David Bentley Hart

[Christus Victor]

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096

Has anyone had an opportunity to read the translation of the New Testament by John Bentley Hart? If so, thoughts?

[jabcat]

I just looked at it.  Looks pretty good, pretty literal, which as I read was his intent.

I did see in searching that he is a Christian universalist.

[marie glen]

This phrase, on the amazon link - " "as if doctrine is not given"  -- sounds VERY good!

"Literal" appeals to me too..

A review I read says it's a " fresh, bold, and unsettling new translation"

:thumbsup:

Found the print copy for a little less at "Alibris" - https://www.alibris.com/booksearch?keyword=0300186096&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=GwEz7vxblVU&utm_campaign=10&siteID=GwEz7vxblVU-opU6_QumK.Y_EcFi7OKz1w

[itivino]

I've not read it myself, but he makes very good points in these two talks for anyone interested in further reading:

This one he talks about Gregory of Nyssa's talking about the body of Christ in unity with the head, Christ yielding the entire body as His gift of subjection, and how God must end up all in all. Also similar to Talbot, he talks a lot about how love extends to those our loved ones love and be extension to everyone (i.e. "if everyone isn't saved, then no one is saved"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sgz2fFiFAo&feature=youtu.be

And another good essay here. He talks about the "meaning of creation", the decline of Christian language, how we've made worshiping God just a matter of "prudence"
http://journal.radicalorthodoxy.org/index.php/ROTPP/article/view/135/86

With mentions of George Macdonald in both!

[marie glen]

I've not read it myself, but he makes very good points in these two talks for anyone interested in further reading:

This one he talks about Gregory of Nyssa's talking about the body of Christ in unity with the head, Christ yielding the entire body as His gift of subjection, and how God must end up all in all. Also similar to Talbot, he talks a lot about how love extends to those our loved ones love and be extension to everyone (i.e. "if everyone isn't saved, then no one is saved"):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Sgz2fFiFAo&feature=youtu.be

And another good essay here. He talks about the "meaning of creation", the decline of Christian language, how we've made worshiping God just a matter of "prudence"
http://journal.radicalorthodoxy.org/index.php/ROTPP/article/view/135/86

With mentions of George Macdonald in both!

I especially liked this in the second link -
quote -
in his final divine judgment of creatures, God
will judge himself; but one must hold that by that judgment God truly will disclose
himself

Paul.. ..whether there might be vessels of wrath stored up solely for destruction only
because he trusts that there are not, that instead all are bound in disobedience
only so that God might prove himself just by showing mercy on all

Or, that the 'destruction' is temporary..? (as part of a truth revealing drama which drama's need more than one character, so to speak)

And quote,
David Bentley Hart: To wit—and this should be an uncontroversial statement—the God in
whom the majority of Christians throughout history have professed belief would
appear to be evil (at least, judging by the dreadful things we habitually say about
him)


It also sounds like he disagrees with 'truth' shared like a cudgel or stick, or unsound arguments designed to appeal to the emotions rather than to the mind.. (which sums up a lot of 'preaching' and teaching! :faint:

And he mentions - moral imagination must bend and twist in order to absorb such beliefs as are believed..

" for many
Christians down the years, the rationale of evangelization has been a desperate
race to save as many souls as possible from God :mshock:

Calvin had the courage to
acknowledge that his account of divine sovereignty necessitates belief in the
predestination not only of the saved and the damned, but of the fall itself; and he
recognized that the biblical claim that “God is love” must, on his principles, be
accounted a definition not of God in himself, but only of God as experienced by
the elect (toward the damned, God is in fact hate)

I had to look up a few words and phrases, but this one is obvious! "reductio ad absurdum"  :thumbsup: :laughing7:

"For all of this follows from an incoherence deeply fixed at the
heart of almost all Christian traditions: that is, the idea that the omnipotent God
of love, who creates the world from nothing, either imposes or tolerates the
eternal torment of the damned. It is not merely peculiarity of personal
temperament that prompts Tertullian to speak of the saved relishing the
delightful spectacle of the destruction of the reprobate, or Peter Lombard and
Thomas Aquinas to assert that the vision of the torments of the damned will
increase the beatitude of the redeemed (as any trace of pity would darken the
joys of heaven), or Luther to insist that the saved will rejoice to see their loved
ones roasting in hell. All of them were simply following the only poor thread of
logic they had to guide them out of a labyrinth of impossible contradictions; the
sheer enormity of the idea of a hell of eternal torment forces the mind toward
absurdities and atrocities. ...But the deepest problem is not the logic of
such claims; it is their sheer moral hideousness.."

