1

THE UNDERWORLD IN ANE AND lwOav. IN THE OT

Thesis
Though the concept of lwOav. in the OT has many similarities with the concepts of the
underworld in the ANE, and was surely influenced by them, lwOav. is a uniquely Israelite
concept that is totally different from the underworld in the ANE.

Purpose
Truth exists. It is true that all people die. Then the most crucial question is “What happens to
the dead?” or “What is the true reality after death?” There are many beliefs regarding the
reality after death, but the important thing is to determine which is the true reality.
Considering the importance of this issue, having a correct biblical soteriology is the greatest
responsibility of biblical scholars. To have correct biblical soteriology, the first step is to
study afterlife in the OT. Understanding the concept of lwOav. is one of the most important
components in this regard, besides having a good grasp of biblical anthropology. In this
paper, I will study the concept of lwOav. in the OT by comparing it with the concepts of the
underworld in the ANE.

Introduction

lwOav. is a unique term which appears only in the Old Testament. The term is not found

in any of its cognate languages and there are no descriptions of any extra-biblical myths that

deal with the topic of lwOav.. However, concepts of the underworld (i.e. netherworld) in the

ANE show some similarities with the concepts of lwOav... Many fine scholars conclude that

there is a clear genetic relationship between concepts of underworld in ancient Mesopotamia

and Ugarit and the concepts of lwOav.. in the OT. Indeed, it is undeniable that ANE concepts of

underworld influenced Israel’s concepts of lwOav. However, lwOav. is not identical with the

underworld (or netherworld) in myths of the ANE. Though strong similarities exist between

them, lwOav. should be understood as Israel’s unique concept of the underworld, which had

been developed by Israel throughout their history. The purpose of this paper is to investigate

similarities and differences between the concepts of lwOav. in the OT and concepts of the

underworld in the ANE. This paper will research overall concepts in the ANE according to

three regional categories: Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Syria-Palestine (i.e. Canaan). Since ANE

concepts of the underworld are closely related to the worldviews in ANE myths, their
 2

understanding of death, and their burial customs (in which mythological worldview and

conceptions of death converge) this paper will also briefly discuss these issues, when

appropriate. This paper consists of three parts. The first part will discuss concepts of the

underworld relative to the ANE, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Canaan. The second part will

discuss the concepts of lwOav. in the OT. The third part will compare the concepts of lwOav. with

concepts of underworld in the ANE.

I. Concepts of Underworld in ANE

A. Egypt

To understand concepts of the underworld in ancient Egypt, their worldview should

be discussed first. According to Egyptian myths, the religion of ancient Egypt was

pantheistic, consisting of about nine hundred gods and goddesses, but one of their chief

deities was the sun-god.1 Egyptians believed that a cosmic order existed which was created

and sustained by these gods, each of whom had his or her own role in the cosmos as part of

the natural world.2 Their understanding of the cosmic order was the circulation of life and

death that exists both in the realm of gods and in the natural world. Both gods and human

beings are part of the cosmic order and their lives and afterlives are part of the cosmic cycle.

Egyptians confirmed the Sun and its circuit, the most explicit phenomenon in the world, as

the most foundational part of the cosmic order. Egyptians equated the solar circuit of the day

and the night to the cycle of life and death. Everything experienced this daily cycle of the sun

god Re. The course of the sun during the day was conceived as Re’s lively boat journey

1
Various sun-gods are found in Egypt, such as Amon, Re, Khepri, Atum, and Aton. Each represented
different aspects of the sun during the day. Amon, who was one of the highest deities in the Egyptian pantheon,
represented the hidden aspect of the sun. Re represented the peak of sun at noon. Khepri represented the rising
sun from the east. Atum represented sun setting in the west. These three gods, Khepri, Re, and Atum, are the
main deified characteristics of the sun religion of Egypt. Another son god, Aton represents round figure of the
sun.
2
Janet K. Smith, “Dust or Dew: Immortality in Ancient Near East and in Psalm 49” (Ph.D. diss.,
Hebrew Bible at the Union Institute & University, 2009, 187.
 3

through the skies, while the course of the sun during the night was conceived as his entering

into the realm of the dead, the underworld below the horizon, in a deathly state; after which

he revived every morning from the east. In other words, Egyptians thought that Re died

during the time when he passed into the underworld, but was resurrected and reborn every

morning from the east.3 In this sense, death was not the end, but a part of circulation from

death to life and from life to death. In sum, Egyptians did not regard the death of the sun god

Re as the end of life, but as a part (or a process) of the continuous circuit of nature within the

cosmic order, which was central to their worldview.

The Egyptians also had a strong interest in the origin of the universe and of the world

in which they lived. Consequently, various theologies concerning this subject emerged from

the great religious centers of Heliopolis, Memphis, Hermopolis, and Thebes.4 It is hard to

reconcile all these theologies, however, they had a common understanding: the continuation

of life. From the creation myth of the Ennead in Heliopolitan, the concepts of “Eternal

Sameness” and “Eternal Recurrence,” were developed.5 These concepts led the Egyptians to

believe in the existence of an unchangeable order behind the eternal sameness in the universe.

The Egyptians considered the daily rising and setting of the sun as the eternal cycle, the

eternal recurrence in eternal sameness. They also regarded all life as subject to this principle

of the eternal cycle of rebirth and death, as is evident in the myth of Osiris.6

Osiris was killed by Seth, his brother, and eventually was resurrected. Prior to the

Old Kingdom of Egypt, Egyptians believed that only Pharaoh had an afterlife. The deceased

king becomes like Osiris, while his son succeeds him as king and becomes a new Horus. Like

3
For more details for the solar circuit of Re, see Ralph W. Doermann, “Sheol in the Old Testament”
(Ph.D. diss, Duke University, 1961), 98-99.
4
Dijk, “Myth” CANE 3:1699-1702.
5
“The Ennead is a group of nine deities: Atum; Shu and Tefnut; Geb and Nut; Osiris; Isis; Seth; and
Nephthys.” (Dijk, CANE 3:1699-1701.)
6
Jacobus, “Myth” CANE3: 1700.
 4

Osiris, the deceased is not really dead, but enters a different mode of being through the

transition to a new life in the underworld. Eventually, in the Old Kingdom of Egypt, they

applied this belief to all people.7 The new existence of the dead was not viewed simply as a

static mode of being, but as eternal sameness and recurrence in an eternal cycle of death and

resurrection, part of which entailed a journey to the underworld.8

It is clear that the journey to the underworld awaited both pharaohs and ordinary

people. Egyptians believed that Pharaohs were incarnated gods who came to the world in

order to rule the world according to the cosmic order. The Egyptians thought Horus, a tenth

god in the creation myth of the Ennead in Heliopolitan, was embodied by the living pharaoh.9

Upon death the Pharaoh returned to his home, the celestial realm in heaven, to join the sun

god Re by becoming a star in the sky.10 By contrast, ordinary people (akhu) had to pass

through various gates, portals, rivers, and caverns in the underworld. Since these processes

were considered very harsh and difficult, guidebooks were necessary for the dead to get

through safely.11 After the dead passed into the underworld, they became circumpolar stars

by joining to the sun god Re.12 Many funerary texts identify the dead with Re. Since the Sun

sets in the West, the West was conceived as the location of the realm of the dead, the

underworld, which was inaccessible to the living human, except through tombs, which were

regarded as the entrances into the realm of the dead.13 The Egyptians believed that the human

being continued to live in connection with the corpse by depending upon its existence, so

