Diogenes the Cynic

Either show us an example of the NT writers talking about Gehenna in any manner which differs from the standard 1st century Jewish eschatological conception or please stop making unsupported assertions.
Cite?

Jagella

It’s irrelevant that Crossan is referring to the Apostle’s Creed. He describes hell as “the place of damnation.�

I believe this is perhaps the first time that you did not poison the well when I cited a source.

My point is that if a scholar like Crossan believed that there’s no passages about hell in the Greek New Testament, and that the passages that refer to hell in the English translation are mistranslated, then I would expect him to reveal such a startling conclusion. If I remember correctly, he did not. Does Crossan state in any of his works about Christianity that hell is merely a mistranslation in the English version? Does he say that gentiles wrote the bulk of the New Testament in the second century? You might help your own position if you can provide such information.

Jagella

Sensei Meela

Which means, what? A place of torture or torment? Or rather a place where the final 'death sentence' is carried out?

Diogenes the Cynic

We're not talking about the nature of hell, we're talking about whether it's in the NT. Crossan saying that hell is place of eternal damnation is true enough but it's not a statement about anything in the NT.
It's the first time you've cited an on point, reputable scholar (well, it's not really on point but it's a reputable scholar).
Why should he if it's tangential to his main agendas or theses? The fact that Gehenna was not Christian Hell is not news to other scholars. From all my reading of Crossan (which is considerable) I don't remember him ever talking about the Gehenna passages at all. I find it rather specious to aver that if a scholar does not address an issue in writing that it should be presumed that his conclusion must automatically default to your side. If Crossan has not addressed the issue then he cannot be consulted on it.
He believes that Matthew was Jewish and Paul, of course. The rest...not so much (although it's arguable that John was written by an expelled Jewish-Christian community and off the top of my head I don't remember what Crossan says about that...of course, GJohn doesn't have any of the alleged "hell" passages in it anyway).

As for dating, Crossan holds to 1st century dates for the Gospels (albeit late ones) and for Paul, 2nd century for the rest.

(Edit: I forgot to inlude Acts and Revelation as possible 1st century but we're talking very late 1st century)

(see The Historical Jesus or Jesus: A Radical Biography for more on Crossan's takes)

Jagella

Come now. I believe that certain things are obvious. Hell is in the New Testament as Crossan and I know and anybody else who chooses to read it. This is ridiculous.

You failed to mention that I also cited Encarta Encyclopedia. Are you saying that Encarta is not “on point� or reputable? In my estimation, it is a good and rather objective source of information. However, I’m no fan of Microsoft, but that’s another issue.

The dogma of hell is not “tangential� to Crossan’s thesis, or at least it wasn’t tangential in The Birth of Christianity. Belief in hell is a central doctrine of Christianity, and Crossan would no doubt cover any reinterpretations regarding this belief.

In that case you’re telling me that the bulk of the New Testament was not written in the second century, and you did not answer my query when I asked if Crossan says that it was written by gentiles. You may be correct that much of it was written by gentiles, but we cannot be sure because many of the authors of the New Testament are unknown.

Jagella

Amaleq13

That is not a reasoned argument but a series of assertions. The passage you quoted from Crossan does not make clear his position on this subject. As far as I can tell, he is referring to the modern conception.

If nobody gets to it sooner, I'll check my copy of The Birth of Christianity when I get home this afternoon (my time).

It would be more helpful to cite the specific authors relied upon for the article but even more so to identify the actual arguments they make. Otherwise, such a citation can appear as nothing more than an argument from authority. In addition, I don't think you answered my question regarding the Encarta article. Do they specify who is meant by "early Christian writers"? The Gospel authors are usually identified more specifically and they may have been referring to the early Church Fathers.

Also, I would like to know your answer to the following questions: (I think they got buried by subsequent posts)

Are you claiming that Jesus preached this sort of hell?

Are you claiming that the first Christians (ie pre-Paul) preached this sort of hell?

Do you identify the authorship of the Gospels as the point of origin for this notion?

Diogenes the Cynic

Show me where Crossan has said that Hell is in the NT. Show me where any reputable scholar has said that hell is in the NT.
I'm not familiar enough with Encarta to comment on it but the portion you quoted did not contradict anything that I've said. You quoted Encarta as claiming that "early Christian writers" believed in hell. An easy enough claim to support, depending on how you define "early," but not a claim that necessarily includes the NT and nothing you quoted claims that hell is in the NT.

I though you said you'd read the book. It has nothing to do with belief in hell, it's Crossan's thesis about the development of the Resurrection myth in the intervening years between the crucifixion and the advent of Paul. Later Christian conceptions of eternal hell are not relevant to either the time period or the subject matter of The Birth of Christianity. You quoted Crossan as mentioning hell in relation to the Apostle's Creed but he's talking about much later developments in Christianity there, not about the NT and not about HJ.
You asked me what Crossan thinks, not what I think. Personally, I think Luke-Acts is 2nd century. In any case, there are 27 books in the NT. 13 of them were arguably written in the 1st century. That still leaves a majority as 2nd century and personally, I would only count on the letters of Paul as being definitely 1st Century.
Yes I did. I told you thinks that the only Jewish authors were Matthew and Paul (and possibly John but I don't remember his stance on that).
We can be sure for reasons of dating, audience, geography, language and theology as well as clues like Mark's many errors about the geography of Palestine and Sanhedrin trial procedures.

Chris Weimer

Only Paul, James, maybe 1 Peter author (not enough research) and half of Matthew are Jewish. John is weird, protagnostic, a Jewish line for sure. Half of Matthew, Paul's definitive corpus, and maybe James were written in the first century.

Jagella

Yes. Jesus preached that those who failed to believe him would be condemned to eternal torment.

Many of them preached hell although some of them threatened unbelievers with something vague like “death.�

I don’t know for sure who the among the early Christians invented their version of hell, but the idea definitely appears in Mark (the earliest gospel). Also, you may not be aware but the idea of a hellish punishment after death predates the Bible and can be found throughout much of the world.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

Fascinating. Where is Jesus quoted as saying this?
Name a pre-Pauline Christian who preached this...in fact, name a pre-Pauline Christian for whom we have any written record at all.
Chapter and verse, please?
Irrelevant.