A new New Testament translation by EO scholar DB Hart

[ClementofA]

I have studied the patristics, as you well know I have quoted them frequently but that does not qualify me to translate the NT. I know what qualifications Hart listed on his CV, it does not include Greek.

Your Patristic quotes are almost entirely in English, which is irrelevant to the topic, namely DBH's (not your) knowledge of Koine Greek. As i said:

The link you provided says Hart studies Patristics. Do you suppose he does that without reading the original languages & just reads them in English translations? If he had no qualifications in Greek why wouldn't any of the reviews posted in the OP mention that? Do you even know what his qualifications in Greek are?

 

[ClementofA]

Hart does not specify that the Gehinnom he referred to is outside of Jerusalem, but that is the only Gehinnom I know about.
I just reread my post I inadvertently omitted part of my response it should have read "the totally false myth that trash and bodies burned perpetually in Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem." There is a valley outside Jerusalem which archaeological evidence shows was used as a trash dump but it is not Gehenna. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.

Is this supposed to be an apology to DBH re your statement & a retraction of that statement, namely that "This source supposedly written by an EO scholar perpetuates the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem." ? Who is the "We" you refer to, or did you mean yourself?

Also you didn't answer this:

This source supposedly written by an EO scholar perpetuates the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem

Do you disagree with the following & consider them wrong & that they "perpetuate the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem":

Strong's Concordance
geenna: Gehenna, a valley W. and South of Jer.

HELPS Word-studies
1067 géenna (a transliteration of the Hebrew term, Gêhinnōm, "the valley of Hinnom")

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Gehenna, a valley W. and S. of Jer

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
Of Hebrew origin (gay' and Hinnom); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; ge-henna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively)

Strong's Greek: 1067. γέεννα (geenna) -- Gehenna, a valley W. and South of Jer., also a symbolic name for the final place of punishment of the ungodly

 

[Der Alte]

Your Patristic quotes are almost entirely in English, which is irrelevant to the topic, namely knowledge of Koine Greek. As i said:
The link you provided says Hart studies Patristics. Do you suppose he does that without reading the original languages & just reads them in English translations? If he had no qualifications in Greek why wouldn't any of the reviews posted in the OP mention that? Do you even know what his qualifications in Greek are?

Your objection is irrelevant since you very likely could not parse or conjugate a Greek verb if your life depended on it. All I have seen from you are copy/pastes from someone else.

 

[Der Alte]

Is this supposed to be an apology to DBH re your statement & a retraction of that statement, namely that "This source supposedly written by an EO scholar perpetuates the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem." ? Who is the "We" you refer to, or did you mean yourself?
Also you didn't answer this:
Do you disagree with the following & consider them wrong & that they "perpetuate the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem":
Strong's Concordance
geenna: Gehenna, a valley W. and South of Jer.
HELPS Word-studies
1067 géenna (a transliteration of the Hebrew term, Gêhinnōm, "the valley of Hinnom")
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Gehenna, a valley W. and S. of Jer
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
Of Hebrew origin (gay' and Hinnom); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; ge-henna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively)

I answered all of this nonsense in the post you quoted. It was an inadvertent error which I corrected in the same post. Now do you have anything relevant to discuss?
If you want to know what I believe about Gehinnom see my [post #4] this thread which I posted prior to the inadvertent error.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Clement, just so you know, the educated Eastern Orthodox I know on here all recommend avoiding David Bentley Hart. They find him problematic, and have described his positions as heretical.

*Eastern Orthodox Subforum* David Bentley Hart

And still the Eastern Orthodox are not impressed by his conclusions nor are they offering him as recommended reading to would-be converts. So they have a problem with him. That would raise some red flags there.

 

[ClementofA]

Clement, just so you know, the educated Eastern Orthodox I know on here all recommend avoiding David Bentley Hart. They find him problematic, and have described his positions as heretical.

*Eastern Orthodox Subforum* David Bentley Hart

And still the Eastern Orthodox are not impressed by his conclusions nor are they offering him as recommended reading to would-be converts. So they have a problem with him. That would raise some red flags there.

What the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures & ECF say is of infinitely more importance to me than what a few anonymous posters (amongst millions on the internet) opine. I'd also put DBH's views above theirs, at least with regards to universalism. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. You'll never find any mortal human author who is perfect.

