Jagella

Now which “misleading translation� is an error? The 2000 years of translations on the part of Christians, or the two-year-old translation on the part of some atheist?

Yes, but how did all this business of gentiles showing all this interest in Judaism and making up a religion that purports to “fulfill� Judaism with a messiah get started?

Really? How much like “the familiar and horrible garbage dump� is hell, then?

Which Jews are you referring to? From which era? I do know that many Jews, like almost all people, tended to make a fuss over where they were buried, but no doubt at least some Jews tended to feel differently about burial.

Again, which Jews are you referring to? Which sect(s)? I do hope you aren’t broad brushing them as all a bunch of cowards that could be frightened by threatening them with burial in a garbage dump.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

Show us where to check. Show us specifically where the authors of the Gospels describe Gehenna as anything but bu the Valley of Hinnon.
You're the one making the assertion. You're the one with the burden of proof. There are a number of Christian beliefs which are not in the Bible. Try finding the Trinity in the NT, or the doctrine of Original Sin.

Diogenes the Cynic

It's not just my translation, it's the translation. Look in any Greek Lexicon. The mistranslations in some English versions are not "opinions" they are simply biased mistranslations. There have historically always been Christian translators who dishonestly bias their translations in favor of their personal theological agendas.
You posted passages that refer to Gehenna and I told you they refer to Gehenna. Thus far you have offered no argument or evidence to support any other translation.
Biased in favor of what? Why? I'm an atheist so what would be my motive for defending the NT?

As a matter of fact, I haven't even made any interpretations. I've made some translations and explained some historical context. No subjectivity has been involved in anything I've said. My "bias" is for historical and factual accuracy.
It makes no difference what the "latest" beliefs in hell may be but what "Gehenna" meant in 1st century Palestine. That's all you need to research.
If you knew anything about "established opinions" you'd know that virtually no one but a handful of hardcore fundies buys into the traditionally ascribed authorships of the Gospels anymore. The "established opinion" in Markan scholarship is that Mark was a Gentile who had no connection to Peter or to Palestine. If you want to hang your hat on fundie tradition, that's your prerogative but you should know that by doing so you're expressing a belief in supernatural prophecy. You would have to believe that Mark was written before the sack of Jerusalem and that Jesus' prediction of the destruction of the Temple was genuine predictive prophecy. Is that something you actually believe? If you don't believe that then you don't believe in the traditional authorship of Mark. If you don't believe in the traditional authorship of Mark then your case for a Jewish Mark goes out the window.
It was a Christian Messiah not a Jewish one an it was integrated into Pagan mystery traditions. The vast majority of early Christian converts were Gentiles, not Jews.
The word "Hell" does not appear in the NT.

I'm saying that the Greek text should be translated accurately. Gehenna should be translated as Gehenna, Sheol as Sheol and Hades as Hades. Do you have a problem with that?
Why would I make up words that aren't in the text? The Greek should be translated as accurately as possible. Geenna is "Gehenna," not "garbage dump."
It's not my place to warn anybody of anything. I'm just translating a text not preaching a gospel. I couldn't give less of a crap what sinners "should be warned" about.
The "scary" part was that a.) they would be deprived of eternal life and b.) that they would be dishonored and disgraced by having their bodies disoposed of in the manner of criminals.

There's a difference between believing that after you die you will eventually be resurrected and given eternal life in new Eden on earth and believing that you will simply be annihilated. That may not be scary to you (and it's not scary to me) but it;s scary to a lot of people. Just ask them. Fear of death is half the reason we have religion in the first place.
Tell me one thing I've said that isn't true.

Diogenes the Cynic

That's what they believed in 1st Century Palestine, yes.
The fires were referred to figuratively as aionion because they burned pretty much constantly in the Valley. They were "ever burning" flames in reality, not just eschatological imagery.
I explained this already. If someone tells you that "you'll never get a job if you don't get a haircut," does that mean that you can literally never get a job for as long as you live.

Jesus said "you will always be in a state of sin as long as you blaspheme the Holy Spirit." Is that really so difficult for you to grasp?
You seem to think that I'm coming up with this all on my own or that I'm propounding some sort of personal theory. All I'm doing is giving you objective facts.
Any of them. Take your pick. They all say "Gehenna." It's very strange that you would disparage the Greek manuscripts and then insist that a flawed English translation of one of thsoe manuscripts is somehow trustworthy.
Some beliefs yes, other beliefs, no. As I said before, neither the Trinity nor Original Sin is in the Bible. Neither is Purgatory. Neither is the Immaculate Conception. Neither is the Rapture. Neither is Hell.