7
Smith, “Dust,” 184-5.
8
However, the concept of the eternal cycle is somewhat irrational. If each person’s life is an eternal
cycle of death and resurrection, what is another death for the resurrected ones? Does the eternal cycle occur in
the underworld? Are the dead repeatedly experiencing death and resurrection in the underworld?
9
Jacobus Van Dijk, “Myth and Mythmaking in Ancient Egypt” CANE 3:1699.
10
Smith, “Dust,” 184-5. I need to research more about the journey of pharaoh, whether the journey of
pharaoh was regarded as the same as ordinary people or different from them.
11
J. Harold Ellens, “Underworld: Egypt, Mesopotamia, Ugarit, and Greece” in Heaven, Hell, and the
Afterlife: Eternity in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Santa Barbara: Praeger, 2013), 3.
12
Doermann, “Sheol,” 92.
13
Doermann, “Sheol,” 79, 94.
 5

preserving the corpse intact was of the utmost importance for the continuing existence of the

human being after death.14 Therefore, the tomb and burial practices were very important.15

This explains the magnificent pyramids and mummification for Pharaoh in Egypt. After the

afterlife was embraced as available to all people, rather than just the pharaoh, similar less

elaborate burial customs were developed for ordinary people. Besides burial customs,

Egyptians also developed a means of sustaining interaction between the living and the dead.

In fact, Egyptians considered the dead not so different from the living. They believed that

they could communicate with the dead, as the text “Letters to the Dead” shows.16 They also

believed that it was important to sustain the dead throughout the afterlife by means of food

and drink offerings.17

B. Mesopotamia

Compared to the Egyptians, the Mesopotamians did not possess much interest in

death and the afterlife. Nevertheless, various and abundant sources in ancient Mesopotamia

contain concepts of underworld and customs of burial and death. From these it can be

surmised that Mesopotamian beliefs concerning the afterlife changed throughout the ages and

even varied regionally. For this reason it is not possible to reconcile all these sources, but a

certain amount of uniformity is possible since all Mesopotamian religion had an intense

conservatism tendency.18

Although the worldview of the ancient Mesopotamians was explicitly different from

that of the Egyptians, the two cultures shared some common ideas regarding the afterlife: 1)

that the afterlife was the continuation of life after death, 2) the concept of the journey of the

14
Doermann, “Sheol,” 79; Leonard H. Lesko, “Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Egyptian Thought.”
CANE3, 1763-64.
15
Doermann, “Sheol,”84.
16
Lesko. “Death,” CANE 3:1765.
17
Doermann, “Sheol,” 81-82.
18
Ibid., 105.
 6

dead to the underworld, 3) the necessity of food for the dead, and 4) the role of the gods as

sustainers of universal order. However, each culture was distinct in their conceptions of the

underworld itself and the particularities of the above shared ideas.

Concerning concepts of the Mesopotamian underworld, Mesopotamian texts are

noteworthy sources. “Inanna’s descent into the netherworld (Sumer),” “Ishtar’s descent into

the netherworld (Akkadian),” “Nergal and Ereshkigal,” “Erra and Ishum,” “Ur and Nammu,”

and “Gilgamesh, Enkidu, and netherworld” in the Gilgamesh Epic are the most important

sources describing Mesopotamia’s notion of the underworld.19 It is true that various versions

for some myths exist that describe slightly different notions about the underworld. However,

a certain amount of generalization is possible. Like the Egyptians, Mesopotamian texts depict

gods or human beings descending into the underworld in a postmortem journey. The

difference was that for the Egyptians the journey was a process to new eternal life in

communion with Re in the sky, but for the Mesopotamians the journey was a one-way

journey to the underworld from which the dead could not return.20 Only a few gods were an

exception to this, such as Enlil, Ninlil, and Inanna, who went voluntarily to the netherworld.

Also Suen was born there and thus could escape from the underworld in exchange for a

substitute.21 As only the dead can descend into the underworld, a god cannot descend without

dying (e.g. Inanna’s descent to the netherworld).22 In general this journey was extremely

perilous. Inanna (Akk. Ishtar) had to pass through seven doors. At each door a gatekeeper

19
Inanna’s descent to the netherworld is earlier Sumerian version. Ishtar’s descent to the netherworld
is later version of Akkadian, which is shorter and modified the earlier version. Inanna’s (Ishtar’s) seven stages to
the underworld represent the process of death. These two myths have some connection with the agricultural
cycle of seasons as the myth “Baal cycle” does (see the Syria-Palestine section). This concept, the agricultural
cycle of seasons, is more obvious in the Akkadian version (Kampen, “Descent” ABD2:145.)
20
From two myths, the Erra myth and the descent of Ishtar, the concept, the dead will become a kind
of monster when they would return to the earth. The dead will lose their memories and will devour the living
human. (The descent of Ishtar. V9-12; The myth Erra. I 175-178.)
21
Katz, Image, 238; Innana (Ishtar) can be released because her lover Dumuzi (Tammuz) takes her
place in the underworld (Philip Johnston, Shades of Sheol : Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers
Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2002, 232.)
22
John Kampen, “Descent to the underworld” ABD2, 145.
 7

allowed only the dead to enter and prevented anyone from leaving. Inanna had to remove

clothes or ornaments in order to pass through each door. In the Gilgamesh Epic, Gilgamesh

had to cross a river, which could not be crossed again, and which required the help of the

ferryman.

As the exclusive domain of the gods into which the dead could not enter (cf. the

Egypt section above), heaven was the opposite of the underworld.23 Mesopotamians clearly

distinguished between the two realms of heaven and the underworld; heaven was only for

gods while the underworld was for the dead.24 In the myth Nergal and Ereshkigal, a stairway

exists between the underworld and heaven.25 According to Dina Katz, the Sumerians clearly

distinguished between the realm of the dead and the realm of the living.26 She explains that

although Sumerian texts and sources do not provide a direct answer to the geographical

aspect of the underworld, general notions about its location are noticeable.27 Regarding the

place of the underworld, two major perceptions are found: horizontal perception and vertical

perception.28 The horizontal perception regarded the place of the underworld as in the West,

while the vertical perception regarded it as under the earth. According to Walton, the

horizontal perception was present in early Sumerian thought and replaced in the third

millennium BCE by the vertical perception.29 Katz argues that the vertical perception is not

Sumerian in origin, but was superimposed upon the Sumerian horizontal perception, and

became the dominant understanding.30 However, in general the geographical location of the

23
Katz, Image, 63.
24
Although the underworld was for the dead, the master(s) of the underworld were the gods Ereskigal
and Nergal.
25
J. F. Healey, “Death, Underworld and Afterlife in the Ugaritic Texts” (Theses, University of
London, 1977), 70.
26
Katz, Image, I.
27
Katz, Image, I.
28
John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the
Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006), 318; Katz, Image, 54.
29
Walton, Ancient, 318.
30
Katz, Image, 54.
 8

underworld was considered to be beneath the earth; to arrive the underworld, one must go

down (cf. the journey of Inanna or Gilgamesh, above).31

Like the Egyptian worldview the grave was considered the entrance into the realm of

the dead. Mountains were also regarded as the entrance to the underworld. Walton categorizes

the grave as a part of the realm of the underworld, whereas Katz regards it as not a part of the

realm of the underworld, but merely an entrance.32 Some sources imply that all graves were

different entrances to the underworld. On the other hand, some other sources regarded the

West, where the sun sets, as the common entrance to the underworld, as the Egyptians

thought.33 Katz further connects the vertical perception to the nocturnal descent of the sun

into the underworld to judge the dead.34 Katz also argues that the reference to the West (e.g.

the expression “Western gate” in the Old Babylonian incantation) should not be taken literally

(i.e. as a concrete geographical indication), but as a metaphor or euphemism for the entrance

to the underworld.35 In connection with the grave, burial customs were as important for the

Mesopotamians as they were for the Egyptians.

