Loading...In this short thread I’m trying to explain the difference between a trade book for a general audience and an academic book for scholars, through example. In my previous post I gave the beginning couple of pages of my trade book with Simon and Schuster, Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife.
The academic book coming out on April 5 is not covering the same material but is dealing with a related aspect of it, and at a much deeper level. The book does not pursue the question of where the ideas of heaven and hell came from (the topic of the trade book), but rather explores narrated journeys to the realms of the dead in a range of ancient texts. The book is called Journeys to Heaven and Hell in the Early Christian Tradition (Yale University Press).
You can get some basic sense of the different levels of the two books by comparing the way they begin. So, in contrast with the trade book from yesterday, here is the academic book.
(Again: Please don’t worry about typos or other kinds of mistakes: this is simply a typed out version that hasn’t been copy-edited)
******************************
Scholars have paid surprisingly little attention to the “journeys to the afterlife” in the early Christian tradition.[i] The oldest surviving account is the Apocalypse of Peter, first circulated in the early part of the second century; the most famous is the late-fourth-century Apocalypse of Paul, probably known to Dante. Important as well are two Near Death Experiences narrated in the Acts of Thomas and Christ’s “Descent to Hell” in the Gospel of Nicodemus, one of the most theologically influential narratives from outside the biblical canon. All these visits of the living to the realms of the dead informed Christian imagination and played significant roles in Christian theology, ethics, and evangelism. It is difficult to explain their relatively sparse treatment.
My study
Members of the blog get five posts a week on everything involving the historical Jesus, the New Testament, the writings of the early Christians outside the NT, and lots of other kinds of things. Why not join? Click here for membership options
I quite like the scholarly version better than the popular one. The references are important to provide the basis for understanding the arguments (and counter-arguments, where available). Now I am going to have to read the actual book….
I agree!
How does the Christian concept of hell compare with the Greek Tartarus?
The concept is very similar; who goes there is very different.
How are these extracanonical documents taught in seminaries? None of this material seems to filter down to the person in the pew. Or is this material more of interest to scholars and academics than those intending to preach to the masses?
Do the fundamentalist evangelicals have seminaries?
They usually aren’t taught at all. And yes, there are lots of fundamentalist seminaries!
I came across something that may interest you considering your view that Jesus argued the condemned are annihilated, rather than suffer eternal torment. I’m not sure if this is in your book?
In Jean Carmignac’s The Birth of the Synoptic Gospels (1984) he argues that a Hebrew retroversion of Mark9:49 reveals that Jesus thought the condemned would be annihilated:
“In Mk9:49 we read with astonishment: ‘For all [those cast into Hell] will be salted by fire.’ But the documents of Qumran have made it possible to prove that in Hebrew there exist two roots for ‘malah’, in which one signifies ‘to salt’; and the other, which exists also in the OT but which was not recognized, signifies to ‘vaporize’. The meaning is therefore: ‘all will be vaporized by fire.’ The mistake of the translator is explained much more than the context indicates; to salt is a good thing.” (p.34)
Carmignac’s argument is that whoever translated the words of Jesus from Aramaic/Hebrew to Greek (which is subsequently preserved in GMark), made the wrong translation choice, and gave the impression the condemned would be salted, rather than vaporized.
Ha! That’s a good one. I’ve never heard of it. I’ll have to look into it. The issue is why vaporized is to be preferred. I guess because one doesn’t normally salt with fire! But on the other hand, it would be hard to exlain v. 50 then? Or maybe easier?
Perhaps it’s a wordplay of Jesus? Or that the author of GMark having already used one salty saying, decided to couple another with it?
Interesting idea.
To salt the earth is to ruin it for planting purposes. Perhaps this is what is meant by salting with fire.
Bart: “…one doesn’t normally salt with fire!”
I’ve often thought of Mark 9:49 as evoking the idea of pouring salt onto an open wound so as to make it more painful. Or an allusion to the Romans covering the site of conquered Carthage with salt to keep anything from growing there.
