I love Brads help for me here! I’m trying to find a better way continue in my faith, now as a 51 year old gen Xer second class unimportant believer in Christ.
Thanks for the review..I have ordered my copy! It's been a while since we had a "literal" translation. It seems that in the main individual scholars are the only ones prepared to do the work and place themselves in the firing line when it comes to being true to the written Word. Dr. Hart is in good company: - Scarlett, Young, Wilson, Rotherham, Weymouth, Knoch and a few others. I look forward to reading the Greek Scriptures afresh.
A follower of Process Theology (Whitehead, Harteshorne, Pittenger et al) I have long believed in Universalism; but was introduced to the writings of David Bentley Hart only recently, by one of the Church of England 'Revs', from 'IRREVEREND' (UA-cam). Now aged 71, and having shared life with a gentle male atheist for forty years, I have had to "work out my own salvation in fear and trembling", away from the dubious 'comforts' of the Church. Not that this has meant a lack of 'koinonia': there are plenty of kind, loving, people outside of the Church. My hope is that Professor Hart's translation might join that of N T Wright, and provide the experience of the Apostles (such as we have their recollections in the New Testament) with 'new life'.
I have bought the printed New Testament, and have been enjoying a Kindle version for a while. I just found a more searchable version of Hart's New Testament on Olive Tree, for just $14.00 and I highly recommend downloading their software if you like to read and search the scriptures on your laptop or Ipad.
Have a hard cover of the book and waiting for Delusions/Atheists which will be delivered tomorrow. Hart’s is a fresh look at old stuff. Glad to see it and read it.
Damn you man*, I went to immediately order this and found it's not due to be published for a couple of months! How on earth did you get a copy?! *Obviously by "damn" I mean "condemn to a period of fiery chastisement."
Thanks for this, Brad - I very much look forward to receiving my copy of Harts translation when it is released. In response to Mr. Felker - I read much of your material (of special interest, your blog post on Atheology, "Afterlife Punishment in the New Testament and the New Academic Apologetics"). I think your main objection is that you find it is far more "probable" that this word (aionos) should be translated "eternity" - over against the "possible" translation of "[pertaining to an] Age". For you, the latter translation in this case is almost certainly eisegesis. Your argument against Hart and Ramelli is essentially statistical - i.e. that, given the preponderance of the usage of this Greek word at that time (and in and around that culture) is best understood as "eternity", then we should almost certainly see the same meaning in how the word is meant to be understood in Matthew 25:46. While I do not agree with some of the ad hominem remarks made against Dr. Ramelli - I do think you have pointed out certain weaknesses in her arguments - and perhaps exposed an underlying agenda (to prove proto-Origenist apocatastatic eschatology might well underlie the meaning of aionos in Matthew 25) that may have skewed her objectivity on the subject. You want us to acknowledge that, whether the perspective is right or wrong - we should just be able to accept that whoever wrote this passage could (and, indeed, more likely than not) have really believed that God punishes eternally those who fail the tests delineated in the Matthew 25. I will concede your point - it is of course possible that they (or Jesus himself) could have held such a view. But here is where I differ from you: I also accept the possibility that Jesus could have meant otherwise - and that there is no statistical way to prove that this is not a viable option. In other words it is not absurd or unthinkable that Jesus - whose very life, ministry and (above all) resurrection, is "improbable" - yet "possible". This leads us into a different direction when considering the horizon of meaning for the word aionos. It could be argued that as he (Jesus) found himself in the flow of a prophetic mind-set, and that he overturned second temple Jewish theological conceptions and expectations with the same violence as the Temple tables. I know this is subtle - but there is a discernible (and, I think, undeniable) strain of the conception of a God who not only acts in "improbable" ways - but also for whom all things are possible. You see this in the Jonah (where the king rightly observes about the improbable but possible response of God to their fasting, "Who knows...?"). We see, as Jonah observed, that God is by nature "a God who relents from sending calamity". And in Ezekiel and Jeremiah (among others) great reversals for even so hopeless a people as Sodom - though they were destroyed - yet (!) they will be restored (Ezekiel 16). All of this is just to suggest that the outlier should still be given consideration - and that certain Old Testament prophetic notions could both underlie and justify a somewhat radical meaning and intent in Jesus' words concerning future punishment and reward. One final point: a substantial body of work across the spectrum of academic lexical assessments of the potential meaning of aoinos give a place to the alternative meaning of the word. For instance one interlinear Septuagint defines aionos (in Jonah 2) as such: “age-long/ unending age-long, and therefore: practically eternal, unending; partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting”. I'm not sure how this is best accomplished in a translation such as Harts - but, at least with this highly charged and critical word, alternatives should be noted - or, perhaps just transliterate the term and leave it as "aionos" to draw the reader into the mystery of the word - a mystery that remains with us.