Diogenes the Cynic

Any translation which translates geenna as "Hell" is in error.
With Paul. A converted Jewish Christian who took his mission to the Gentiles. After the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, only the Gentile Christians were left. The question of why Christianity was appealling to Gentiles is an intriguing one, and it's a thread unto itself, but there is no question at all that within a century of the crucifixion Christianity was almost exclusively Gentile. It never really caught on with the Jews.
Pretty much all of them in the 1st Century.
What they were being "threatened" with was a dishonorable burial and a denial of eternal life. And it wasn't so much a threat of punishment so much as a warning that they would not receive a reward. It wasn't supposed to be "scary" or terrify them in the sense of Christian Hell. It was just telling them that they would miss out on all the fun of eternal life.

Amaleq13

Apparently, you did not read the article I linked because it contained nothing but references to Christian, "orthodox" scholars repeating what Diogenes has been saying all along. The modern Christian concept of hell is being read into the text.

That has been your assertion from the beginning but, as has been explained throughout this thread, that notion appears to be based on unsubstantiated reinterpretations of the actual words used. This assertion is wrong and it has been corrected.

"Sir, I have found you an explanation, but I am not obliged to find you an understanding." -- Samuel Johnson

Obviously. Since it clearly does not come from the Gospels but has been read into them by later Christians, we should look to the earliest Christian to explicitly make this claim for the origin.

Jagella

And your translations are not biased, of course.

I think you’re right. Since Christians have biased “their translations in favor of their personal theological agendas,� then I am careful not to swallow anybody’s claim that their own translations are somehow beyond question.

You’re defending the New Testament? In what way are you defending it?

If only the rest of us had such powers of objectivity. I have no such ability. When I make known my thoughts about anything—especially religious issues—I must rely on my own opinions. I could easily be wrong about almost anything I say. In this discussion, I’ve been very subjective, and I freely admit it. On the other hand, I’m very aware that you insist that your own claims are “objective� and based on “fact.� I have made note that you make these claims.

No doubt my research will yield some surprises, which is good because I’m willing to learn. I believe that many of the experts will probably disagree. The reason I’m expecting disagreement among the experts is that I’ve already seen them disagree. I used to watch Mysteries of the Bible on A&E, for example, and two of the scholars on that show disagreed about the proper wording of Exodus 20:13. One guy said it should say “murder,� and the other guy said “kill.� Confusing, is it not?

I don’t buy into “the traditionally ascribed authorships of the Gospels� in that I don’t believe they were actually written by Jews named “Matthew,� etc. I stick with the position that the gospels were probably written by Jews although these writers are unknown.

No. I already posted Encarta’s article that states that Mark was written late in the first century.

But I’m still curious as to why gentiles would make up a religion that’s supposed to be based on Judaism. Why not create a religion based on some pagan mythology?

Sorry, but this claim is demonstrably false.

In a way I do. People won’t know what those words mean. Are there English equivalents of these words?

I didn’t mean that anybody should actually be warned about going to Gehenna. I’m asking you if the New Testament text should be worded so to warn people that they may end up in a Jewish garbage dump. You seem to feel that such wording would be more accurate than to have the text warn people about going to hell.

Hmmm. I suppose how scary such warnings are would depend on the individual. It just seems rather lame for an emerging religion to use such weak tactics.

In my opinion, your telling us that the idea of hell doesn’t appear in the New Testament is untrue.

Jagella

Jagella

We can all find articles that are in agreement with our positions. I have posted such articles, and they were brushed aside as being “biased� or simply wrong. What else can I do?

We don’t know the “actual words used�! The original documents are long gone.

I must do some research on this issue. No doubt if I look long enough, then I should be able to find some “reputable Bible scholar� that agrees with me. I will then post his or her name, and those in opposition to me can poison the well by saying that my scholar is “biased� or “not qualified.�

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

As a matter of fact, they are not. They are literal, unvarnished translations.
I've encouraged you not to take my word for it. Learn some Greek on your own. At least find a lexicon.
I'm not. I thought you were suggesting that I was. I'm trying figure out what you mean when you say I'm "biased." I'm biased in favor of what?
I'm very opinionated about all kinds of things when it comes to religion, politics, American Idol, etc. It just so happens that within the very narrow framework of this one topic...the passages that have been historically mistranslated as "Hell" in the NT...I don't have to esort to personal opinion. I have the advantage of knowing some objective facts. like what the passages say in Greek and what they meant in their original historical context.
Don't count on it.
So you heard a couple of scholars disagree about one Hebrew word in an unrelated text so that means there can be no objectvity about any word in any Biblical text?