Without proper burial customs the Mesopotamians and Egyptians believed that the

deceased would live like a beggar in the underworld. According to the epic of Gilgamesh, the

quality of life for those dwelling in the underworld was determined also by other factors.

Causes of death were crucial to the quality of life in the underworld. In general, the

Mesopotamians believed that the dead ate dust unless their living descendants offered them

real food and drink in their tombs.36 The difference between this practice for the Egyptians

and Mesopotamians was a matter of motivation. In contrast to the Egyptians, the

31
Katz, Image, 238; Doermann, “Sheol,”118.
32
Katz, Image, 238; Doermann, “Sheol,”118.
33
Katz, Image, 238.
34
Katz, Image, 54.
35
Katz, Image, 238.
36
Katz, The Image of the Netherworld, 235; Jo A. Scurlock, “Death and the Afterlife in Ancient
Mesopotamian Thought.” CANE3, 1888.
 9

Mesopotamians believed that the dead, now in the form of ghosts, would return from the

underworld to harm their families if proper rites were not performed. Thus, funeral rites were

motivated by anxiety that the dead might return, and mourning and burial rites were intended

to place the dead firmly in another dimension (the underworld) and prevent their return to the

land of the living.37

In sum, the ancient Mesopotamians believed in the continuation of life after death.

Mesopotamian literature clearly distinguishes the realm of the dead from the realm of the

living as utterly separated realms. How the Mesopotamians thought about the dead and the

underworld was negative and gloomy. The underworld was described as a gloomy, lifeless,

and static place where the deceased were deprived of earthly life and ate dust until they might

receive real food or drink from the living.38 The dead in the underworld were described as

passive beings that were unable to do anything and their status was determined by their

earthly deeds. Comparing conceptions of the underworld in Egypt to those in Mesopotamia,

the underworld of Egypt was the pathway to a new eternal life while the underworld of

Mesopotamia was the final destination of the dead. Overall, the Egyptian underworld was

bright and positive, but the Mesopotamian underworld was gloomy and static.

C. Syria-Palestine

Concerning beliefs about death and the afterlife, sources in Syria-Palestine are

relatively fewer than those in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Besides the Hebrew Scriptures, Ugarit

is an exceptional source for both archaeological and textual evidence concerning religious life

in Syria-Palestine. As the ancient Mesopotamians and the ancient Egyptians, the people of

37
Paolo Xella, “Death and the Afterlife in Canaanite and Hebrew Thought.” CANE3, 2064.
38
Rachel S. Hallote, Death, Burial, and Afterlife in the Biblical World: How the Israelites and Their
Neighbors Treated the Dead (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2001), 107, 109.
 10

ancient Ugarit also believed in the continuation of life after death. They believed that life

does not totally cease upon death, but continues in a kind of concealed survival in the

underworld.39 In Ugaritic ideology, human beings seem to be regarded almost similar to

gods.40 From the Ugaritic king list (KTU 1.113), the deceased becomes an ilu upon death, not

in the sense as one of the high gods of the Ugaritic pantheon, but as the revered company of

the rpum of the underworld (cf. the term Rephaim in the Old Testament).41 Another

difference between humanity and the gods is that only the gods are exempt from the

dominion of death, while all humans are unable to escape from death and must die.42 For

them, the deceased was a preternatural being engaged in activities with the living, but whose

domain was the underworld. Although the underworld is personified in some sources (i.e. the

god Mot is depicted as the underworld), generally the underworld is understood as the

kingdom of the god Mot (i.e. royal seat of Mot or the land of Mot’s inheritance).43 According

to Healey, a distinction in the Ugaritic underworld is, “Ugarit does not present a pantheon of

underworld deities as is found in the Mesopotamian tradition. The only true underworld god

at Ugarit was Mot himself. ”44 As the ancient Mesopotamians, the people of Ugarit thought

that the underworld was located beneath the earth.45 However, the journey to the underworld

is less clearly defined in Ugaritic literature compared to Egyptian and Mesopotamian sources.

From the limited research of this paper, Ugaritic sources seem not to offer detailed

information about the journey of the dead into the underworld, but mostly describe the

journey of gods into the underworld, especially in the myth, “Baal Cycle.” As the dead has to

39
Xella, CANE 3:2063.
40
Ibid., 2062-63.
41
“Note that rpm, ilnym, ilm, and mtm are parallel terms.” (Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in
Ancient Israel and Ugarit, Harvard Semitic monographs: no. 39. Atlanta: Scholars, 1989, 96.
42
Xella, CANE 3:2062-63.
43
Ibid., 2063.
44
Healey, “Death,” 311.
45
See the Mesopotamia section above for this issue, which already discussed.
 11

cross a river during the journey to the underworld in Mesopotamian literature, entering into

the underworld in Ugaritic literature also entails crossing the underworld river of judgment,

called Huber.46 As the dead cannot cross the river without the ferryman in Mesopotamian

literature, likewise only the dead can cross the river by means of the ferryman, Humuttabal.47

Concerning the entrance to the underworld, different ideas are evident. In general, the people

of ancient Ugarit identified burial and descent into the underworld as complementary aspects

of the same process.48 Some sources in Ugarit depict mountains and graves as entrances to

the underworld, in parallel with Mesopotamian tradition. In particular, the people of Ugarit

believed that the sun enters into the underworld via two mountains (trgzz and trmg) in the

west.49 In personified expressions of the underworld, (i.e. the god Mot as the underworld),

the mouth of Mot is depicted as the entrance to the underworld. In this case, Mot’s throat is an

access to the underworld and his abdomen is the underworld itself. Mot is depicted as a

devourer that has an insatiable desire to consume both gods and human beings.50 This idea is

shared in particular with the realm of the Mesopotamian god, Nergal.51 Besides Mot, the

association of other deities (e.g. Sapsu, Resep, Horon, Dagan, and Kutar) with the

underworld are observable, however, it is clear that Mot is the sole divine ruler of the

underworld, an evil devourer of gods and men. On the contrary, Baal (the Lord of the earth

and a storm god) is a god of life who brought fertility in the earth.

From the earliest period of scholarship, it was assumed that Mot, the master of the

underworld, was a fertility deity that represented the summer heat or drought, essentially anti-

46
Healey, “Death,” 86.
47
Ibid., 72-73.
48
Xella, CANE 3:2064.
49
Healey, “Death,” 24; for terms trgzz and trmg see Healey, “Death,” 55-56.
50
Xella, CANE 3:2064.
51
The particular realm of Mesopotamia god Nergal is al muti and kutu. al muti and kutu correspond
to the real earthly cities. For more details, see Healey, “Death,” 63.
 12

fertility corresponding to Baal’s fertilizing functions (e.g. rain-giving).52 In the “Baal Cycle,”

Baal was defeated by Mot and died for seven years, but he was resurrected (KTU 1.5-1.6).53

After seven years Baal was revived, Mot also was revived and challenged Baal, but this time

Baal defeated Mot. This myth was related to the agricultural sphere of the ANE. Many

scholars agree that Baal’s death and resurrection were a reflection of the agricultural seasons:

the death of Baal symbolizing the heat of summer. Baal was regarded as a seasonal dying-

and-rising god.54 Baal was the storm god who brings fertility by offering rain and clouds.

