Jagella

I was asked to find a “reputable scholar� who holds that hell can be found in the New Testament, and I provided that person’s name. As for naming Bible passages and explaining them, I’ve already done so. You may wish to refer to them in this thread and in the thread, “Was Jesus a Hypocrite.�

How do you define “the real world,� and what does it have to do with our discussion?

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

Why should he if it does not pertain to what he's writing aboute. Birth of Christianity is not some general primer on Xianity it's a specific thesis about the formation of the resurrection myth. Explaining the Gehenna passages in the synoptics would be extraneous to the thesis.
Liberal Christians are becoming more educated, that's all.
The Nt does not have any passages that refer to eternal hell. Mark says nothing of the sort. Saying it over and over again will not make it true. If you want to make the case then please cite the passage and make some sort of reasoned argument as to why Mark did not intend Gehenna to mean Gehenna. Can you make a systematic case or can't you?

Diogenes the Cynic

I addressed your Divinity scholar head on, I provided the passage in question since it was not in your quote, I gave my take on it and I left it for others to decide.

Looking at the quote in context, do YOU think that Peterson has made a convincing case for eternal punishment?

As for your other passages, I've also corrected the translations and explained them in detail. You have still not rebutted either my translations or my explanations.

Jagella

I’m not sure how you’re making that distinction. Is not a person learned in theology a scholar, and being a Christian, is it not safe to assume he’s extensively studied the New Testament?

I’ve found that almost anybody who holds a degree in anything related to the Bible is a Christian of some sort. I don’t believe that a Christian is necessarily disqualified in his or her credibility regarding the New Testament. Would you prefer that I find an atheist who’s studied the New Testament? I do hope that you do not continue to poison the well.

I suppose I could again quote some Bible passages in which the torment is said to go on forever, but you’ll just insist that those passages have been mistranslated.

If I wrote about my hometown, it’s entirely possible that I would not include the fact that I’m a resident. Using a language besides English to describe this town would not mean I’m not a citizen. Finally, I make a lot of negative comments regarding the people here all the time. Nevertheless, I’m still a resident. You may be correct that any of the writers of the New Testament were gentiles, but I need better evidence than what you’re providing here.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

There are different ways to "study" the NT. Being indoctrinated into a particular theological interpretation of the Bible is not the same as having any training in historical, lingusitic or literary criticism. I cannot see that Peterson has any credentials as a historian or linguist to go with his collar.

It's really a moot point anyway since I did address his point, regardless.
I didn't poison the well. I noted his lack of visual credentials in a field like history or languages and his education seemed to be entirely clerical but I did address his argument.

It is true that most Bible scholars are Christians. Crossan is one. But most of them have something else to go with just being trained clergy. They have credentials in a field related to actual Biblical criticism, not just a particular denomination's theological interpretation of a translated text.
And you have offered no rebuttal. Are my translations wrong? Show me how.
You haven't answered the question about why it should even be considered at all that Mark was a Jew.

A better analogy would be this:

You find a book written in Spanish which talks (in the third person) about people in New York City. It gets some of the geography wrong. It says that somebody jumped off the Empire State Building and landed in the ocean. It gets a lot of it's street names and boroughs mixed up. It mentions streets which don't exist, etc.


It also describes a trial in which a guy is arrested by the cops and they bring him to a judge's house in the middle of the night on Chrstmas Eve, The judge actually has a trial with lawyers and witnesses right there in his living room and then the judge says he guilty of something, and spits on him and sentences him to death.

The writer says a lot of bad stuff about New Yorkers as well, and he says the Yankees suck (but he thinks they play at Shea Stadium).

At no point in this book does the author ever say that he is a New Yorker or that he has ever been to New York.

Is it safe to assume he's not from New York? Is there any reason to believe that he IS from New York?

Jagella

I’m afraid that no matter what a person’s background is, one can always make a case that the person has been “indoctrinated into a particular theological interpretation of the Bible.� Atheists and liberal Christian theologians could be and often are accused of such “indoctrination.� I’m afraid that you may have set the bar for “reputable Bible scholar� impossibly high.

By the way, I cannot remember you posting the name of any “reputable Bible scholar� that shares your position that hell can be found nowhere in the Bible. Do you know of any?