BTW I'd recommend this thread from the EO forums:

Early church opposition to endless hell

Also there seem to be EO who enjoy his writings, e.g.

David Bentley Hart a universalist

 

[anna ~ grace]

What the Holy Spirit, the Scriptures & ECF say is of infinitely more importance to me than what a few anonymous posters (amongst millions on the internet) opine. I'd also put DBH's views above theirs, at least with regards to universalism. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. You'll never find any mortal human author who is perfect.

BTW I'd recommend this thread from the EO forums:

Early church opposition to endless hell

What I see is the EO emphasizing over and over that eternal Hell is an Orthodox doctrine.

 

[ClementofA]

What I see is the EO emphasizing over and over that eternal Hell is an Orthodox doctrine.

And like the RCC, that there is still hope for universalism. So in both the RCC & EOC one can hope, along with the Pope, that "hell" will be empty. Furthermore, from the EO forums here i have been told that, in the EOC, one can have a personal opinion that there is hope for all being saved, although it is not allowed to be taught that all shall be saved. OTOH, from other writings it appears that a EOC member can hold as a private opinion that all shall be saved, i.e. that universalism is true.

OTOH, if you look back to the earliest creeds of the church, there was no teaching of "hell" (i.e. endless conscious torments). Universalism as a belief, not just a hope, was widespread in the church:


Church Fathers & Universalism since Early Church times

Saint Origen | David Bentley Hart

 

[ClementofA]

Your objection is irrelevant since you very likely could not parse or conjugate a Greek verb if your life depended on it. All I have seen from you are copy/pastes from someone else.

Once again you're off topic & posting nonsense:

I have studied the patristics, as you well know I have quoted them frequently but that does not qualify me to translate the NT. I know what qualifications Hart listed on his CV, it does not include Greek.

Your Patristic quotes are almost entirely in English, which is irrelevant to the topic, namely DBH's (not your) knowledge of Koine Greek.

The link you provided says Hart studies Patristics. Do you suppose he does that without reading the original languages & just reads them in English translations? If he had no qualifications in Greek why wouldn't any of the reviews posted in the OP mention that? Do you even know what his qualifications in Greek are?

Do you assume that being able to read Greek is the only relevancy in translating the Greek, & that a high IQ & all of Hart's other qualifications are irrelevant in making a translation of the NT? What do you assume qualifies one to make an unbiased, honest, objective translation of the New Testament? BTW Hart's translation has been considered quite literal.

"...how greatly formulations that seem to imply universal salvation outnumber those that appear to threaten an ultimate damnation for the wicked. Still, none of that surprised me; it merely roused me from my complacent assumption that, simply by virtue of having read the text in Greek for many years, I had a natural feel for its tone."

Christ's Rabble | Commonweal Magazine

 

[Der Alte]

Once again you're off topic & posting nonsense:

If I'm off topic so are you. You virtually accused me of not knowing what I was talking about because I didn't quote any Greek. Which OBTW is irrelevant since you can't read Greek anyway.

Your Patristic quotes are almost entirely in English, which is irrelevant to the topic, namely DBH's (not your) knowledge of Koine Greek.

Irrelevant. That I do or do not quote Greek has no bearing on my argument. If a scholar has qualifications in a certain field and he is commenting about that field his qualifications in that field should be listed somewhere. The usual place is in the scholar's CV. Hart has no qualifications in Greek listed in his CV.

The link you provided says Hart studies Patristics. Do you suppose he does that without reading the original languages & just reads them in English translations? If he had no qualifications in Greek why wouldn't any of the reviews posted in the OP mention that? Do you even know what his qualifications in Greek are?

I already addressed this in my previous post. Here e.g. is part of Dr Dan Wallace's CV.