While Baal was dead (i.e. descending to the underworld) the heat of summer was brought by

Mot, drought followed, and the land became infertile. A similar motif is found in the epic of

Keret.55 As the Mesopotamians believed a possibility of return of the dead, which can be

harmful to the living, the ancient people of Ugarit also performed mourning and burial rites

including the practice of leaving gifts in the grave for the dead as an inducement to prevent

the possible return of the dead to the land of the living.56 This indicates that the people of

ancient Ugarit also believed that they could accommodate the needs of the dead by putting

real foods and drinks in the tomb.57 However, compared to the Mesopotamians, for the

people of Ugarit the dead were not characterized as totally negative, passive, or tragic.58

Rather they seek to establish proper relations between the living and the dead, attempting to

integrate the dead “into a kind of society where the living and the dead coexist in a certain

degree of symbiosis.”59

II. lwOav. in the Old Testament

52
Healey, “Death,” 33, 42.
53
Baal was revived not by himself, but his sister, Anat, revived him by vanquishing Mot.
54
Kampen, “Descent” ABD 2:145.
55
Johnston. Philip S. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (Downers Grove:
InterVarsity, 2002), 233.
56
Xella, CANE 3:2064.
57
Doermann, “Sheol,”84.
58
Xella, CANE 3:2065.
59
Xella, CANE 3:2064-65.
 13

A. Etymology of lwOav.

The etymology of lwOav. has a long and contentious history. Many scholars have tried to

find some connection between the term lwOav. and other cognate languages. In 1881 and again

in 1886, Delitzch suggested that the term lwOav. was derived from the Akkadian word of the

underworld, sualu. Gunkel (1895), Jastrow (1897) and others followed Delitzch and it

eventually became the scholarly consensus.60 However, it was abandoned after Jensen

(1890), Heidel (1949) and von Soden (1970) criticized the misappropriation of the Akkadian

sualu, claiming it was a misreading of the cuneiform.61 Jensen, who first criticized Delitzch's

analysis in 1890, connected the biblical word lwOav. with the descent of the sun deity Samas

into the underworld. Jensen retracted this at a later time, eventually recognizing the

uncertainty in his own reasoning.62 In 1918, Albright examined the Akkadian verb saalu and

argued that its translation is “to decide,” therefore deeming lwOav. to be equivalent to a place of

decision and fates.63 Later in 1926, Albright supposed the interchange between r and l (i.e.

from saalu to suara) and looked to the Akkadian word suara to illuminate the biblical term

lwOav..64 Albright further insisted that suara must be the modified form of subaru or subartu,

which is associated with the Tammuz cult and equated with Hubur, the river of the

underworld.65 Later in 1956, Albright embraced another analysis of lwav, the place of ordeal

or examination.66 All these scholars tried to find the etymology of lwOav. among Akkadian

words (cf. E. Devaud and W. Wifall who attempted to derive the term lwOav. from Egyptian. W.

Wifall assumed that the term lwOav. is an indirect loan from the Egypt term sihor, “pond of

60
Lewis, ABD 2:102.
61
Lewis, ABD 2:102; Watcher, TDOT 14:240.
62
Lewis, ABD 2:102.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid.
 14

Horus,” a designation for the underworld in Egyptian mythology).67 In 1946 and again in

1956, however, Koehler asserted that lwOav. is an original Hebrew word, not derived from any

other cognate language.68

Koehler concluded that the term lwOav. may have derived from the root s’h that can

connote a “desolate or devastated place, which is best translated by “no land” or

“nothingness,” designating a world where there is shadow, decay, and remoteness from

God.69 Wachter focuses on a separation into the constituent parts s and ol. He suggests that

seol might derive from an earlier seal. Wachter says, “In Hebrew as well as in other Semitic

languages, ’al is widespread as a negation that was originally a substantive with the meaning

‘nothing.’”70 According to this view, Wachter, who prefers the latter, suggests two possible

understandings for the term: 1) In the causative sense, the term lwOav. would mean “make into

nothing” or “destroy,” but 2) functioning as a relative pronoun the term lwOav. can be

recognized as commensurate with Akkadian term su holding the meaning of “belonging to

nothingness” or “place of nothingness.”71 However, the most plausible etymology for lwOav. is

to accept it as a derivative from the verb lav “ask, demand, inquire.”72 This proposal

emerged early and remained popular, but it has been argued for many years with slightly

different nuances.73 However, there is still no consensus on the etymology of lwOav.. Since the

origin of the term cannot be found, the term should be regarded as unique to the Hebrew

Bible, possibly originating from Israel.74

67
Watcher, TDOT 14:240.
68
Ibid.
69
Watcher, TDOT 14:240.
70
Watcher, TDOT 14:241.
71
Watcher, TDOT 14:240.
72
Lewis, ABD 2:102.
73
Lewis, ABD 2:102; Watcher, TDOT 14:240; for more detail discussions on the issue of etymology
of the term, see “Dust” 180-183 and Doermann, “Sheol” 9-37.
74
Most Old Testament scholars prior to the 1960s supposed that lwOav. is the only term for the
underworld in the Old Testament. However, Dahood and Tromp argue in favor of a widespread underworld
interest and reinterpreted many Hebrew terms (e.g. the term #ra) and texts in this sense. See the appendix for
brief discussion on this issue. See also, Johnston, Shades, 98.
 15

B. Debate over Whether the Term Means Grave, Underworld, or Both

Martin-Achard (1956) regards lwOav. as a sort of vast grave.75 R. Laird Harris has

consistently argued (in 1961, 1980, and 1986) that the term lwOav. always means grave and

never holds any connotation surrounding the underworld.76 Lewis points out the weakness of

Harris’ view, claiming that Harris overlooks the solidarity and shared legacy between the

biblical authors and ANE environment (e.g. Mesopotamia, Ugarit, or Egypt).77 On the

contrary, prior to Harris, Pedersen (in 1926) consults with extra-biblical material and the

ANE environment and affirms that lwOav. is the netherworld (i.e. the underworld).78 Pedersen,

however, does not entirely reject the idea of the grave, for the grave cannot be separated from

lwOav..79 Pedersen regards lwOav. as the entirety of all graves, the sum of the graves.80 Heidel

(1949) agrees with Pedersen that lwOav. refers to both the underworld and the grave as well.81

Similarly, Eugene H. Merrill clarifies: “lwOav. designates both the grave and the underworld,

particularly the latter.”82 Rosenberg (1980) criticizes Pedersen’s excessive influence of the

extra-biblical material and his idea, which regards the grave as a veritable continuum with the

underworld.83 Rosenberg argues that the concept of the grave and of lwOav. or its semantic

equivalents are distinguishable and views lwOav. as simply the underworld, not a continuum of

the grave.84 Except regarding the grave as a veritable continuum with the underworld, as

Rosenberg criticized, Pedersen’s understanding seems reasonable.

C. Overview of Usage of the term lwOav. in the OT

75
Martin-Achard. Robert, From Death to Life: A Study of the Development of the Doctrine of the
Resurrection in the Old Testament. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960), 38.
76
Lewis, ABD 2:103.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid.
79
Ibid.
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
82
VanGemeren, NIDOTTE 4:6-7.
83
Lewis, ABD 2:103.
84
Ibid.
 16

Since various and complex factors including conflicting views on the term lwOav. exist

in the OT, having a coherent understanding of lwOav. by harmonizing these conflicting views is

not an easy process. Considering the unity of Scripture (i.e. coherence of truth in Scripture),

one system of theology of lwOav. is contained in Scripture. To do this, it is necessary to discuss

the nature, function, and purpose of lwOav. by examining the sixty-six occurrences of the term,

which are scattered throughout the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, with its anthropological

and theological aspects. Considering limited word counts of the paper, only brief and

condensed summaries can be offered.