What credentials would you accept? (I’m again being generous in allowing you to set the bar which I’ve done throughout this discussion.)

I don’t know for sure if your translations are “wrong� because I cannot read Greek. Nevertheless, I do know that many people who can also read Greek would disagree with your interpretation of the Greek. My understanding is that the original New Testament Greek as well as the original Hebrew in which the Old Testament was written are highly ambiguous. I remember reading a fascinating essay on CompuServe about this ambiguity in the original languages of the Bible. I could kick myself that I didn’t save it!

I don’t insist that the writer of Mark was a Jew. My understanding is that he probably was a Jew.

Maybe he’s a writer for the National Inquirer. In any case, to make a good argument that Mark was written by a gentile—as far as I’m concerned—you should have good reasons to say that some known individual wrote Mark. We could then know whether or not he was a Jew or gentile.

By the way, I have read Forgery In Christianity by Joseph Wheless, in which he states:

(Emphasis added.)

http://www.infidels.org/library/hist...chapter_5.html

Were you influenced by this work?

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

Indoctrination is not a problem. I'm just asking for something to go along with it. As I've stated before, as a "reputable scholar," I would accept anyone with at least a graduate degree in a field relevant to the discussion (eg, history or languages related to Biblical Criticism) whi has been published in a peer reviewed journal.
Off the top of my head,...one scholar who has written anything significant about the topic is Elaine Pagel, but your question is really backwards. It's not a "position" but a fact. You might as well ask for a scholar who has a "position" that the Bible doesn't talk about the Loch Ness Monster. Gehenna means what it means.
See above. I ask only for a graduate degree in a field relevant to Biblical criticism and some sort of publication in a peer reviewed journal. I'm not even demanding a Doctorate.

In point of fact, though, I would remind you that I did not reject Peterson. I addressed his point. I am willing to address any argument you want to put forth by anyone, regardless of credentials. It is only when you want to appeal to authority alone, without summarizing or linking to that authority's actual argument, that the authority better be impressive. For the most part, it's how a conclusion is reached that matters, not who reaches it.
You don't know "for sure?" So you think I might be wrong? Name one who would disagree with my translations. There are Greek readers who might still insist on a traditional Christian interpretation of Gehenna but they can't argue with my translations.
What do you mean by "ambiguous?"

No matter. There is no ambiguity in the Gehenna passages. Disagreement is purely a matter of interpretation. The only thing to decide is whether Jesus meant something different about sinners being burned in Gehenna than what every other Jew believed at the time.
Your understanding based on what?
Why does the individual have to be known to say that he wasn't a Jew? can we safely say that he wasn't Chinese?

The book was written outside of Palestine to a Gentile audience in a Gentile language, at least 40 years after the crucifixion (some would put it much later). The author doesn't know anything about Palestinian geography or Jewish law and says disparaging things about Jews. The author never claims to be Jewish or to have ever been to Palestine. Even the traditional name of the author, Marcus, is Roman, not Jewish.

Is there any reason we should not assume he was a Gentile? Is there any reason to believe he was Jewish?
I've never read it but I've read some other things on early Christian forgery.

Amaleq13

Not if the "wrongheaded belief" is irrelevant to early Christian beliefs but, instead, reflects a later reinterpretation of the texts.

Have you happened upon this article? The author relies on numerous "orthodox" sources and repeats much of what has been offered against your arguments in this thread. Interestingly enough, it was written in the 19th century.

Yes. Actually, I would be very interested if you could produce an atheist scholar who supported your position. That way there could be no question about whether the conclusion was more the result of personal beliefs than the evidence.

Incidently, I don't think it is fair or accurate to describe the arguments presented against yours as "brushing aside" that argument. Arguing that you are relying on a mistranslation of the passages requires that another interpretation be considered more accurate.

Jagella

Can you give me some examples of “peer reviewed journals� that you would accept? If I find some scholar you would deem reputable, and he or she states that the dogma of hell does indeed appear in the New Testament, then will you accept it as credible evidence that I’m right? I don’t wish to spend a lot of time researching this topic only to have you dismiss my findings.