He has written, edited, or otherwise contributed to more than thirty books, and has published articles in New Testament Studies, Novum Testamentum, Biblica, Westminster Theological Journal, and the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. His Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament is the standard intermediate Greek grammar and has been translated into several languages. He is the executive director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (www.csntm.org), an institute whose initial purpose is to preserve Scripture by taking digital photographs of all known Greek New Testament manuscripts. Courses he teaches.
NT101 - Elements of Greek
NT102 - Elements of Greek
NT103 - Intermediate Greek
NT104 - Intro to NT Exegesis
NT105 - Exegesis of Romans
NT205 - Advanced Greek Grammar
NT215 - NT Textual Criticism
NT315 - Gospel of Mark
NT355 - Thessalonian Epistles
NT375 - Epistles of Peter & Jude
BS1002 - NT Backgrounds
NT1001 - History of NT Interp & Criticism
NT1002 - NT Theology
NT2005 - Adv NT Textual Criticism
NT2035 - Sem on Apocalyptic Genre​

Now this person is certainly qualified to translate the N T.

Do you assume that being able to read Greek is the only relevancy in translating the Greek, & that a high IQ & all of Hart's other qualifications are irrelevant in making a translation of the NT? What do you assume qualifies one to make an unbiased, honest, objective translation of the New Testament? BTW Hart's translation has been considered quite literal.

You seem to think being able to read/quote Greek is the only relevancy in responding to your posts. One standard for yourself and another one for me? There are a a bunch of "literal translations" of the NT around, all different. And all seem to reflect the theological bias of the particular "translator." They can't all be right but they can all be wrong.

"...how greatly formulations that seem to imply universal salvation outnumber those that appear to threaten an ultimate damnation for the wicked. Still, none of that surprised me; it merely roused me from my complacent assumption that, simply by virtue of having read the text in Greek for many years, I had a natural feel for its tone."

Where is this quote from? It it not at the link you posted.

 

[ClementofA]

Where is this quote from? It it not at the link you posted.

It was in the linked article i linked to. In the first paragraph near the end:

"...how greatly formulations that seem to imply universal salvation outnumber those that appear to threaten an ultimate damnation for the wicked. Still, none of that surprised me; it merely roused me from my complacent assumption that, simply by virtue of having read the text in Greek for many years, I had a natural feel for its tone."

Christ's Rabble | Commonweal Magazine

"...having read the text in Greek for many years,..."

Christ's Rabble | Commonweal Magazine

"Feser grants that I may be right in my interpretation of the passage, but then cites a host of New Testament scholars (some of whom are indeed very fine scholars) who say otherwise, and so dismisses my observations as debatable. In point of fact, they are not. Feser may be under the impression that all New Testament scholarship is of equal weight. Most of it, though, merely repeats conventional readings, however fallacious. He may also not know that many New Testament scholars are not classicists, but instead got their Greek in seminary, and so do not have much ear for antique Greek idioms. And in the sentence in question, again, both noun and verb are wrong idiomatically. Moreover, scholarship progresses, and we have learned a great deal in recent years about what a machairophoros was from a host of Hellenistic papyri (see Amherst Papyri 2.38; Papyri Tebtunis 35.13 and 391.20; Bodleian Ostraca 3.64; Michigan Papyri 577.78; etc.)."

Further Reflections on Capital Punishment (and on Edward Feser) | Church Life Journal

"David Bentley Hart, who joined the Orthodox Church as a college student, is now hailed in the scholarly community as among the best, if not, indeed, the very best, of contemporary Christian metaphysical thinkers and writers."

A Spiritual Springtime for American Orthodoxy | St Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary

 

[Der Alte]

begin

...
"Feser grants that I may be right in my interpretation of the passage, but then cites a host of New Testament scholars (some of whom are indeed very fine scholars) who say otherwise, and so dismisses my observations as debatable. In point of fact, they are not. Feser may be under the impression that all New Testament scholarship is of equal weight. Most of it, though, merely repeats conventional readings, however fallacious. He may also not know that many New Testament scholars are not classicists, but instead got their Greek in seminary, and so do not have much ear for antique Greek idioms. And in the sentence in question, again, both noun and verb are wrong idiomatically. Moreover, scholarship progresses, and we have learned a great deal in recent years about what a machairophoros was from a host of Hellenistic papyri (see Amherst Papyri 2.38; Papyri Tebtunis 35.13 and 391.20; Bodleian Ostraca 3.64; Michigan Papyri 577.78; etc.)."
...