Good thoughts, Wayne Fair. "unending age-long" is a contradiction in terms. In the Scriptures, aionion is never used of unendingness even when used or connected with "God." For instance, in Romans 16:26 "the eonian God" is God pertaining to the eons. He is over them, directing them, subjecting humanity to the goal He has for each eon. It is improper for the theologian or word-smith to say "aionion = eternal, because God is eternal." That is forcing the noun "God" to modify the adjective "aionion." This goes contrary to the grammar rules. The adjective modifies the noun. Then there are some theologians or word-smiths who say "aionios is eternal, see Plato's Timaeus, Kronos bla bla bla." However, if you look at that section under "KRONOS" which is **TIME** you see Plato actually proves the eons are not eternal as God is. He said "There is "is," "was" and will be." Then he states "God is" for He is never ending. Eonian or eon is "was and will be" for these are concerning time.
The book intrigues, especially the claims of the authentic voice. However, translating the bad common Greek into 'blog' Enlglish feels backwords. I have ordered the book anyway. Thanks for the review.
Funny, all the saints worried until their dying breathe about whether or not they would obtain salvation. Yet I see people flocking to this universalist teaching which is making everyone feel great that God won't "really" punish or banish people. I'm just not feeling it.
Ah man, that's unfortunate; for aionios, I was really hoping that Hart was going to consult with some linguists who could put him on the right track. If anything, he seems to be reliant on the work of Ilaria Ramelli here, who's probably done more to give the revisionist interpretation of aionios a veneer of academic support -- through a lot of bad linguistics/translation, if not actual deception -- than anyone else.
I seriously doubt that Hart needs to lean on Ramelli in the least. For myself, being (evidently) one of the "deceived" - I appreciate any translation that reveals at the very least the ambiguity of the word, "aionios" - and that, translated as "Age", he is closer to the truth than maintaining the traditionalist preference for the unambiguous word, "eternity". It would be helpful if you could cite (with links) solid evidence that Ramelli (or Hart) is perpetrating bad scholarship or linguistics.
Oh that's a rude comment. I don't think Hart is open to revisionism even if tempted with a trillion quid (yeah I'm a Brit - quids are so much more original that the revisionist "buck"), so, that settles it then!
(1) Who's revising what, exactly. Aionios means, a very long space of time, at MOST. (2) Deception? Don't know who you've been reading, but clearly you've not considered all the evidence.
"'Execrable... execrable'... Hart."
LOL. Great video!
#rofl #dead
I love Brads help for me here! I’m trying to find a better way continue in my faith, now as a 51 year old gen Xer second class unimportant believer in Christ.
My cousin who's a Baptist minister says, "For God so loved the world that he didn't send a committee.".
what do the Fathers say about the NT? Is DBH an obedient son?
actually he did - he established a church. Not that i expect prots to understand that because they're self serving sectarian fools
I don’t know how anyone could confuse Jesus, the Holy Spirit, or the church with a committee.
I love how Brad has categorised this as 'Comedy'. Sending you massive love Brad! Keep up your incredible work
Thanks for the review..I have ordered my copy! It's been a while since we had a "literal" translation. It seems that in the main individual scholars are the only ones prepared to do the work and place themselves in the firing line when it comes to being true to the written Word. Dr. Hart is in good company: - Scarlett, Young, Wilson, Rotherham, Weymouth, Knoch and a few others. I look forward to reading the Greek Scriptures afresh.
Thanks man! This has been very helpful to me.
