David Bentley Hart on Hell

[Saint Steven]

I recall Robert Heinlein's dictum/joke that a committee is a creature with at least six legs...and no brain. Seriously, a team of "experienced translators" cannot avoid bias if each member has attended the usual seminary schools.

Right. And who were they hired by? The bias of the boss will be obvious in the work for hire results. Who are they working for? The same thing happened to our Bible.

 

[Saint Steven]

You would trust a translation by a single, biased individual, rather than teams of experienced translators from different backgrounds striving to avoid bias?

Striving to avoid bias? - lol

 

[prodromos]

Striving to avoid bias? - lol

Read up on the backgrounds of the translators for each of the mainstream English translation we have available today. Read their statement of purpose. It was their prayer that they would be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While they are all still fallen individuals, do you believe God ignored their prayers? Are you such a perfect follower of Christ that you are able to judge their hearts and motives?
All I see is you mocking and laughing at something you have absolutely no authority to judge.

 

[JSRG]

I think Hart aligns more with the historic orthodoxy of the early church. Universalism has its origins in the eastern church.

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff writes :

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

Philip Schaff didn't write it. He edited the encyclopedia, but the article in question (on universalism) was written by George T. Knight.

Thank you for the copyright notification; I did not see it. Problem adjusted with info still accessible.

If you were quoting a portion of it in a message board post, it would almost certainly fall under fair use.

Ah yes, the ubiquitous quote from "Schaff-Herzog" presented as if it settles the matter once and for all. Unfortunately that is all there is to it, no, zero, none historical evidence supporting the claim.
Just because a scholar makes a claim that does not make it true. What is necessary is credible, verifiable, historical, grammatical, lexical etc. evidence. I have read the Schaff-Herzog article there is no evidence only the unsupported claim of a scholar.
Here is a link to the encyclopedia, try to prove me wrong.
Work info: New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. XII: Trench - Zwingli - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The claim seems to come from the work "History of opinions on the scriptural doctrine of retribution" by Edward Beecher, a 19th-century writer. Now, the Encyclopedia article doesn't explicitly say that's the source for the six school statement, but it is listed (with other things) as a source at the end of the article. It is almost certain that Beecher's work is the source for this statement. So if one wants to see the proof offered for it, they'd have to look at Beecher's work.

Having looked at some of it myself, I don't think it's all that persuasive, at least in the portions I read. I made a post about it quite a while ago:
BEWARE OF UNIVERSAL RECONCILIATION

For someone not wanting to read through the whole thing, my conclusion was:

"THEREFORE, the conclusion of this long, rambling post is that, if Beecher is the source for the argument regarding the different schools, I have to confess I believe he comes up short in his argument. It simply relies too much on claiming a particular influential person believed in the doctrine and that therefore it must have been thought of highly in the areas they influenced (assuming the instances of claimed influence are as grand as was claimed by Beecher), plus a bunch of speculation on his part. One can take his points and put forward an argument that in the early centuries universalism wasn't looked down upon, but as an argument of the predominance of universalism, I feel it--at least in the form of the six schools argument--comes up short."

 

[Lazarus Short]

Anyway, the Holy Bible is supposed to be inspired by God Himself, and many subscribe to it being word-for-word inspired by God. I lean that way myself. So why are Bible translators so much in the background? They should be like, pardon the expression, rock stars, but I suppose that would put too much of a worldly spin on it.

 

[Saint Steven]

All I see is you mocking and laughing at something you have absolutely no authority to judge.

Really?
And what are you doing to David Bentley Hart? Do you somehow have authority to judge him?

 

[Saint Steven]

Philip Schaff didn't write it. He edited the encyclopedia, but the article in question (on universalism) was written by George T. Knight.

Happy now?

"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor:

"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

 

[prodromos]

Really?
And what are you doing to David Bentley Hart? Do you somehow have authority to judge him?

He wears his bias on his sleeve.

 

[Der Alte]

Philip Schaff didn't write it. He edited the encyclopedia, but the article in question (on universalism) was written by George T. Knight.
If you were quoting a portion of it in a message board post, it would almost certainly fall under fair use.

Since it is over 100 years old I don’t think copyright is an issue.

The claim seems to come from the work "History of opinions on the scriptural doctrine of retribution" by Edward Beecher, a 19th-century writer. Now, the Encyclopedia article doesn't explicitly say that's the source for the six school statement, but it is listed (with other things) as a source at the end of the article. It is almost certain that Beecher's work is the source for this statement. So if one wants to see the proof offered for it, they'd have to look at Beecher's work.