end

So Hart "read the text in Greek for many years." I still have no idea where he supposedly learned Greek and/or how we would know that his interpretation is correct while he rejects virtually all existing translations? Of course, NT scholars are not "classicists" the NT was written in "Koine" not classical Greek. Hellenist is also classical. You might want to learn the difference between classical and Koine before you appoint Hart as your new Greek guru/expert.
.....What is the relevance of the meaning of "machairophoros" unless it occurs in the NT? If it did occur in the NT it would be listed in BDAG, it is not. But some folks when they are searching for "experts" who support their assumptions/presuppositions they don't appear to be too concerned about such "minor" details.
ETA: Re: "machairophoros"
G5342 μάχαιρα/machaira "a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword." machair[o] would be masculine
G5411 φόρος/phoros "a tax (properly an individual assessment on persons or property;"

 

[ClementofA]

...
Of course, NT scholars are not "classicists" the NT was written in "Koine" not classical Greek.

Of course. No one said otherwise.

ETA: Re: "machairophoros"
G5342 μάχαιρα/machaira "a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword." machair[o] would be masculine

G5411 φόρος/phoros "a tax (properly an individual assessment on persons or property;"

That's an incorrect reference to Strongs #5342, which would be "5342. pheró", not
machaira: Strong's Greek: 5342. φέρω (pheró) -- to bear, carry, bring forth

 

[Der Alte]

So Hart "read the text in Greek for many years." I still have no idea where he supposedly learned Greek and/or how we would know that his interpretation is correct while he rejects virtually all existing translations? Of course, NT scholars are not "classicists" the NT was written in "Koine" not classical Greek. Hellenist is also classical. You might want to learn the difference between classical and Koine before you appoint Hart as your new Greek guru/expert.
.....What is the relevance of the meaning of "machairophoros" unless it occurs in the NT? If it did occur in the NT it would be listed in BDAG, it is not. But some folks when they are searching for "experts" who support their assumptions/presuppositions they don't appear to be too concerned about such "minor" details.
ETA: Re: "machairophoros"
G3162 μάχαιρα/machaira "a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword." machair[o] would be masculine
G5411 φόρος/phoros "a tax (properly an individual assessment on persons or property;"

Of course. No one said otherwise.
That's an incorrect reference to Strongs #5342, which would be "5342. pheró", not
machaira:

Why don't you address the issue instead of creating an irrelevant smokescreen about a typo?

 

[ClementofA]

I answered all of this nonsense in the post you quoted.

If i thought it was answered clearly, i wouldn't be asking the questions, would i? That's just common sense. So answer this:

Hart does not specify that the Gehinnom he referred to is outside of Jerusalem, but that is the only Gehinnom I know about.
I just reread my post I inadvertently omitted part of my response it should have read "the totally false myth that trash and bodies burned perpetually in Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem." There is a valley outside Jerusalem which archaeological evidence shows was used as a trash dump but it is not Gehenna. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.

Is this supposed to be an apology to DBH re your statement & a retraction of that statement, namely that "This source supposedly written by an EO scholar perpetuates the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem." ? Who is the "We" you refer to, or did you mean yourself?

Also you didn't answer this:

This source supposedly written by an EO scholar perpetuates the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem

Do you disagree with the following & consider them wrong & that they "perpetuate the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem":

Strong's Concordance
geenna: Gehenna, a valley W. and South of Jer.

HELPS Word-studies
1067 géenna (a transliteration of the Hebrew term, Gêhinnōm, "the valley of Hinnom")

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Gehenna, a valley W. and S. of Jer

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
Of Hebrew origin (gay' and Hinnom); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; ge-henna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively)

Strong's Greek: 1067. γέεννα (geenna) -- Gehenna, a valley W. and South of Jer., also a symbolic name for the final place of punishment of the ungodly

 

[Der Alte]

If i thought it was answered clearly, i wouldn't be asking the questions, would i? That's just common sense. So answer this:
Is this supposed to be an apology to DBH re your statement & a retraction of that statement, namely that "This source supposedly written by an EO scholar perpetuates the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem." ? Who is the "We" you refer to, or did you mean yourself?
Also you didn't answer this:
Do you disagree with the following & consider them wrong & that they "perpetuate the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem":

Strong's Concordance
geenna: Gehenna, a valley W. and South of Jer.