Again, I submit that you have a very doctrinaire position in this discussion. Insisting that your opinions are “fact� has not been established. Moreover, I hope you realize that words like Gehenna and language in general is often quite ambiguous. You seem to have set yourself up as an infallible interpreter of the Greek writings that form the New Testament, a position that is tenuous if not silly.

Far be it from me to be so arrogant as to insist I’m always right and have all the facts. So yes, you might be wrong, but I’m not certain that you are.

I know of two: My former pastor at the Assembly of God church I attended as a Christian read the Greek New Testament and held to the traditional idea of hell. Another example would be D. James Kennedy, the fundamentalist preacher. Although both of these men are Christian fundamentalists, they can read Greek, and they both hold to the eternal-torment nature of the hell depicted in the New Testament.

People can argue with anything especially the meanings of languages as ambiguous as Hebrew and first-century Greek.

You may wish to read the following essay at http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/c.../versions.html

Encarta Encyclopedia.

Obviously, if we don’t know who wrote Mark, then we cannot say he was a gentile. I would say that he wasn’t Chinese due to the distances involved between China and the Middle East. You claim that the writer in question is a gentile, I say prove it. Circumstantial evidence just won’t cut it.

The evidence regarding the mysterious writer of Mark is scant indeed. I would use Occam’s razor to say that this writer was Jewish. My reasons are that the early church claimed that this “Mark� was an interpreter for Peter, and since Peter was a Jew and lived among them, then this interpreter was probably Jewish. I know this line of reasoning is not strong, but I believe it involves fewer assumptions than to say that the writer of the first gospel was a gentile.

Jagella

Diogenes the Cynic

I'm going to make it easy on you. I will address any argument you can find, regardless of credentials. What I will not accepts as evidence is a bald conclusion which does not explain its own reasoning.

For example, your quotation from Peterson was fine. He provided an argument for his conclusion. It wasn't a very good argument and it required no special knowledge (anybody can read the KJV and draw the same preconceived conclusion) but at least he supported his conclusion with something. He argued that Mark's Gehenna must be eternal because people will cry and gnash their teeth when they get heaved into it. I find this argument a little underwhelming since there is nothing in the text that says the weeping and gnashing will go on forever and the basic idea that bad people will get burned up in Gehenna was an ordinary part of ancient Jewish eschatological beliefs.

Do YOU think that Peterson has made a convincing case? He offers nothing else that I can see.
I haven't expressed any opinions. All I've done is provide translations and known historical context. Your own citations have supported both my translations and the ancient connotations of Gehenna. I would also encourage you to read Amaleq's link. It says everything I've been saying, with plenty of citations, an it said it 150 years ago.
Can you provide a citation that the meaning of "gehenna" was ambiguous in 1st Century palestine? Can you show a different 1st century definition than the Valley of Hinnon?
When have I asserted any such thing? Understanding the meaning of a single word does not require extraordinary ability. I have also left a standing invitation for you to rebut anything I've translated.
Like you said. They're fundamentalists. When have fundamentalists ever let the facts get in the way of what they want to believe?

Just saying that "X can read Greek and X believes that Gehenna is Hell" is not really an argument of translation but of interpretation. They see Hell in Gehenna because they want to.

This is also another case of conclusions being cited without argumentative support. What is Kennedy's thesis for why Gehenna should not be read as the Valley of Hinnon?
So bring on the argument. Calling it "ambiguous" is just hand-waving. Prove me wrong.
Encarta says Mark was Jewish? Link?
I say Mark was not a Jew. I have given my evidence as to why. He doesn't know Jewish law. He is antagonistic towards Jews. He writes in a non-Jewish language to a non-Jewish audience. He does not know the geography of Palestine. He does not ever claim to be a Jew. There is absolutely no reason to beleve he was a Jew. If he was not a Jew then he was a Gentile.
It involves dependence on 2nd century Christian folklore and an authorship tradition which has long been abandoned by NT scholarship. I don't want to derail this into a debate over the traditional authorship of Mark, so please just take my word that I can demolish it (as can many others on this board. vivisecting arguments for traditional authorship of the gospels is something of a sport around here).

Patristic tradition is not going to help an argument for a Jewish Mark. It's demonstrable fiction

At face value, Mark is a Gentile book in a gentile language which is hostile to Jews, does not know Jewish law or Palestinan geography and which does not even claim to be Jewish.