1. lwOav. in Torah, Prophets, and Writings

According to Galenieks, the seven occurrences of term lwOav. in the Torah exclusively

connected with the dead, not in doctrinal sense, but in experiential (Gen 32, 42, 44),

instructional (Num 16), and doxological (Deut 32) senses.85

2. Development of the Concept of the Afterlife in Israel

As previously mentioned, the Israelite focused on the present life and had little

concern for the afterlife, and in general the OT reflects this view. However, some scholars

(e.g. Eriks Galenieks and Janet K. Smith) point out that a development of Israel’s view on the

issue can be found throughout the OT.86 The development is divided into two parts: the

earlier view and the later view. The earlier view is that the dead have no community with

YHWH. Distressed expressions in laments and thanksgivings (e.g. Ps 88) are evidences of the

earlier view (e.g. in Ps 11:17 no one can praise God from lwOav.).87 Another piece of evidence

is that the Former Prophets have no new insights concerning lwOav. (e.g. its spatial

characteristics, physical features, or any kind of qualifying elements), which would hint at

85
Galenieks, “Nature,” 68, 74.
86
Galenieks, “Nature,” 601; Doermann, “Sheol,” 258, 287.
87
Watcher, TDOT 14:247.
 17

life’s continuation in lwOav..88 Smith explains, “lwOav. became more real and more of an issue to

be dealt with” and prompted theological questions such as “What happens to the soul of one

who dies in the desert or in battle?” “What is the relationship of the Temple to life and

death?” “Why do the righteous suffer?” and “What is lwOav. and who goes there?” These

questions led the Israelites to begin thinking about afterlife. With the growing awareness of

YHWH’s omnipotence and the meaning of his covenant loyalty, the Israelite began to believe

that the dead continuously have fellowship with YHWH.89 This development was probably

caused by “Monotheistic Reform.” Smith notes that when the Israelites left Egypt, they had

no monotheistic Yahwism yet.90

3. State of the Dead in lwOav. regarding Holistic View of Anthropology in the OT

One of the most important questions regarding the concept of lwOav. is what kind of

state the dead exist in lwOav.. This, concerning the condition of the dead during the interim

period after death, is another controversial and crucial issue in the debate, which should

consider the sixty-six occurrences of the term lwOav. with the anthropological-theological

issues in the OT. Here are some various understandings of scholars. For M. and L. Becque

and Martin Achard, after death the breath of life dwells in lwOav..91 For Morey, after death the

soul or spirit goes to lwOav..92 For G. Ladd, the dead exist not as the soul or the spirit without

the body, but as a shadowy figure.93 J. West agrees with G. Ladd and regards ~yhiOla/ of

Samuel in 1 Sam 28 as a shadowy figure.94 However, since recent scholars (e.g. James Barr

and Hans Walter Wolff) revealed that the OT contains no term nor theology to support the

88
Galenieks, “Nature,” 267.
89
Doermann, “Sheol,” 287.
90
Smith, “Dust,” 230.
91
Maurice Becque and Louis Becque, Life after Death (New York: Hawthorn Books, 1960), 96;
Martic-Achard, From Life to Death, 17; Morey, Death and the Afterlife, 72.
92
Galenieks, “Nature,” 604.
93
George E. Ladd, “Eschatology” ISBE 2:133, cited by Galenieks, “Nature,” 271.
94
Jim West, “Sheol,” Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible, ed. David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers,
and Astrid B. Beck (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1206-1207.
 18

immortal nature of the soul, but supports a holistic view of anthropology, these interpretations

should be reevaluated. This holistic view of humanity excludes the traditional (or literal,

purgatorial) view of the immortality of the soul. In other words, the holistic view excludes

existence of the soul apart from the body.95 Gelenieks points out that lwOav. in the OT never

once is associated with the existence of the dead person’s soul or spirit.96 Then what kind of

form or state the dead exists in lwOav.? Considering the holistic view discussed above, the

theory of shadowy existence by Ladd or the soul’s conscious existence (or semi-conscious

existence) in a bodiless form are more reasonable answers for the question.97 Galenieks cites

Theodoras C. Vriezen (An Outline of Old Testament Theology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell,

1970) that Gen 2:7; 3:18; Qoh 3:19-20; 12:7 represent the scriptural paradigm of

anthropology: the dust and the breath of life as the two primary elements of humanity.

Gelenieks summarizes, “At death the creation order is reversed as the body becomes again

the dust of the earth, but the spirit of life, or the divine energy that animates all living beings,

returns to God.”98 From this perspective, Galenieks says, “Death is not to extricate the soul

from the body to take it to lwOav. or heaven for further existence, but to destroy and annihilate

every function of human life.”99 Galenieks further argues that holistic beings, living souls

with body in life, become “dead souls” without body in lwOav.. I consent that animated breath

of life returns to YHWH and the body returns to the dust of the earth at death. In other words,

basically humanity is destroyed at death. However, I do not regard this as annihilation. Even

though the body and the breath of life are destroyed at death, memories, characteristics, and

95
Eriks. Galenieks, “The Nature, Funtion, and Purpose of the Term lwOav. in the Torah, Prophets, and
Writings” (Ph.D. diss., Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary, 2005), 603.
96
Galenieks, “Nature,” 591.
97
Ibid., 616.
98
Ibid., 617.
99
Isa 38:18,19; Pss 6:6; 30:4,10; 88:4,11; 115:17; 146:4; Qoh 9:5,6. See also Ray S. Anderson, On
Being Human: Essays in Theological Anthropology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), 213; idem, Theology,
Death and Dying, 104-123, commented by Galenieks, “Nature,” 618.
 19

personalities of each, which is unique, remain. In other words, something like memories,

characteristics, and personalities exist in lwOav. and all of these (individual memories,

characteristics, and personalities) will be brought up and will be recreated with a new body

and new breath of life as YHWH created humanity in the beginning.

III. Comparative Analysis: Similarities and Differences between the

Underworld in the ANE and lwOav
The concept of an underground dwelling for the dead was extant among almost all of

the peoples surrounding ancient Israel. Compared to the three nations in the ANE, concepts of

the underworld in Mesopotamia and in Ugarit show strong echoes with the Hebrew concept

of lwOav, while the concepts of Egypt’s underworld has very little in common with it. lwOav. is a

dark, dismal, and gloomy place of no return (Job 16:22) with gates (Isa 38:10. cf. gatekeepers

in myths of the Mesopotamia and the Ugarit) and bars (Jonah 2:6) as in the Mesopotamian

and Ugaritic conceptions.100 It is quite clear that in Israel necromancy was practiced, which

was prohibited in the book of Deuteronomy by YHWH. In 1 Sam 28 the dead Samuel was

called up, ~yhiOla? of Samuel was brought up by the medium at Endor.101 However, this is the

only occurrence in the OT, which describes escape of the dead, and should be understood as a

special occurrence. In general, “the Rephaim were completely cut off from the land of the

living. They did, however, have a share in the weal and woe of the community through their

seed and their name, both of which lived on after them.”102 There are many similarities of

detail between the Mesopotamian Aralu and lwOav., which suggests that Israel possibly

borrowed some of these details from Mesopotamia or the Canaanites.103 However, as

Doermann argues, “it is doubtful that a direct borrowing can be substantiated,” though many

The ‘cords of lwOav.’ may suggest captivity (Pss. 18:5; 116:3), Johnston, Shades, 76.
100

For the issue of necromancy in 1 Sam 28, see Dr. Bill T. Arnold’s excellent article. Bill T. Arnold,
101

“Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuel,” CBQ 66 (2004): 199–213.