HELPS Word-studies
1067 géenna (a transliteration of the Hebrew term, Gêhinnōm, "the valley of Hinnom")

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Gehenna, a valley W. and S. of Jer

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
Of Hebrew origin (gay' and Hinnom); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; ge-henna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively)

Get a new complaint. I have already answered this twice in this thread.

 

[Der Alte]

If i thought it was answered clearly, i wouldn't be asking the questions, would i? That's just common sense. So answer this:
Is this supposed to be an apology to DBH re your statement & a retraction of that statement, namely that "This source supposedly written by an EO scholar perpetuates the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem." ? Who is the "We" you refer to, or did you mean yourself?
Also you didn't answer this:
Do you disagree with the following & consider them wrong & that they "perpetuate the totally false myth that Gehenna in the NT refers to the valley of Hinnom outside Jerusalem":

Strong's Concordance
geenna: Gehenna, a valley W. and South of Jer.

HELPS Word-studies
1067 géenna (a transliteration of the Hebrew term, Gêhinnōm, "the valley of Hinnom")

NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Gehenna, a valley W. and S. of Jer

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
Of Hebrew origin (gay' and Hinnom); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; ge-henna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem, used (figuratively)

Strong's Greek: 1067. γέεννα (geenna) -- Gehenna, a valley W. and South of Jer., also a symbolic name for the final place of punishment of the ungodly

My [post #17] this thread.
Hart does not specify that the Gehinnom he referred to is outside of Jerusalem, but that is the only Gehinnom I know about.
I just reread my post I inadvertently omitted part of my response it should have read "Hart perpetuates the totally false myth that trash and bodies burned perpetually in Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem." There is a valley outside Jerusalem which archaeological evidence shows was used as a trash dump but it is not Gehenna. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.
Please tell me what part of this response you do not understand.
.

 

[ClementofA]

My [post #17] this thread.
Hart does not specify that the Gehinnom he referred to is outside of Jerusalem, but that is the only Gehinnom I know about.
I just reread my post I inadvertently omitted part of my response it should have read "Hart perpetuates the totally false myth that trash and bodies burned perpetually in Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem." There is a valley outside Jerusalem which archaeological evidence shows was used as a trash dump but it is not Gehenna. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused.
Please tell me what part of this response you do not understand.
.

As i asked before, & it was never answered, who is "We" (see post 35 etc)?

Also i previously asked where does Hart ever refer to Gehenna in the past tense (see post 13 etc)?

That's in addition to the other two questions in my post #35 i see no answer to. A simple yes or no would be sufficient, if possible.

 

[Der Alte]

As i asked before, & it was never answered, who is "We" (see post 35 etc)?

Really? Most entities whenever they make an error when they rectify it say "We regret any inconvenience this may have caused etc."

Also i previously asked where does Hart ever refer to Gehenna in the past tense (see post 13 etc)?

Do you read your own copy/pastes?

"Yes, Jesus speaks of a final judgment, and uses many metaphors to describe the unhappy lot of the condemned. Many of these are metaphors of annihilation, like the burning of chaff or brambles in ovens, or the final destruction of body and soul in the Valley of Hinnom."​

That's in addition to the other two questions in my post #35 i see no answer to. A simple yes or no would be sufficient, if possible.

Yes I have answered your specious argument more than once. You keep complaining about a typo which I have corrected and explained.

 

[ClementofA]

Do you read your own copy/pastes?

"Yes, Jesus speaks of a final judgment, and uses many metaphors to describe the unhappy lot of the condemned. Many of these are metaphors of annihilation, like the burning of chaff or brambles in ovens, or the final destruction of body and soul in the Valley of Hinnom."​

Is English your first language? I still see no answer to this:

Also i previously asked where does Hart ever refer to Gehenna in the past tense (see post 13 etc)?

That question was concerning your statement here:

I just reread my post I inadvertently omitted part of my response it should have read "Hart perpetuates the totally false myth that trash and bodies burned perpetually in Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem." There is a valley outside Jerusalem which archaeological evidence shows was used as a trash dump but it is not Gehenna.

Where does Hart ever refer to Gehenna in the past tense (see post 13 etc)?

Nowhere in anything i quoted Hart did he say "trash and bodies burned perpetually in Gehenna, the valley of Hinnom, outside Jerusalem".

The only "totally false myth" that is being perpetuated here is your misrepresentations of Hart.