Loading...I am pleased to post here an interview that I had with Platinum blog member Kevin Grant, who has recently published a book Did Jesus Believe in Hell? You can get the book here: Did Jesus Believe in Hell?: New Words on Old Beliefs: Grant, Kevin: 9781737082026: Amazon.com: Books. As you will see, it has received very high rankings on Amazon.
Kevin and I see eye-to-eye on most of the critical points, and we flesh them out here in the interview. His book strives to reach a different audience from mine, people who would not be inclined to read one of my books but would be open to hearing the views of someone they take to be sympathetic with their religious convictions but who wants to provide them with assurance from the Bible itself that they do not need to stand in fear of eternal torment.
We cover all that and much more in this interview. I hope you enjoy it! And feel free to comment.
Bart, you wrote (10/9/2013):
The *first* author ever to list *our* 27 books and claim that *these* (and no others) were “the” books of the New Testament was the bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius, in the year 367 (45 years *after* the council of Nicea!) in a letter that he wrote to the churches under his control to whom he was giving his annual episcopal advice. And even that did not decide the issue: different orthodox churches continued to think that some books should be in, for example, that didn’t make it in (e.g. 1 and 2 Clement; the Shepherd of Hermas; the Letter of Barnabas).
There never was a church council that decided the issue – until the (anti-Reformation, Roman Catholic) Council of Trent in the 16th century!
Google result
The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. Pope Innocent I ratified the same canon in 405, but it is probable that a Council in Rome in 382 under Pope Damasus I gave the same list first.
Question: 393 and 397 are not important about dating the NT?
Thank you.
Those were not full church councils, like any of the seven ecumenical councils (Nicea, Chalcedon, etc), but local synods, whose rulings represented local views with no binding force on any other regions/churches (and by and large were not known). So they are dates worth knowing, but they were in no way definitive. (One good piece of evidence: church leaders continued ot argue on which books should be in and out afterword. I don’t know the evidence that Damasus gave the list. Do you have a reference offhand?
I do not have a reference. I was reading the google result/Wikipedia entry for “Development of the New Testament Canon.”
“Though a list was clearly necessary to fulfill Constantine’s commission in 331 of fifty copies of the Bible for the Church at Constantinople, no evidence exists to indicate it was considered to be a formal canon.”
QUESTION: Have any of the 50 copies of the Bible commissioned by Constantine survive?
So, the DaVinci Code was technically wrong, but decisions had to be made what was going to fill Constantine’s commission…
= = =
In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books that would formally become the New Testament canon, and he used the word “canonized” (κανονιζομενα) in regard to them. The first council that accepted the present Catholic canon (the Canon of Trent) was the Council of Rome, held by Pope Damasus I (382).
Pope Damasus I is often considered to be the father of the Catholic canon, since what is thought as his list corresponds to the current Catholic canon.
= = =
I should have also mentioned the year 382 for the Council of Rome, which was not one of the first seven Ecumenical Councils.
Right: Constantine’s order of 50 Bibles deinitely does not imply a fixed canon at all; he himself never discusses the canon, nor ddid the Council of Nicea. Constantine’s order was to Eusebius of Caesarea, who does himself discuss in detail the question of the canon in his Ecclesiastical History, exxplicitly stating that there are some books accepted by some groups that are to be excluded in his opinion, others that are debated (including some that eventually made it in), etc. So no, there’s no set canon at the time. And again, I don’t know what the evidence is that Damasus had a fixed canon in mind. I’ll have to look into it furhter. The Gelasian Decree is almost certainly 6th century, so I’m not sure how much it would be.
Note to self:
Council of Nicaea – 325 CE
Constantine’s Commission for 50 Bibles – 331 CE (6 years later)
Bart D.E., Thank you.
[Let me see exactly–[Google], what is the Gelasian Decree?]
The Gelasian Decree (Latin: Decretum Gelasianum) is a Latin text traditionally thought to be a Decretal [letters] of the prolific Pope Gelasius I, bishop of Rome from 492–496.
The work reached its final form in a five-chapter text written by an anonymous scholar between 519 and 553, the second chapter of which is a list of books of Scripture presented as
*having been made part of the biblical canon*
by a Council of Rome under Pope Damasus I, the bishop of Rome from 366–383.