It is true that some words and phrases are ambiguous or unclear, There are some Hebrew and Greek words whose precise definitions are no longer known. That doesn't mean that other texts and passages can't be understood perfectly well and agreed upon. The Gehenna passages in the synoptics are not ambiguous or problematic as to their meaning in Greek.

Mysteries of the Bible is a horrible show, by the way. I don't say that to demean your point about the Hebrew dispute that you mentioned (that happens to be a real debate) but in general it's just a godawful presentation of BS masquerading as scholarship. It's extremely conservative and gutless in the views that it's willing to present and it gives an impression that Biblical events have a historical credibility which doesn't exist (e.g, talking about the Exodus like it actually happened).
But you said before that you based your conclusion that they were "probably Jewish" on patristic tradition. If you reject patristic tradition then what other tradition are you referring to?

If you reject tradition (as well you should) then what do you see in the text of Mark to suggest that the author was Jewish?

(And FYI, Luke is not Jewish even by tradition. In 2nd century legend he was a Gentile companion of Paul).
Which contradicts the tradition you cited to argue for Jewish authorship.
The Gentiles didn't make it up themselves they just converted to it in droves.

As to why, that's a really good question. There is no easy or pat answer to that and I think it's a question worthy of its own thread. I mean that seriously. I believe it's an excellent question and would be a fine subject for discussion all on its own. I would be interested in hearing some theories myself.
If it's demonstrably false, then demonstrate it for me. Show me a chapter and verse and explain why it means anything different from Gehenna or Hades or Sheol.
That's their problem, isn't it?
Well, technically Gehenna is "Valley of Hinnon." Hades and Sheol are just Hades and Sheol, though.
I have no opinion as to how it should be worded, I'm just telling you how it is worded in Greek.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you with this angle. I have no editorial opinion as to how the NT should or should not be worded. I'm just translating it as it is. If the Greek says "Gehenna" then it should be translated as such. Whether invidual readers understand what that means is not of any particular concern to me but I guess it would be helpful to explain Gehenna in a footnote or something.

If you're asking if I would literally want to use the words "garbage dump," the answer is no. That would not be an accurate translation.
This really has no bearing on the issue of NT texts but it may help you to know that this religion was not sold by fear but by the promise of wonderful rewards which were coming very soon. They thought Jesus was literally coming back any day and they they would all get taken up to heaven. It was the desire for the rewards, as well as the promise that those rewards were imminent, which made the religion attractive.
Anytime you want to show me how I'm wrong, go right ahead.

Diogenes the Cynic

What articles have you posted that made any linguistic or historical analysis of the Gehenna passages? The closest you've come was the Peterson quote which I did not brush aside but addressed head on.

I'm not unreasonable and I do not have a preconceived bias or particular desire for anything to be true. In the context of how this whole debate started, I even understand where you're coming from about wanting to show the hypocrisy of Christian theology which is something I AGREE with. I AGREE that Christians are hypocritical if they preach peace and love on the one hand and eternal torture on the other. I agree that their conception of Jesus as a God who burns people in Hell is noxious and logically inconsistent.
I agree with your attempts to point out those hypocrisies in in Christian doctrine.

I'm just trying to tell you that this particular hypocrisy...eternal hell... is an extra-Biblical Christian invention akin to the Trinity or Original Sin. To some degree it is extropolated from certain Biblical passages or at least read into them now, but those passages did not actually mean those things at the time they were written.

If you divorce your basic position from the Bible and just address to popular Christian belief in general, I'm right with you. You might be surprised how many Christian beliefs are not in the Bible, though.
It doesn't matter. We aren't discussing the original documents, we're discussing the extant documents that were translated ino English. The Greek manuscripts that we have now all say "Gehenna."
I have already stipulated that I am willing to waive any and all requirements for credentials. All I ask is that a conclusion be supported by an argument. I want to know why they think what they think. Think of it like a math test. They need to show their work, not just write answers.