102
Doermann, “Sheol,” 286.
103
Doermann, “Sheol,” 288.
 20

epithets are similar, since no satisfactory connection has been proved between the two

terms.104 Doermann says, “If such were the case it would be natural to expect that the name

was borrowed as well.”105 Israel might be influenced or borrow some ideas from the

concepts of Aralu, but it seems that Israel used and developed those by their own theological

way. Israel’s burial customs also show similarities with burial customs in the ANE. Regarding

the inhabitants of lwOav., another unique term in the OT should be noted, namely the Rephaim.

According to Doermann, the Rephaim are those who did not receive a proper burial, lack

activity, and were neither souls nor bodies but were still recognizable by their physical

characteristics and clothing.106 Doermann also points out, “It is probable that the Rephaim

were thought to have some need of nourishment, for funeral offerings of food and drink were

often deposited in the grave, and there is evidence that libations were poured out at the grave

from time to time.”107 The practice of placing objects (e.g. lamps, dishes, jars, etc.) in the

tombs is evident in the Israelite context.108 In the book of Jewish Antiquities, Josephus

referred to the great amount of wealth buried in the royal tombs.109 Doermann notes, “The

prohibition in Deut 26:14 was not against food offerings to the dead but against the use of

consecrated food for this purpose.”110 Thus, it is possible to think that the ancient Israelite

also believed the necessity of foods for the dead as peoples of Egypt, Mesopotamia, and

Ugarit did. However, these practices, including the pouring of libations, should not be

considered as an act of worship.111 The Ugaritic term rpum, which is a term used to

104
Doermann, “Sheol,” 258-59; cf. H. W. Robinson, “The Old Testament Approach to Life after
Death,” CQ 3 (1925), 140.
105
Doermann, “Sheol,” 258-59.
106
Doermann, “Sheol,” 224, 285.
107
Doermann, “Sheol,” 286.
108
Doermann, “Sheol,” 241-42; G. E. Wright, Additional Remarks on Ancient Burial Customs, 1974,
17.
109
Jewish Antiquities, 13. 8. 4. (Ll. 249ff.), trans. By Ralph Marcus; cf. 16. 7. 1,2, cited by
Doermann, “Sheol,” 242.
110
Doermann, “Sheol,” 242.
111
Ibid., 286.
 21

designate the long-dead ancestors who reside in the underworld, is noteworthy since the term

is equivalent to the Hebrew term Rephaim.112 Though many think the Ugaritic term rpum

shed light on the Hebrew term Rephaim, the two terms in each literary context were used

quite differently.113 In Ugaritic literature, the term means dead ancestors who were seen as

semi-divine patrons or protectors.114 Healey explains, “Rpum referred to a group of ancestral

dead who were invoked to ensure the fertility of the kingdom and to whose fellowship

belonged the royal house.”115 Though many similarities exist among Mesopotamia, Ugarit,

and Israel, there are differences, which make the concept of lwOav unique.

Basically, the focus of Israel’s faith is in the life of the living, while afterlife was of

little concern. This distinguishes Israel’s literature significantly from that of Israel’s

neighbors.116 As mentioned above, the Mesopotamians had less interest in the afterlife

compared to the Egyptians, but compared to Israel, Mesopotamian sources contain relatively

many more descriptions of the afterlife. Indeed, the Egyptians placed far more emphasis on

life after death than Israel. However, it is noteworthy that although the Israelites were

probably acquainted with Egyptian ideas, Israel did not appropriate these in their concept of

lwOav..117 Among differences between concepts of the underworld in the ANE and the concepts

of lwOav. in the OT, the most significant differences are 1) lwOav. is not a place of god(s) (e.g. the

underworld was the seat of one of several gods in Mesopotamia and was the kingdom of Mot

in Ugarit), no deities are in lwOav., and YHWH also does not abide in it, 2) Though sometimes

death (mawet) is personified, especially in the writings (e.g., Ps. 49:15[14]), such usage is

poetical (i.e. figurative) to emphasize the sovereignty of YHWH over death, how YHWH’s

112
Lewis, Cults, 95; since scholars found out that u represents one form of the Ugaritic equivalent of
Hebrew aleph (’), the term rpum has the same consonants as Hebrew rephaim. (Johnston, Shades, 134.)
113
For more detail discussion, see Johnston, Shades, 141-42.
114
Johnston, Shades, 142.
115
Healey, “Death,” 311.
116
Johnston, Shades, 70.
117
Doermann, “Sheol,” 288.
 22

power extends even into lwOav. (no such idea of confrontation between mawet or death and

YHWH as the confrontation between Baal and Mot in “the Baal Cycle”), 3) In contrast to the

ANE literature (e.g., Gilgamesh, The Descent of Ishtar, Nergal and Ereshkigal), Israel’s

canonical literature contains no such epics about descent to the underworld or return from it

guided by various deities,118 and 4) Nothing like “letters to the dead” appears in the OT.

Tentative Conclusion

Though the issue, what kind of form the dead exist in lwOav., is not fully resolved in

this paper, the research is enough to make a tentative conclusion. The concepts of lwOav. in the

OT show little in common with concepts of the underworld in Egypt, but are similar to

concepts of the underworld and death in Mesopotamia and Ugarit. It is clear that the Israelite

was influenced by these cultures. However, considering unique characteristics and concepts

of lwOav., lwOav. should be understood as unique to Israel and different from the concepts of the

underworld in the ANE. The most feasible answer regarding the diverse concepts of lwOav.

throughout the OT is that it experienced a process of development in parallel with Israel’s

own theological development as they acquired knowledge of truth (e.g. YHWH’s

omnipotence, monotheism, the meaning of his covenant loyalty, and etc.). Considering the

fact that the Israelite did not use any of Egypt’s concepts of the afterlife, it is feasible that the

Israelites might not have indiscriminately accepted concepts of foreign cultures, but prudently

scrutinized similar foreign cultural concepts according to their own coherent theology,

Monotheism.