Alas, the Romans did not salt the site of Carthage. That’s a medieval myth.
“Alas, the Romans did not salt the site of Carthage. That’s a medieval myth.”
Thank you for the correction. I see now that the Wikipedia article on Carthage says that there is no evidence for this story being true. One reference it cites is
Warmington, B. H. (1988). “The Destruction of Carthage: A Retractation”. Classical Philology. 83 (4): 308–310. doi:10.1086/367123. S2CID 162850949.
It’s hard to expunge a memory from my early years! 🙂
I think the use of “Forschungsgeschichten” is a clear scholarly tell.
Yeah, kind of a give away, huh?
Hahaha!
When I was in grad school everyone in biblical theology talked about Heilsgeschichte as an organizing principle. Later I told people that the idea was Bullgeschichte.
“I think the use of ‘Forschungsgeschichten’ is a clear scholarly tell.”
Sounds like the kind of yiddishism I used to see in Mad Magazine back in the 1950’s!
I tend towards more splitter than lumper in these matters. The wide range of concepts even just among the Greeks looks more like poetic invention than religious tradition harkening back to some central Indo-European (or some syncretic back formation via Anahita from Astarte/Inanna as I think I read a while ago!) Your mild snark about what matters to the scholarly pursuit shows a potential flaw in ancient history and its interpretation: What if every interpretive framework has been exhausted? What if no new information is forthcoming? What will be published then?
I did enjoy your popular book but may pick this up since I am glutton for footnotes.
That is some entry. Alot of thought went this post.
I have a question. Several years ago I read that the mentions Josephus made about Yeshua were not his own but later additions. This was decided because the syntax was different from his other writings. What are your thoughts about this please.
They are indeed disputed, but most scholars continue to think that the second is authrentic (in book 20 of the ANtiquities) and the first is *largely* authentic — but has been modified by the Xn scribe who copied it to make Josephus actually profess faith in Jesus as the messiah.
Weird question: is there scholarly treatment of such literature in the *modern* Christian tradition? I’m thinking books sold in supermarkets like 23 Minutes In Hell, Heaven Is For Real, etc. I can’t imagine proper theologians taking such tripe seriously, but that stuff has sold exceptionally well and made bestseller lists, suggesting that lay Christians in the pews are down for it. Are there academics arguing about the impact & influences, if any, of these books?
I actually deal with that very book in my popular book on Heaven adn Hell! Ad there are scholars of modern religion who would deal with this kind of thing — expecially Near Death Experiences.
HI Bart,
Do you think Mark’s account of the last supper is dependent on Paul’s account in 1 Corinthians 11?
No. There are key differences.
Lead sentences with a hook, that draw in the reader? I think Bart’s scholarly writing is being corrupted by his popular writing!
Interesting. That suggests I’ve said something that isn’t correct (it’s been corrupted). What are you thinking of?
You misinterpreted my little joke, it was intended as a compliment.
Ah. OK, funny then!
Does Rabbinic Judaism have an Antichrist concept?
Nope.
Thought so
I have heard of one approach to the sinners’ afterlife which was a mixture of universalism and annihilationism. The damned are cast into the lake of fire, a la the Apocalypse, but instead of being burned into nothing (or just cooking for an eternity), they are burned away, with as much pain that they have caused returning back to them as the fire, until all that is left is their life force. Thus, becoming a tabla rasa the hard way. Have you ever encountered such an idea?
I myself think kthey are burned to non-existence, but I’ve never heard of them suffering as much as they’ve made others suffering, no.
I think the idea was that this was the most merciful form of “the second death”, with a sort of absolute justice, yet also, technically, universal in that no actual life is done away with. The wages of sin is death, not torture, especially not eternal torture.
When did the concept of eternal torture first come about in the history of Christianity?
Starts in the second century; becomes dominant in the third. I discuss it in my trade book Heaven and Hell.
Interesting! I didn’t know that. I will get my hands on the book sooner or later. Can’t wait!