A follower of Process Theology (Whitehead, Harteshorne, Pittenger et al) I have long believed in Universalism; but was introduced to the writings of David Bentley Hart only recently, by one of the Church of England 'Revs', from 'IRREVEREND' (UA-cam). Now aged 71, and having shared life with a gentle male atheist for forty years, I have had to "work out my own salvation in fear and trembling", away from the dubious 'comforts' of the Church. Not that this has meant a lack of 'koinonia': there are plenty of kind, loving, people outside of the Church. My hope is that Professor Hart's translation might join that of N T Wright, and provide the experience of the Apostles (such as we have their recollections in the New Testament) with 'new life'.
This DBH translation/book and Zahnd's new book 'Letters from Babylon' are my next two to order
I'm curious to know did you get those two books and if so, what did you think about them ?
Beautiful review. Thank you.
Good thoughtful and considered evaluation. Thank you.
Thank you for the review! I just ordered this as someone recommended it to me. The reading at the end was really satisfying.
Thanks Brad!
I have bought the printed New Testament, and have been enjoying a Kindle version for a while. I just found a more searchable version of Hart's New Testament on Olive Tree, for just $14.00 and I highly recommend downloading their software if you like to read and search the scriptures on your laptop or Ipad.
Fantastic!
Have a hard cover of the book and waiting for Delusions/Atheists which will be delivered tomorrow. Hart’s is a fresh look at old stuff. Glad to see it and read it.
This seems more in line with St. Gregory of Nyssa thinking as laid out in his dialogue with his sister.
great review thanks.
Good review of an important work
Excellent review
there are actually some other languages that translate ekklesia as the equivalent of assembly. some slavic languages have the word zbor
Chris Capoccia sobor (correct)
Damn you man*, I went to immediately order this and found it's not due to be published for a couple of months! How on earth did you get a copy?!
*Obviously by "damn" I mean "condemn to a period of fiery chastisement."
Saladzingers - wrote Yale for review copy
LOL... you're a hoot. ~S
Thanks for this, Brad - I very much look forward to receiving my copy of Harts translation when it is released.
In response to Mr. Felker - I read much of your material (of special interest, your blog post on Atheology, "Afterlife Punishment in the New Testament and the New Academic Apologetics").
I think your main objection is that you find it is far more "probable" that this word (aionos) should be translated "eternity" - over against the "possible" translation of "[pertaining to an] Age". For you, the latter translation in this case is almost certainly eisegesis. Your argument against Hart and Ramelli is essentially statistical - i.e. that, given the preponderance of the usage of this Greek word at that time (and in and around that culture) is best understood as "eternity", then we should almost certainly see the same meaning in how the word is meant to be understood in Matthew 25:46.
While I do not agree with some of the ad hominem remarks made against Dr. Ramelli - I do think you have pointed out certain weaknesses in her arguments - and perhaps exposed an underlying agenda (to prove proto-Origenist apocatastatic eschatology might well underlie the meaning of aionos in Matthew 25) that may have skewed her objectivity on the subject.
You want us to acknowledge that, whether the perspective is right or wrong - we should just be able to accept that whoever wrote this passage could (and, indeed, more likely than not) have really believed that God punishes eternally those who fail the tests delineated in the Matthew 25.
I will concede your point - it is of course possible that they (or Jesus himself) could have held such a view.
But here is where I differ from you: I also accept the possibility that Jesus could have meant otherwise - and that there is no statistical way to prove that this is not a viable option. In other words it is not absurd or unthinkable that Jesus - whose very life, ministry and (above all) resurrection, is "improbable" - yet "possible".
This leads us into a different direction when considering the horizon of meaning for the word aionos. It could be argued that as he (Jesus) found himself in the flow of a prophetic mind-set, and that he overturned second temple Jewish theological conceptions and expectations with the same violence as the Temple tables. I know this is subtle - but there is a discernible (and, I think, undeniable) strain of the conception of a God who not only acts in "improbable" ways - but also for whom all things are possible. You see this in the Jonah (where the king rightly observes about the improbable but possible response of God to their fasting, "Who knows...?"). We see, as Jonah observed, that God is by nature "a God who relents from sending calamity". And in Ezekiel and Jeremiah (among others) great reversals for even so hopeless a people as Sodom - though they were destroyed - yet (!) they will be restored (Ezekiel 16).