118
Johnston, Shades, 69.
 23

Appendix
I. The term #ra in the Old Testament

The term #ra is a very common word in the Old Testament, which means ground, land,

country, world, and earth. In ancient Babylonia and Ugarit, “earth” (Akk ersetu and

Ugarit ’rs) often means underworld. Akkadian ersetu was the most frequent designation for

the underworld and in ancient Ugarit, the phrase “descend to the depth of the earth” is always
 24

equated with a descent into the underworld.119 In the Hebrew Scriptures, some expressions

(tehomot ha’ares, the “primal waters of the earth” [Ps. 71:20] and mehpere-ares, “depths of

the earth” [Ps. 95:4]) allude to the underworld or to its access; however, in ancient Israel the

word for earth #ra itself was not understood as a synonym for the underworld to the same

extent as it was in Ugarit and Babylon.120 For this reason, all occurrences of the term #ra in

the Old Testament had been interpreted using its common meanings (ground, land, country,

world, and earth) before 1895. In 1895, however, Gunkel proposed that the term should be

interpreted as netherworld (or underworld).121 He initially suggested eleven text for this

proposal, and later in 1926 he added more texts (e.g. Jonah 2:6 and Ps. 71:20; 143:3).122

After Barth initiated the proposal, subsequent scholars started to follow it, albeit

independently with significant different lists. In 1907, Dhorme suggested that only two

texts should be understood as netherworld (1 Sam. 28:13 and Is. 26:19); BDB (1096) listed

three passages (Job10:21-22, Ps. 139:15, Is. 44:23) in 1917; Baumgartner proposed six

pericopes (Ps. 22:29; 71:20; 143:3; Jer. 17:13; Jonah 2:6; Sirach 51:9). In 1947, Barth

suggested seven (Ps. 22:29; 44:25; 61:2; 63:9; 71:20; 95:4; 106:17; Jonah 2:6); in 1955,

Cross-Freedman suggested that the term clearly means netherworld in five separate contexts

(Gen. 2:6; Exod. 15:12; Is. 14:9; 29:4; Jonah 2:6), and Hal (vol. 1, 1976) listed twelve

texts.123 From Barth to HAL, a total of twenty-six passages had been suggested. In a sense,

Dahood and Tromp completed these long period works. In 1966, including the previous

twenty-six texts, Dahood and Tromp extended the numbers of pericopes into an even longer

list.124 Six years earlier, Tromp first offered some prolific ideas of this meaning. After Tromp

119
Watcher, TDOT 14:243; Lewis, ABD 2:101-2.
120
Watcher, TDOT 14:243; Lewis, ABD 2:101-2.
121
The eleven texts are Ex 15:12; Ps 63:9; 139:15 Eccl 3:21; Is 14:12; 29:4; 44:23; Ezek 26:20;
31:14, 16, 18; 32:18, 24; Johnston, Shades, 99.
122
Johnston, Shades, 99.
123
Johnston, Shades, 99-100.
124
Ibid., 99.
 25

examined thirty-one texts, Tromp accepted twenty-two of them.125 As a result of these long

periods of research from that accomplished by Gunkel to Tromp's exegesis, many subsequent

scholars (e.g. Ottosson and Seybold) accepted this proposal, and it remains to be regarded

commonly as the most appropriate interpretation.126

II. Who goes in lwOav.? All the Dead or Only Wicked?

The common understanding of the term is to view it as a place where all of the dead go

down to. This remains contested, however as not all agree on who is in lwOav.—whether only

the wicked or all of the dead including the righteous who were faithful to God and the Law.

Martin-Achard (1956) distinguishes lwOav, from Gehenna and it’s concept of punishment and

claims that all of the dead, both the righteous and the wicked without distinction, find

themselves together in lwOav. after death.127 John Gray consents with Martin-Achard as he

comments: “lwOav. is the shadowy, insubstantial underworld, the destination of all the dead

without discrimination, where existence is wholly undesirable.”128 Against this traditional

view, others see lwOav. as the habitation of the wicked only. For example, Heidel (1949) asserts

that “there is no passage which proves that lwOav. was ever employed as a designation for the

gathering-place of the departed spirits of the godly.”129 Similarly Rosenberg (1980) proposes

that lwOav. is associated with the concept of premature or “evil death,” which was distinguished

from the common fate of all humans.130 The traditional view, considering lwOav. as the

125
Ibid., 100.
126
Ibid.
127
Robert Martin-Achard, From Death to Life: A Study of the Development of The Doctrine of the
Resurrection in the Old Testament trans. John Penney Smith. (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1960), 38; This
understanding, all the dead (both the righteous and the wicked) together abide in lwOav. without separation,
punishment and reward, was the traditional view of OT time, which had dominated until the time of Jesus. But,
in the parable of the Rich Man and the Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), which was told by Jesus, there is separation
between the righteous and the wicked and a punishment (agony in flames) exists in a[dhj (Greek term of lwOav.).
128
John Gray, 1 and 2 Kings (3rd revised edition; London: SCM, 1977), 102.
129
Lewis, ABD 2:104.
130
Ibid.
 26

destination of all the dead, godly and ungodly alike, has been challenged by recent scholars.

Routledge, in his journal “Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (2008),”131 well

summarizes this recent challenge against the traditional view. Core consensus of this

challenge is not to see lwOav. as the final destiny of all the dead, for both godly and ungodly

without discrimination, Routledge explains.132 This new perspective characterizes lwOav. as a

place where there exists no reward, no knowledge, no wisdom (Eccl 9:10), and no returnable

place (Job 7:9; cf. 2 Sam 12:23; Isa 26:13-14). In 1985, Levenson quotes Johannes Pederson

and John Gray in his book “Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel” and objects their

traditional view.133 In 1990, James Barr expressed doubts about the idea of lwOav. as a

destination; he argues that the Old Testaments seems to speak mainly in connection with the

evildoers and questions whether the righteous (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Moses, and David) were

thought to be in lwOav..134 Johnston discusses that out of a total of thirty-four occurrences of

lwOav. as a place of human destiny, twenty-five are linked with the fate of the ungodly and only

seven refer to the righteous in their descent into lwav.135 Johnston argues that generally

references of the righteous occur in times of crisis, and he points out that there is no mention

of lwOav. when death is described.136 Johnston concludes that the Hebrew term lwOav. is not for

all the dead, but for those under divine judgment either the wicked or the afflicted

righteous.137 Routledge compares Levenson’s view with Johnston's and expounds the

similarities between the views of these two scholars. Levenson recognizes two passages (Ps

89:48 and Eccl 9:10) in the OT refer lwOav. as an universal destiny where all the dead go (i.e.

131
Robin L. Routledge, “Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament.” JEBS 9 (2008): 22–39.
132
Routledge, “Death,” 22.
133
Ibid., 29.
134
James Barr, The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. (London: SCM, 1992), 29;
Routledge, Death, 29.
135
Routledge, “Death,” 29; See also Johnston, Shade, 80-81.
136
Routledge, “Death,” 29.
137
Johnston, Shades, 83.
 27

the traditional view of lwOav.). But he concludes, though death is universal, the terrors of lwOav.

are only for those who die outside the blessing of YHWH.138 He makes this conclusion as a

result of his view concerning the emphasis within these passages on the futility of life as

opposed to the blessing that can also be found in life.139 Routledge himself also objects to the

traditional view. He maintains that a peaceful experience in the death of the righteous (e.g.

Abraham, Joshua, and David) serves as evidence for his objection. Routledge also illustrates

the context of the events told about in 1 Sam. 28:13. He claims that Samuel’s complaint in

verse 15 indicates a peaceful postmortem existence. Routledge contends, “If he was facing

the horrors usually associated with lwOav., we might expect that he would be glad to be

disturbed!”140 Routledge affirms that this fact of Samuel’s willingness to return lwOav.

challenges the traditional view. Routledge also rejects the figurative view of Waltke.141 For

Waltke, lwOav. primarily refers to the grave. Waltke maintains “that the description of lwOav. is

figurative; the dead do not have consciousness, but wait in the grave for their final

resurrection.”142 Routledge rejects this view of Waltke for if lwOav. refers specifically to the

grave, this in turn supports the traditional view that lwOav. as a place for all of the dead.