I reviewed the bibliography I did not see any historical sources. All relatively modern, one “scholar” quoting other “scholars.”
About 4 decades ago in grad school I quoted an encyclopedia in a required paper. The Professor’s assistant scribbled all over it in red ink, “Do you consider this a scholarly source?” I thought to myself, “Not any more I don’t.”

Having looked at some of it myself, I don't think it's all that persuasive, at least in the portions I read. I made a post about it quite a while ago:
BEWARE OF UNIVERSAL RECONCILIATION
For someone not wanting to read through the whole thing, my conclusion was:
"THEREFORE, the conclusion of this long, rambling post is that, if Beecher is the source for the argument regarding the different schools, I have to confess I believe he comes up short in his argument. It simply relies too much on claiming a particular influential person believed in the doctrine and that therefore it must have been thought of highly in the areas they influenced (assuming the instances of claimed influence are as grand as was claimed by Beecher), plus a bunch of speculation on his part. One can take his points and put forward an argument that in the early centuries universalism wasn't looked down upon, but as an argument of the predominance of universalism, I feel it--at least in the form of the six schools argument--comes up short."

I concur.

 

[Der Alte]

***

Happy now?
"The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge"
by Schaff-Herzog, 1908, volume 12, page 96
German theologian- Philip Schaff, Editor:
"In the first five or six centuries of Christianity there were six theological schools, of which four (Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa, or Nisibis) were Universalist, one (Ephesus) accepted conditional immortality; one (Carthage or Rome) taught endless punishment of the wicked. Other theological schools are mentioned as founded by Universalists, but their actual doctrine on this subject is not known."

No, zero, none credible, verifiable, historical evidence. One 19th century "'scholar" quoting other 19th century "'scholars."

 

[JSRG]

Since it is over 100 years old I don’t think copyright is an issue.

The copyright discussion wasn't in regards to the encyclopedia (which is clearly public domain at this point), but the work mentioned back in this post.

 

[Hmm]

Read up on the backgrounds of the translators for each of the mainstream English translation we have available today. Read their statement of purpose. It was their prayer that they would be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. While they are all still fallen individuals, do you believe God ignored their prayers?

But doesn't the same apply to those translators who think differently. Does the fact that a particular translation has become mainstream outweigh modern scholarship. If it does, what is the point of having biblical scholars at all? It seems to me as an "amateur" that there are significant differences of view about the meanings of Greek words such as "anion" and "anionios" and so it does need clarifying. And if existing mainstream translations are wrong then surely they should be updated. The promise is that the Holy Spirit will lead the church into truth. And it's such an important issue too because it affects the fundamental view people have of God. A divine being who allows ECT is fundamentally different from one who doesn't.

 

[prodromos]

But doesn't the same apply to those translators who think differently. Does the fact that a particular translation has become mainstream outweigh modern scholarship. If it does, what is the point of having biblical scholars at all? It seems to me as an "amateur" that there are significant differences of view about the meanings of Greek words such as "anion" and "anionios" and so it does need clarifying. And if existing mainstream translations are wrong then surely they should be updated. The promise is that the Holy Spirit will lead the church into truth. And it's such an important issue too because it affects the fundamental view people have of God. A divine being who allows ECT is fundamentally different from one who doesn't.

I used to work as a computer programmer. The worst person you can get to test a program you have written is yourself. You have a confirmation bias which often guides you to only test what you know works and avoid testing what you aren't so sure about. When a team of translators from different backgrounds are assembled it is for the purpose of avoiding that confirmation bias. A single translator has no such defense.
Jesus didn't have just one apostle, He had twelve, and when it came to making decisions about new situations the Church was facing after Pentecost, it was the decision of the council of apostles in Jerusalem, not just one apostle.

When two or three are gathered in My name ...

 

[Hmm]

I used to work as a computer programmer. The worst person you can get to test a program you have written is yourself. You have a confirmation bias which often guides you to only test what you know works and avoid testing what you aren't so sure about. When a team of translators from different backgrounds are assembled it is for the purpose of avoiding that confirmation bias. A single translator has no such defense.
Jesus didn't have just one apostle, He had twelve, and when it came to making decisions about new situations the Church was facing after Pentecost, it was the decision of the council of apostles in Jerusalem, not just one apostle.

When two or three are gathered in My name ...