This list, known as the Damasine List,
[Burkitt > Journal of Theological Studies 14, (1913) pp. 469-471]
represents
*the same canon as shown in the Council of Carthage Canon 24 in 419.*
The fifth segment of the work includes a list of distrusted and rejected works not encouraged for church use.
Would the members at the Council of Nicaea not know Constantine would eventually (in less than 10 yrs) need some bibles (collection of books) commissioned for publication?
Yes.
What would be a close second to canon?
Answer: *Curated* collection of books (Bible) commissioned by the emperor of Rome.
QUESTION: Has any one of the 50 copies of the Bible commissioned by Constantine survived?
cc: Daniel Wallace at the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts [Plano, TX]
Dr. Wallace, I’m commenting at Bart Ehrman’s blog and wondered if you also knew the answer to this question.
Has any one of the 50 copies of the Bible commissioned by Constantine survived?
I don’t see why The Vatican Library wouldn’t have one.
Did you digitize a copy?
Thank you,
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy [also in Plano, TX]
No need to ask Dan. He hasn’t digitized one because one doesn’t exist. Some scholars have argued that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are two of the 50, but I don’t know anyone who thinks that still. And the Vatican library doesn’t have 99% of the books from Christian antiquity!
I’m sorry if I missed it in your lengthy conversation with Kevin, but what do we make of the parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, where Jesus offers the image of ongoing torment, not merely annihilation, in the afterlife for the wicked (or in this case, the callous rich)? Most English translations state that the rich man lies in “hell” (Gr. “hades”) looking up at Lazarus in the distance who is comforted in “Abraham’s bosom”. How likely is it, in your opinion, that this is an actual parable that may go back to Jesus, or is it probably a later tradition that the author of Luke picked up somewhere else?
(I also recall that Luke’s first beatitude, against Matthew, reads “blessed are the poor,” not “poor in spirit” and includes the Four Woes aimed at those who enjoy comfort and privilege in this life — perhaps the story of Lazarus continues the author’s preoccupation with justice for the poor?)
Ah, you can watch it! And I deal with this at some length in mybook Heaven and Hell if you’re really intersted. Luke 16 does not use the term “hell” and does not say anything about the rich man being in fire forever. In some apocalyptic traditions people were tormented until the day of judgment and then annihilated. We don’t know what Luke had in mind. But he clearly — as I argue in my book — is moving away from an apocalyptic escahtology that envisioned a futre day of judgment to an ongoing existence of the soul after death (i.e., his views are an alteration of those of Jesus)
Excellent coverage of the topic. I especially benefitted from the discussion of the rich man and Lazarus parable, which explained much to me.
Really great great interview, Bart. A great introduction to the concept of the historical Jesus and then a series of grear questions about Gehenna and the soul with clearly explained and referenced answers. But I’ve still got a problem with your view 😉. If Jesus was using Gehenna literally rather than metaphorically, then, if “you allowed your eye to offend you”, who was it that would “throw your whole body into Gehenna”? (Mat 5:29)? or who would throw you “with both eyes into the fire of Gehenna”? (Mark: 9:47) . How would any Jewish earthly authority know if you were secretly “coveting your neighbour’s wife” in order to *literally* throw you into the valley of the sons of Hinnom? Also, why emphasise the worm not dying? And how could you gnash your teeth if you were dead – annihilated? And why did the early church fathers get it so wrong? Bart, doesn’t your claim that the historical Jesus preached a *literal* Gehenna interpretation and annihilationism with respect to the soul, have a few problems? 😀
The persons throwing you into the pit were the enemies who killed you probably, I’d guess. I’m not sure what the problem is? As to the worm not dying, he’s quoting a metaphor from Isaiah 66.
Going with your literal interpretation of being literally thrown into the valley of hinnom, where an unquenchable fire burns continuously and immortal worms fester, as a result of your eye continuing to ‘offend you’ when the Kingdom of God arrives on earth, means that YHVH himself or his angels will do the throwing of you into the pit because (bringing Isaiah 66), this must make you an enemy of YHVH. The alternative is that when the Kingdom arrives on earth, you’ll enter with one eye or one hand etc missing, but hey it’s OK, because you are one of the king’s men, so when your whole body eventually does die, hey you’ll get an honourable burial in the Kingdom of God and you might even have your bones preserved in an osssuary. So be plucky 😀 (pardon the pun). I just can’t believe anyone would preach this message – Jesus and JtheB included. Then we have Mark 9:45 to explain, where entering into the kingdom is replaced by entering into life. Jesus must be talking about more than an earthly Hinnom annihilation and more than an earthly Kingdom of God.
