NidaMAP — Modular Aggregation of Principles for Bible Translation

David Bentley Hart, "Everything you know about the Gospel of Paul is likely wrong"

RCRoy Ciampa · Jan 8, 2018, 3:48 PM · Last modified: Sep 28, 2026, 11:38 AM
♡ 0

David Bentley Hart, "Everything you know about the Gospel of Paul is likely wrong"

Here are a few excerpts from this recent (undated but clearly January 2018) post. As a theologian and translator raising questions about how translations reflect or obscure Paul's thought, his essay is bound to be of interest to MAP readers. The whole post can be read following the link above.Here are a few excerpts:

"Over the years, I had become disenchanted with almost all the standard translations available, and especially with modern versions produced by large committees of scholars, many of whom (it seems to me) have been predisposed by inherited theological habits to see things in the text that are not really there, and to fail to notice other things that most definitely are. Committees are bland affairs, and tend to reinforce our expectations; but the world of late antiquity is so remote from our own that it is almost never what we expect. "

"Paul’s actual teachings, however, as taken directly from the Greek of his letters, emphasise neither original guilt nor imputed righteousness (he believed in neither), but rather the overthrow of bad angels. A certain long history of misreadings – especially of the Letter to the Romans – has created an impression of Paul’s theological concerns so entirely alien to his conceptual world that the real Paul occupies scarcely any place at all in Christian memory. It is true that he addresses issues of ‘righteousness’ or ‘justice’, and asserts that this is available to us only through the virtue of pistis – ‘faith’ or ‘trust’ or even ‘fidelity’. But for Paul, pistis largely consists in works of obedience to God and love of others. The only erga, ‘works’, which he is anxious to claim make no contribution to personal sanctity, are certain ‘ritual observances’ of the Law of Moses, such as circumcision or kosher dietary laws. This, though, means that the separation between Jews and gentiles has been annulled in Christ, opening salvation to all peoples; it does not mean (as Paul fears some might imagine) that God has abandoned his covenant with Israel."

"Questions of law and righteousness, however, are secondary concerns. The essence of Paul’s theology is something far stranger, and unfolds on a far vaster scale. For Paul, the present world-age is rapidly passing, while another world-age differing from the former in every dimension – heavenly or terrestrial, spiritual or physical – is already dawning. The story of salvation concerns the entire cosmos; and it is a story of invasion, conquest, spoliation and triumph. For Paul, the cosmos has been enslaved to death, both by our sin and by the malign governance of those ‘angelic’ or ‘daemonian’ agencies who reign over the earth from the heavens, and who hold spirits in thrall below the earth. These angelic beings, these Archons, whom Paul calls Thrones and Powers and Dominations and Spiritual Forces of Evil in the High Places, are the gods of the nations. In the Letter to the Galatians, he even hints that the angel of the Lord who rules over Israel might be one of their number. Whether fallen, or mutinous, or merely incompetent, these beings stand intractably between us and God. But Christ has conquered them all."

"In descending to Hades and ascending again through the heavens, Christ has vanquished all the Powers below and above that separate us from the love of God, taking them captive in a kind of triumphal procession. All that now remains is the final consummation of the present age, when Christ will appear in his full glory as cosmic conqueror, having ‘subordinated’ (hypetaxen) all the cosmic powers to himself – literally, having properly ‘ordered’ them ‘under’ himself – and will then return this whole reclaimed empire to his Father."

4 comments

Sign in to join the conversation.

YWYancy W. Smith, PhDJan 8, 2018, 9:00 PM

I see almost nothing to quibble with in David Bentley Hart's reprise of Pauline Theology. However, I don't think he has proven his case that committee translations have obscured the reader's ability to distill such notions out of Paul himself in just about any translation.

♡ 0
RCRoy CiampaJan 8, 2018, 10:11 PM

I'm not sure if he's making one point or two different points (the first being about translations that obscure and the second being that many have an understanding of Paul's theology he thinks is mistaken). On the translation side, since he translates pistis as faithfulness much more often than most translations, that is probably one of the things he has in mind (and explicitly referenced in the quote above). One may have a much different view of obedience and faithfulness if pistis is almost always translated simply as "faith." I'm not sure beyond that. I agree that one could get to a theology like his with most translations, but he may think that various translation choices he makes and the notes he adds (as in the note to Rom. 8:38 about his translation choice of "Archons") will be more likely to point in other theological directions. But, again, perhaps he is making two separate points - I'm not sure.

♡ 0
MWMarlon WinedtJan 11, 2018, 9:51 PM

Returning to the issue that Hart brings up. Scholars from the African Continent have analyzed Paul from that perspective. ALthough in a different fashion of course. One outstanding book on the matter which combines good exegesis and a theological perspective from the African religious experience of dealing with the spiritual world. Interesting reading <> Excerpt: Endorsement by Lampe: <>

♡ 0
FLFausto LirianoJan 12, 2018, 2:28 AM

Thank you Roy, for bringing this up to the table. I read the article and it sounds to me as an ad for his NT translation, even though some of his claims are legitimate. He says: “... (the idea that humans are born damnably guilty in God’s eyes, or that good deeds are not required for salvation) arise from a history of misleading translations.” But... even when I admit that some translations could be misleading, I think that those ideas are theologically fixed on people, so it is not a translation problem. If you read Romans, for example, from one of the contemporary popular translations like if you dont have any theological predisposition, you will notice that just a few verses support what most of the people think of Paul’s theology nowadays and that without goong to the Greek text. Yes, if you read Greek and have done that for a few years there is no way you’ll like a translation over the Greek text, the same with Hebrew or English: if you can read something in English there is a good chance you will prefer the work in “the original language”, than reading a translation (starting with the translation of the book’s name). But the blame is not only on the translation, also on ideas fixed on people’s minds for years. Anyways, what Hart is proposing in a “subliminal” call to read his translation (that should be inmaculate and with no contamination of any theological idea that comes out of the NT text, I guess), should call our attention to a real issue (which, I insist, is theological): reading Paul (and the whole NT) with new eyes and lead by the Spirit.

♡ 0