I think that's a great reply, thanks - I also write software at times so I totally relate to the confirmation bias your describe! I'm still not quite sure how continuing scholarship fits into this though. Doesn't the option always have to be kept open that any current views may be proved wrong in the event of new understanding of the language and culture of the time? It seems counter intuitive but I would imagine that we know more about 1st century Christianity now then even the most advanced scholar did in, say, the Middle Ages because we have more advanced techniques to examine archeology and the literature of the times than they did then.

 

[Saint Steven]

More info on the translation from Good Reads.

David Bentley Hart undertook this new translation of the New Testament in the spirit of “etsi doctrina non daretur,” “as if doctrine is not given.” Reproducing the texts’ often fragmentary formulations without augmentation or correction, he has produced a pitilessly literal translation, one that captures the texts’ impenetrability and unfinished quality while awakening readers to an uncanniness that often lies hidden beneath doctrinal layers.

The early Christians’ sometimes raw, astonished, and halting prose challenges the idea that the New Testament affirms the kind of people we are. Hart reminds us that they were a company of extremists, radical in their rejection of the values and priorities of society not only at its most degenerate, but often at its most reasonable and decent. “To live as the New Testament language requires,” he writes, “Christians would have to become strangers and sojourners on the earth, to have here no enduring city, to belong to a Kingdom truly not of this world. And we surely cannot do that, can we?”

Source: The New Testament: A Translation by David Bentley Hart

 

[Lukaris]

I think for those of us who are Orthodox is that Hart is misrepresenting Orthodoxy with universalism ( some opinions might say an ultimate redemption). We will side with Protestants & Catholics who also reject universalism but a major concern for us is Hart attaching universalism to Orthodox Christianity.

 

[Saint Steven]

I think for those of us who are Orthodox is that Hart is misrepresenting Orthodoxy with universalism ( some opinions might say an ultimate redemption). We will side with Protestants & Catholics who also reject universalism but a major concern for us is Hart attaching universalism to Orthodox Christianity.

Historically, Christian Universalism came from the eastern church. And Eastern Orthodox peoples have been the biggest supporters of the doctrine. No one is claiming it is the prevailing view now, not even Hart.

 

[Lazarus Short]

More info on the translation from Good Reads.

David Bentley Hart undertook this new translation of the New Testament in the spirit of “etsi doctrina non daretur,” “as if doctrine is not given.” Reproducing the texts’ often fragmentary formulations without augmentation or correction, he has produced a pitilessly literal translation, one that captures the texts’ impenetrability and unfinished quality while awakening readers to an uncanniness that often lies hidden beneath doctrinal layers.

The early Christians’ sometimes raw, astonished, and halting prose challenges the idea that the New Testament affirms the kind of people we are. Hart reminds us that they were a company of extremists, radical in their rejection of the values and priorities of society not only at its most degenerate, but often at its most reasonable and decent. “To live as the New Testament language requires,” he writes, “Christians would have to become strangers and sojourners on the earth, to have here no enduring city, to belong to a Kingdom truly not of this world. And we surely cannot do that, can we?”

Source: The New Testament: A Translation by David Bentley Hart

That is what I have been saying (or close to it): first the translation, and only then, the doctrine.

 

[prodromos]

Historically, Christian Universalism came from the eastern church. And Eastern Orthodox peoples have been the biggest supporters of the doctrine. No one is claiming it is the prevailing view now, not even Hart.

Historically, Eastern Orthodox have been the biggest condemners of Universalism.

 

[Lukaris]

Historically, Christian Universalism came from the eastern church. And Eastern Orthodox peoples have been the biggest supporters of the doctrine. No one is claiming it is the prevailing view now, not even Hart.

St. Ignatius of Antioch (in Syria in ancient times) wrote to the Ephesians about 100 AD:


Chapter 16. The fate of false teachers
Do not err, my brethren. James 1:16 Those that corrupt families shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 If, then, those who do this as respects the flesh have suffered death, how much more shall this be the case with any one who corrupts by wicked doctrinethe faith of God, for which Jesus Christ was crucified! Such an one becoming defiled [in this way], shall go away into everlasting fire, and so shall every one that hearkens unto him.


CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Ephesians (St. Ignatius)

I belong to the Antiochian Church of the Eastern Orthodox Church. On Sunday I verified with our parish priest that we do not teach universalism. The Lord did not teach it, St. Paul did not, St. Ignatius did not in the early 2nd century & the Orthodox Church still does not. We believe ANYONE (Christian or non) can be saved but not everyone will be.We can pray & hope for the salvation of all.