"To see the good truly is to desire it insatiably; not to desire it is not to
have known it, and so never to have been free to choose it. It makes no more
sense to say that God allows creatures to damn themselves out of his love for
them or of his respect for their freedom than to say a father might reasonably
allow his deranged child to thrust her face into a fire out of a tender respect for
her moral autonomy"

"The eternal perdition—
the eternal suffering—of any soul would be an abominable tragedy, and so a
moral evil if even conditionally intended, and could not possibly be comprised
within the ends intended by a truly good will (in any sense of the word “good”
intelligible to us). Yet, if both the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo and that of eternal
12 Hart, “God, Creation, and Evil: The Moral Meaning of creatio ex nihilo”
damnation are true, that evil is indeed comprised within the intentions and
dispositions of God."

Gotta run.. but his writing looks good.. if he doesn't fall into the trap of stripping away the word in favor of man's lofty thoughts about.. so far, so good/very good! ...imo, but few (of us) have a grasp on total truth w/o any error.. but that sure would be nice and is nice if, or whenever, we ever do come across it!
:gsmile:

P.S. thanks for the links.. And I may end up ordering his translation..

[GodIsLove]

MG,

I consider myself to be pretty well read, and I have a masters degree...

I could NOT read his writing because I had to look up so many words and phrases, and even after looking up the definitions I couldn't sometimes grasp what he was trying to say.

I think this is a negative for me, because average people aren't going to be able to get through his writings.

Yikes!

[guest6088]

https://www.amazon.com/New-Testament-David-Bentley-Hart/dp/0300186096

Has anyone had an opportunity to read the translation of the New Testament by John Bentley Hart? If so, thoughts?

It's the best translation I've ever read out of them all...Weymouth, Youngs, Concordant, Jonathan Mitchels NT etc. 

There are some more 'literal' (universalism versions) becoming available on amazon also I have noticed but can't vouch for them since I haven't read any. 
I'm still longing for the day a better translated bible becomes more pocket sized or at least doesn't take up half a desk.

It's certainly the bravest translation, for example; David doesn't mention 'homosexuality' (because Paul didn't) and David came under fire for that but he didn't care at all...He was only interested in doing as much justice to his translation as possible and I love and commend the man for that, whatever anyone thinks of him for it. - Like David I want the most accurate translation possible and David is trustworthy.  I couldn't give a damn about doctrines or what 'people think is right'...What matters is what the book REALLY says...

The translation reads as the letters originally would...either rushed or with great care.  Spelling and grammar errors are left intact where possible which means some sentences or words might begin without a capital letter...This can mean huge things from a literal standpoint when speaking of God etc...Things most people would overlook but which can change an entire doctrine.
You get a real feel for the the person who wrote each NT book...

David also is honest enough to say things like "This book is 'attributed' to Paul, or John" or whoever it may be and then he will say why there are questions surrounding who the original writer was.  David also points out that in different manuscripts 'this part was left out' or 'this was added to it' and gives his view on what he thinks of this (which I always agree with).

David said he translated his version in the spirit of "etsi doctrina non daretur," or "as if doctrine is not given". (So in other words he translates with no bias or regard for any doctrine).  I've found it a very honest translation...Haven't found a flaw yet.

Although a 'universalist', (David believes in the final restitution of all) he doesn't dwell on universalism throughout his version which (to me) is refreshing because it's not the be all and end all of God's word. 

David is very 'scholarly' and uses some big words...He's a very learned man...But it's always nice to learn some new words lol.

I'll attach a few verses how this version translates them to give you all an idea... 

Mathew 25:46 - "And these will go to the chastening of that age but the just to the life of that age."
(David then speaks about 'kolasis' which means pruning or docking and gives other examples of where the word is used in the NT).

Timothy 4:9-11 "This saying is trustworthy and worthy of all acceptance.  For we labor and struggle to this end, because we have hoped in a living God who is the savior of all human beings, especially those who have faith.  Enjoin and teach these things.

[jabcat]

David doesn't mention 'homosexuality' (because Paul didn't) and David came under fire for that but he didn't care at all...

did he also take out the simple words regarding a man shouldn't sleep with a man nor a woman with a woman?

[guest6088]

No!  :)

[jabcat]

good. i don't think that could have been honestly accomplished, all translation issues aside.   :thumbsup:

[guest6088]

good. i don't think that could have been honestly accomplished, all translation issues aside.   :thumbsup:

I agree.

David explains that the word malakoi (malakos) in Gk isn't used to say 'homosexuality' (which is true)
However in Romans 25 it seems pretty clear that ... well what you were saying about 'the natural use' being abandoned and males doing things with males etc.  :URWelcome:

There was a word which Paul could have used which meant 'homosexuality' in his day...it was used in novels around the time etc, but Paul didn't ever use it in 1 Cor 6:9 which seems to be regarding temple prostitutes...Even Calvinist Mega-Church Pastor, John MacArthur admits that one. (Not that that means much lol).

I'm only interested in getting to the truth and David's translation is as near to it as I've seen yet.  Onwards and upwards.   :HeartThrob:

[jabcat]

:)

[guest6088]

I did a review of this bible for my youtube channel  (just saying what I said here really) but check it out if you can't be bothered to read lol.  :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ks53dxBJl0  :HeartThrob:  :rolllol:  :dsunny: