when did hell get added to the tradition?

[davidmartin]

My argument is there is a clear lack of belief in hell in the earlier texts
Best expressed this way, without Luke, Matthew and Revelation would hell be considered a teaching of the new testament?
That's 3 books out of 27

So what NT texts don't mention it and which do
Paul doesn't, neither does Mark (if the single reference is derived from Matthew)
Neither does John.

The only ones that do are Luke, Matthew and Revelation

It is obvious that the mentions of hell in the NT writings are highly contradictory which logically is best explained from it not being a universal belief among the various Christian groups whose writings comprise the new testament

It is best explained if the belief was adopted at a later stage and presented in the gospel of Matthew possibly for the first time - because if Mark originally did not have that single reference and the Luke we have is a later text itself (ie what most people think) then that is possible - Luke has far fewer references than Matthew

So the doctrine of hell appears to emerge as a late phenomenon and with every reason to suspect was not original to the tradition as a whole

[rgprice]

Where are you seeing and not seeing "hell"? It looks to me like its also in James and 2 Peter, but I don't see the word in Revelation, though of course Revelation talks about the concept of hell https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearc ... ultspp=100

Luke 12:5 appears to be related to Matthew 10:28.

The expansion of material about hell in Matthew makes sense under the Marcionite model.

Marcion taught that Jesus and the God of Jesus were non-judgmental. According to Marcion, there was to be no final judgement and no need for fear of hell.

One of the major disputes between the proto-orthodox Christians and Marcion was this issue of lack of judgement. According to the proto-orthodox, there was only one God, the God of Israel, who was judgmental and delivered punishment. According to Marcion, the God of Israel was a God of punishment, but he was not actually the highest God. Jesus was the son of the Highest God, who was higher than the God of Israel and Jesus was sent to save mankind from the God of Israel.

Knowing this, we could formulate an explanation for what we see in the Gospels.

1) Mark is pre-Marcionite and isn't really involved in this debate. The one instance in Mark is rather non-judgmental in character and kind of off-hand (pun intended :p).
2) Luke was written in three stages. The first layer of Luke is Marcionite in character. This is Luke 3-23. However, even this layer of Luke was later harmonized with Matthew, albeit in a rather sloppy way. What we see in Luke is only a single statement about hell, which follows Matthew. This part of Luke mostly follows Marcion's Gospel, which lacked the statement about hell.
3) Matthew is derived from Marcion's Gospel/proto-Luke, which lacked any mentions of hell. Matthew, however, is an anti-Marcionite Gospel that was written in reaction to Marcion's Gospel with the use of Mark. Matthew adds in lots of statements about hell and judgement as a part of his anti-Marcionite agenda.
4) Canonical Luke is written by using proto-Luke/Marcion, adding Luke 1-2 & 24, as well as doing some harmonization of Luke 3-23 with Matthew. As a part of this harmonization the passage about hell in Luke 12 is added.

Revelation may also have multiple layers. Parts of it seem very Jewish and early, while other parts seem to post-date the First Jewish-Roman War and be quite a bit later. It certainly has many elements that can be taken as anti-Marcionite.

As for 2 Peter, 2 Peter seems to be the very last writing of the New Testament that was produced. 2 Peter is a sort of summary of the New Testament written by an anti-Marcionite. I'm not sure about James. I've never decided how early or late James is.

[MrMacSon]

What about the Apocalypse of Peter? http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... berts.html

[davidmartin]

One of the major disputes between the proto-orthodox Christians and Marcion was this issue of lack of judgement. According to the proto-orthodox, there was only one God, the God of Israel, who was judgmental and delivered punishment. According to Marcion, the God of Israel was a God of punishment, but he was not actually the highest God. Jesus was the son of the Highest God, who was higher than the God of Israel and Jesus was sent to save mankind from the God of Israel

You're right about 2 Peter and James I guess I missed them, but it sort of adds to what i'm seeing since James is I think a guarded anti-Pauline work which I recon puts it more in the 'Revelation' camp or Ebionitish/Jewish ideas of hell floating around at the time. 2 Peter is very late so its no surprise

The basic drum i'm beating here is the discrepancies around hell in the texts are gigantic and must mean something
My argument is it means that this doctrine wasn't originally widely believed but came to be believed (as part of orthodoxy) and it's the gospel of Matthew that really affirms that - the primary gospel of orthodoxy. From this perspective it's remarkable that the doctrine wasn't edited in more fully to the other texts and I think that did happen to an extent (Mark's reference, Luke's) but it was a bit too late to be making massive changes in writings already in widespread circulation.. Luke gets a bit of a pass if it's the 'corrected' version of Marcion

Which Christian sect believed in hell? Well, i suspect the 'Ebionite' leaning ones. The Clementine writings are full of it, Revelation isn't hard to associate in their direction and the apoc. of Peter as well. And James and Matthew. Hey, I'm not saying 'literal Ebionites' maybe another name would be better but there was some grouping that believed in it that came into a position of influence in orthodoxy

Wouldn't be surprised if this created a Marcion-like reaction against this trend that might account for Marcion's motivations
The stuff in your quote about Marcion's opposition to Jewish God i'm not convinced that Marcion was ever that extreme. He might have been, but its also the kind of thing a church father might try and put on him from more extreme Marcionites of his own day and to associate him with the gnostics? Maybe i just haven't been convinced yet

So, if the earliest Christians didn't believe in hell that doesn't mean they didn't believe in a restoration to the pre-fall paradise or salvation, hell is not needed for it to work... and the lack of hell in John, Paul, Mark and others i recon supports this and a dramatic shift in the 2nd century took place, coinciding with Matthew's promotion and the organisational structure of orthodoxy proving effective
The only problem was it wasn't what was originally believed