Routledge, as opposed to Waltke, contends that lwOav. does not merely refer the grave, but that

it also designates the underworld, pointing to the belief of postmortem existence.143

Routledge concludes that lwOav. is the place of the dead, but not necessarily the place for all of

the dead. However, this new attempt to understand lwOav. has its limitations for the

interpretation of the Old Testament since it does not clearly support this alternative view as

well as it adheres to the traditional view. Acknowledging the limits of his alternative view,

138
Routledge, “Death,” 30.
139
Ibid., 29-30.
140
Ibid., 30.
141
Bruce K. Waltke and C. Yu, An Old Testament Theology: an Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic
Approach (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006,) 966-969.
142
Ibid.
143
Routledge, Death, 30.
 28

Levenson argues that lwOav. “is reserved for those who die untimely deaths or who die under

divine judgment.”144 Levenson, acknowledging these parameters, points out two key factors:

1) Dying in blessed and contended, and 2) the continuation of the family line and of the

family name.145 Levenson does not deny the possibility of joining ancestors in the afterlife,

but he clarifies that this cannot be lwOav. for it is characterized by isolation and because lwOav.

indicates more than a communal grave.146 Levenson does not develop his idea to a beatific

afterlife, as a binary opposite of lwOav. where the wicked go after death, but he does suggest

that the Temple, which had links with the Garden of Eden, is associated with the eternal

blessings of those who die in righteousness.147

II. Anthropology of Mesopotamia

According to Katz, ancient Mesopotamia had a dualistic anthropology in the

understanding of the two entities of body and soul (i.e. spirit; cf. three components of the

soul, ba, akh, and ka, in Egypt. See CANE.3:1763-64.). They assumed that the two entities (the

body and the soul) become a single segmented entity (the soul only) at death; the body

perished after death, but the soul remains.148 For ancient Mesopotamians, the soul is a

concrete physical entity. Although the soul is unseen, it is as tangible as the wind.149 The

Mesopotamians believed that humans were created with clay and the blood of a murdered

god, and at death when separated from the flesh (clay), a human becomes a ‘ghost.’150

144
Ibid., 31.
145
Ibid.
146
Levenson, Resurrection, 73-74.
147
For more details, see Routledge, “Death,” 30-32.
148
Dina Katz, The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources (Bethesda: CDL Press, 2003),
235.
149
Katz, The Image of the Netherworld, 235.
150
Jon Davies, Death, Burial, and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1999),
55.
 29

Bibliography
Abusch, Tzvi. “Ghost and God : Some Observations on a Babylonian Understanding of

Human Nature.” Pages 363–83 in Self, Soul and Body in Religious Experience.

Leiden: E J Brill, 1998.

Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan Beyer, eds., Readings from the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids:
 30

Baker Academic, 2002.

Assmann, Jan. Death and Salvation in Ancient Egypt. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2005.

Astour, Michael C. “The Nether World and Its Denizens at Ugarit.” Pages 227–38 in Death in

Mesopotamia. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980.

Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics Vol. 3: The Doctrine of Creation Part 2. Edited by Bromiley

G. W and Torrance T.F. Edingurgh, T. & T. Clark, 1960.

Barr, James. The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Black, Jeremy A., Anthony Green, and Tessa Rickards. Gods, Demons, and Symbols of

Ancient Mesopotamia: An Illustrated Dictionary. Austin: University of Texas Press,

1992.

Bottéro, Jean. Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia. Translated by Teresa Lavender Fagan.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001.

Caquot, André, and Maurice Sznycer. Ugaritic Religion. Iconography of religions. Section

15: Mesopotamia the Near East: Fasc. 8. Leiden: Brill, 1980.

Craigie, Peter C. Ugarit and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Cribb, Bryan. Speaking on the Brink of Sheol: Form and Message of Old Testament Death
 31

Stories. Piscataway: Gorgias Press, 2009.

David Noel Freedman, Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck eds., “Afterlife, Afterdeath.”

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. 24–27. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

Davies, Jon. Death, Burial, and Rebirth in the Religions of Antiquity. London: Routledge,

1999.

Doermann, Ralph W. “Sheol in the Old Testament.” Ph.D. diss, Duke University, 1961.

Galenieks, Eriks. “The Nature, Funtion, and Purpose of the Term lwOav. in the Torah, Prophets,

and Writings.” Ph.D. diss., Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological

Seminary, 2005.

Hallote, Rachel S. Death, Burial, and Afterlife in the Biblical World: How the Israelites and

Their Neighbors Treated the Dead. Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 2001.

Hays, Christopher B. Death in the Iron Age II and in First Isaiah. Forschungen zum Alten

Testament: 79. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.

Healey, J. F. “Death, Underworld and Afterlife in the Ugaritic Texts.” Theses., University of

London, 1977.

Healey, John F. “The Sun Deity and the Underworld: Mesopotamia and Ugarit.” Pages 239–
 32

42 in Death in Mesopotamia. Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980.

Jacobs, Vivian, and Isaac Rosensohn Jacobs. “The Myth of Môt and ʼAlʼeyan Baʻal.” Harv.

Theol. Rev. 38, no. 2 (1945): 77–109.

Jeremias, Alfred, and J. Hutchison. The Babylonian Conception of Heaven and Hell.

Translated by J. Hutchison. The ancient East, no. iv. London: D. Nutt, 1902.

Johnston, Philip. Shades of Sheol: Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament. Downers Grove:

InterVarsity Press, 2002.

Katherine Doob Sakenfeld, ed., Segal, Alan F. “Afterlife.” The New Interpreter’s Dictionary

of the Bible Vol. 1. 65–68. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006.

Katz, Dina. The Image of the Netherworld in the Sumerian Sources. Bethesda: CDL Press,

2003.

Kittel, Gerhard, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological

Dictionary of the New Testament Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand

Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964.

Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Creation Myths. Mesopotamian Civilizations. Winona Lake:

Eisenbrauns, 2013.

Lewis, Theodore J. Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit. Harvard Semitic
 33

monographs: no. 39. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.

L’Heureux, Conrad E. Rank among the Canaanite Gods: El, Baal, and the Rephaỉm. Harvard

Semitic monographs: no. 21. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979.

Oldenburg, Ulf. The Conflict between El and Baảl in Canaanite Religion. Leiden: E. J. Brill,

1969.

Olmo Lete, Gregorio del. Canaanite Religion: According to the Liturgical Texts of Ugarit

Translated by Wilfred G.E. Watson. Bethesda: CDL Press, 1999.

Orlin, Louis L. Life and Thought in the Ancient Near East. Ann Arbor: University of

Michigan, 2007.

Pham, Xuan Huong Thi. “Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible.” JSOT.

Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.

Sasson, Jack M., John Baines, Gary Beckman, and Karen S. Rubinson, eds. Civilizations of

the Ancient Near East. Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2000.

Smith, Janet K. “Dust or Dew: Immortality in Ancient Near East and in Psalm 49.” Ph.D.

diss., Hebrew Bible at the Union Institute & University, 2009.

Smith, Mark S, and Elizabeth Bloch-Smith. “Death and Afterlife in Ugarit and Israel.” J. Am.

Orient. Soc. 108, no. 2 (1988): 277–84.

 34

Spencer, A. Jeffrey. Death in Ancient Egypt. London, England. New York: Penguin Books,

1991.

Spronk, Klaas. Beatific Afterlife in Ancient Israel and in the Ancient Near East. Neukirchen-

Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1986.

Walton, John H. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament: Introducing the

Conceptual World of the Hebrew Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2006.

Wolff, Hans W. Anthropology of the Old Testament. Mifflintown: Sigler, 1996.

Wyatt, N. "The Concept and Purpose of Hell: Its Nature and Development in West Semitic

Thought." Numen 56 No. 2-3, 2009, 161-184.