All of this is just to suggest that the outlier should still be given consideration - and that certain Old Testament prophetic notions could both underlie and justify a somewhat radical meaning and intent in Jesus' words concerning future punishment and reward.
One final point: a substantial body of work across the spectrum of academic lexical assessments of the potential meaning of aoinos give a place to the alternative meaning of the word. For instance one interlinear Septuagint defines aionos (in Jonah 2) as such: “age-long/ unending age-long, and therefore: practically eternal, unending; partaking of the character of that which lasts for an age, as contrasted with that which is brief and fleeting”.
I'm not sure how this is best accomplished in a translation such as Harts - but, at least with this highly charged and critical word, alternatives should be noted - or, perhaps just transliterate the term and leave it as "aionos" to draw the reader into the mystery of the word - a mystery that remains with us.
Good thoughts, Wayne Fair.
"unending age-long" is a contradiction in terms. In the Scriptures, aionion is never used of unendingness even when used or connected with "God." For instance, in Romans 16:26 "the eonian God" is God pertaining to the eons. He is over them, directing them, subjecting humanity to the goal He has for each eon.
It is improper for the theologian or word-smith to say "aionion = eternal, because God is eternal." That is forcing the noun "God" to modify the adjective "aionion." This goes contrary to the grammar rules. The adjective modifies the noun.
Then there are some theologians or word-smiths who say "aionios is eternal, see Plato's Timaeus, Kronos bla bla bla." However, if you look at that section under "KRONOS" which is **TIME** you see Plato actually proves the eons are not eternal as God is. He said "There is "is," "was" and will be." Then he states "God is" for He is never ending. Eonian or eon is "was and will be" for these are concerning time.
I wouldn’t have thought of DBH as in any sense a serious Greek philologist.
Never heard of this translation before. All I can say is, at least its not The Pasion "Translation".
The book intrigues, especially the claims of the authentic voice. However, translating the bad common Greek into 'blog' Enlglish feels backwords. I have ordered the book anyway. Thanks for the review.
Sold. Are you getting a comission? 😉
we never needed cosmos translated :) obviously John never had PBS as a kid
Funny, all the saints worried until their dying breathe about whether or not they would obtain salvation. Yet I see people flocking to this universalist teaching which is making everyone feel great that God won't "really" punish or banish people. I'm just not feeling it.
A very lackluster review of a historical event.
This DBH translation of the NT is MOMENTOUS work that nobody else had the balls to do.
its poor Greek because its koine greek, common or street greek, think ebonics vs. proper English.
Ah man, that's unfortunate; for aionios, I was really hoping that Hart was going to consult with some linguists who could put him on the right track.
If anything, he seems to be reliant on the work of Ilaria Ramelli here, who's probably done more to give the revisionist interpretation of aionios a veneer of academic support -- through a lot of bad linguistics/translation, if not actual deception -- than anyone else.
I seriously doubt that Hart needs to lean on Ramelli in the least. For myself, being (evidently) one of the "deceived" - I appreciate any translation that reveals at the very least the ambiguity of the word, "aionios" - and that, translated as "Age", he is closer to the truth than maintaining the traditionalist preference for the unambiguous word, "eternity". It would be helpful if you could cite (with links) solid evidence that Ramelli (or Hart) is perpetrating bad scholarship or linguistics.
neuroendocrinologist Thank you for your thorough reply - I will dig deeper into your linked material.
neuroendocrinologist, are you really a physician? If so, does your work on the brain influence your theological/philosophical work, or vice versa?
Oh that's a rude comment. I don't think Hart is open to revisionism even if tempted with a trillion quid (yeah I'm a Brit - quids are so much more original that the revisionist "buck"), so, that settles it then!
(1) Who's revising what, exactly. Aionios means, a very long space of time, at MOST. (2) Deception? Don't know who you've been reading, but clearly you've not considered all the evidence.
Arguing about a fantasy world. Just like scholars arguing about Zeus and Hera.