to describe Christian concepts. So, if we were to use the word ‘Hades’ as the name of the Christian concept of heaven, then we’d be doing exactly what he warns against. However, if we use the names ‘Sheol’ or ‘Hades’ to refer to what they originally meant – that is, ‘the abode of the dead’ – then we’re not doing what Aquinas warns against. In fact, if we use these terms in this way, we’re doing exactly what he advises – using them in the way that they “properly and generally” were meant to be used! :wink:

In any case, my point is that St. Thomas was writing in a very mono-cultural society

Au contraire! If it were ‘mono-cultural’, then Thomas wouldn’t be warning about the dangers of sharing terms with the “infidels,” as he names them…!

0 Likes

#38

Taken from:

biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm

New International Version
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

New Living Translation
Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means ‘rock’), and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.

English Standard Version
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

New American Standard Bible
"I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

King James Bible
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the forces of Hades will not overpower it.

International Standard Version
I tell you that you are Peter, and it is on this rock that I will build my congregation, and the powers of hell will not conquer it.

NET Bible
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
“Also I say to you, that you are Kaypha, and upon this stone I shall build my church, and the gates of Sheol will not withstand it.”

GOD’S WORD® Translation
You are Peter, and I can guarantee that on this rock I will build my church. And the gates of hell will not overpower it.

Jubilee Bible 2000
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, a small rock and upon the large rock I will build my congregation {Gr. ekklesia – called out ones}, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against her.

King James 2000 Bible
And I say also unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

American King James Version
And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

American Standard Version
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Darby Bible Translation
And I also, I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades’ gates shall not prevail against it.

English Revised Version
And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Webster’s Bible Translation
And I say also to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Weymouth New Testament
And I declare to you that you are Peter, and that upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the might of Hades shall not triumph over it.

World English Bible
I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.

Young’s Literal Translation
'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;

0 Likes

closed #39
0 Likes

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.