To answer your last question, Bart’s claim here has no problems. All this Gehenna stuff is kind of new to me but, after listening to the video, Bart’s explanation of it is clear. At least my understanding of his explanation is clear. On the Christian judgment day, all dead people will be physically resurrected and, like those people already alive, face God’s final judgment. Only those who are judged as saved will be granted immortality and those who are judged as not saved will have their existence permanently wiped out. After receiving their judgment, the unsaved will be physically (not metaphorically) thrown into the valley of Gehenna where they will be gnashing their teeth while they are being made non-existent by being burned up. As for those people who are saved, they may initially have only one hand or one eye but when their bodies are made immortal those problems will be fixed. So, I agree with Bart that there is no real problem here.
Also, later in the interview, you say that Gehenna is metaphorical. So if it’s metaphorical, how can you claim earlier in the interview, that it’s simply referring to the literal indignity of disposal of your body in the in the valley of the sons of Hinnom, which is literally cursed and cut off from God? You can’t have your cake and eat it! Either it’s literal and just means destruction/annihilation; or it’s metaphorical and refers to a place of eternal metaphorical fire where you wouldn’t want your soul to end up? Am I missing something? 😀
Sorry — I don’t remember saying Gehenna was metaphorical. So I’m the one missing something. My guess is that if I said that I was doing so in reference to a very specific context; but what that might have been I can’t imagine just now. It *certainly* is metaphorical in the sense that it means more than it says, in that it’s referring to the most horrible outcome you could imagine for what is left of your earthly remains. But the term itself refers to the valley outside Jerusalem. disabledupes{518b2f3e142d81a4c98d53cebebbb75f}disabledupes
This was a terrific interview. Very deep and specific questions from Kevin. This interview really stands out. I learned a lot.
I think that Jesus did have a sense of the immortality of the soul. There may also have been an evolution in his thinking during his three years of ministry. So Jesus started off with a very similar message to JtheBaptist’s “repent for the kingdom of God is coming on earth” and this is going to involve a baptism of fire and destruction either involving the literal valley of Hinnom or something that you can get the idea of from Hinnom (ie metaphorical) and consequent gnashing of teeth, rich being made poor, poor being made, rich, first being made last, and other beatitudinal reversals. Therefore, repent now, while you’ve got a chance to get right with YHWH. And what matters the most is not the outward appearance of obedience to the law, but the inward motivation and the loving of God and your neighbour. But at the same time, he was influenced by Danielic and Enochian ideas of cosmic judgement of the whole universe; and behind-the-scenes spiritual (non-physical) “principalities and powers” as well as by pharisaic notions of a final day resurrection, which, in order to preserve personal identity, must imply immortality of the soul.
I don’t think any of that implies the immortality of the soul. But rather it implies the physical immortality of resurrected physical bodies in a new heaven and new earth. And that immortality is only for those that are saved on the Christian judgment day. The unsaved have their existence wiped out. I think that is what Bart is saying because that is what the New Testament actually says.
How can *your* resurrection body in the new heaven and earth actually be *you*, unless *your* personal identity is preserved in some way in between the death of *your* physical body and *your* subsequent re-instantiation in *your* new body. The ‘you’ we are talking about is the Cartesian / Platonic inner experiencing/ feeling / thinking / desiring / willing conscious subject. That is the soul or the Atman in Hinduism or the spirit of God within you in fully developed Judaeao-Christian metaphysics. You can either reject the existence of the soul as Hume & modern neuroscientists do, the Buddha may have done, and the Advaita Vedanta Hindus arguably do, or you can accept it. If you don’t accept it, then the resurrection body cannot possibly be you, and also when you wake up after a deep sleep, you’re no longer you, and arguably, with that view, every second you’re a different person. The immortality of the soul is a necessary prerequisite for a resurrection of *you* into an immortal body. Period.
This is a question ancient Christians dealt with at length (sometimes in amusing detail) when pagans mocked the doctrine of the future resurrrection. A number of intriguing treatises were written on it. I talk about it a bit in my book Heaven and Hell, in a chapter called Eternal LIfe in the Flesh.
Bart, Jesus was clearly a deep thinker (even if not au fait with Plato and Aristotle), and believed in the pharisaic doctrine of the resurrection of the body at some point in the future. Jesus‘s mystical temptations in the wilderness was arguably an out-of-body experience. He believed in evil spirits – conscious entities that could be cast out of the body by talking to them. He believed that human beings could communicate with their father in heaven, who was clearly not in a body. If we accept John chapters 3&4, Jesus had a deep concept of the spirit being different to the body as wind is to solid matter and that conscious communication with God was an inward private non bodily matter. So, surely when he talked about *your* eye offending *you* and gaining the whole world at the expense of losing *your* own soul Mark 8:36, he was thinking about a very similar concept to the Platonic soul, perhaps a zoroastrian soul (Fravashi) which may have influenced pharisaic and essennic thinking and was considered to remain in the earth for 3 days and 3 nights after the body died, before *ascending* to the heavenly realm.
A good argument can be made for the existence of a soul here but that is a different question as to whether or not it is immortal. A soul that has a lifetime of 4000 years, before ceasing to exist, can fit the prescription Neuro mentions but that is a different question than what the New Testament actually says about the fate of the damned on the Christian judgment day. So, we could say that only those who are saved on the Christian judgment day have their souls made immortal while those who are not saved have their souls permanently wiped out of existence. According to the New Testament, human souls cannot now have immortality because, if they did, then that contradicts 1 Timothy 6:15-16 which says that “… [Jesus] alone who has immortality …”. And the gospel of John clearly says there are three necessary conditions for human “souls” to gain eternal life, i.e. immortality, are (1) believing Jesus is the son of the Israeli god, (2) eating the flesh of Jesus, and (3) drinking the blood of Jesus post judgment day. And those conditions only apply to those who are saved.
I’ve heard Sodom & Gomorrah was destroyed by a volcano, which accounts for the rain of fire and Lot’s wife being buried by lava (salt).
Similarly, the “fire” which destroys at the Apocalypse could be explained by the sun turning into a Red Giant, which will incinerate the earth.
Do I believe the above? No, but one could use imagination to explain almost anything in scripture.
Nope. And, uh, which volcano would that have been? (People just say that ’cause it kinda like a volcano, not because there’s any evidence. When James Taylor says “I’ve seen fire and I’ve seen rain” it’s also probably not an actual volcano. 🙂 ) And if the sun incinerates the earth, where exactly are those streets of gold gonna be?
How/when did the concept of Purgatory evolve?
I have a full discussoin of that in my book and heaven and hell. Short answer, from my book: “The term “Purgatory” itself was not coined until the twelfth century and the idea was not institutionalized as an official part of church teaching until the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. But the basic idea behind it, that some of those who would ultimately be saved would first experience postmortem suffering, goes far back. We find its beginnings in the early centuries of the church.” My chapter explains those earlier conceptual parallels.
I like long interviews
To me, the Ehrman Blog seems a unique resource for funding charity without the need for dilution of donations by diversion to overheads and, as the blog itself states, for making available to lay readers, who are not holders of a Ph.D. in Biblical literature, scholarship that may otherwise remain entrapped in the cloisters of academe. Congratulations on exceeding the end of year challenge (Blog Post: 9 December,2022) of half million dollars for charity.
A core conclusion of the lengthy but worthwhile interview with Kevin Grant (Post: 30 December,2022) on the topic of “Heaven and Hell, A History of the Afterlife” by B.D. Ehrman is that the Lucan parable of Lazarus and his gluttonous counterpart is not attributable to the historical Jesus because of the parable’s presuppositions about Jesus’s death and resurrection ( “Heaven and Hell”, p202). My own reading on the topic has encountered a daunting melting pot of rational but speculative and conflicting scholarship on Luke’s Lazarus. To know how Dr Ehrman, without the benefit of a scientific testing laboratory, sifts though a bookcase of scholarly writing, spawned by just a few Biblical verses, to form his own relevant conclusions would be useful.
I guess I do it the way every historical interpreter does it. You read the texts carefully a thousand times in the original language in their immediate context and broader (in this case Lukan) context, in light of what you know about the world and what the people thoguht in it at the time; you see what the many options of interpretation are and the arguments for and against each one; you balance the arguments and come to see which, in your judgment, are the strongest arguments for the most compelling views.
Thanks for the interview Bart! I just finished watching all of it. Looking forward to reading more of Heaven and Hell.