Just to clarify that I’m not a Pali heretic, 
I want to give some more support for my translation of “no longer” for na in “after death the Tathagata no longer exists”. The thing is, others have done exactly the same in other contexts:
SN1.27: Kattha vaṭṭaṁ na vattati? “Where does the round no longer revolve?” (Bodhi)
In other words, where will the round (of samsara) no longer revolve (in the future).
SN6.5: Na me, mārisa, sā diṭṭhī, yā me diṭṭhi pure ahu “I no longer hold that view, dear sir, the view that I formerly held.” (Bodhi)
Again we have a distinction in time, between past (“formerly”) and now. (Or you could translate “I don’t hold that view anymore”. Or whatever else works.)
SN12:32: Yā vedanāsu nandī sā na upaṭṭhāsi “Relishing of feelings is no longer present.” (Sujato) / “Delight in feelings no longer remains present.” (Bodhi)
While earlier there was delight, now it’s gone. So we’ve got a distinction in time again, and hence “no longer” or something similar is necessary in English, even when it’s not necessary in Pali.
It took me like 2 minutes to find these instances. I only looked at SN1 until SN12, so there are probably loads more.
So, here’s my suggestion, where the main verb structure of the Pali sentence is effectively no different from the above examples:
Na hoti tathāgato paraṃ maraṇā. “After death the Tathagata no longer exists.”
“After death” also clearly implies a distinction in time.
Venerables Bodhi, Sujato (and @Brahmali) are more knowledged in Pali than I. But translation is not just about Pali. It’s just as much, if not more, about English (or whatever target language), and sometimes English is very tricky.
So I think the English here needs to be considered carefully, so it reflects the inherent meaning of the Pali. Then we can avoid confusion of the kind in this thread, where we all agree on the essential Dhamma, but are just struggling with words and convoluted explanations. All, imo, just because we just look at the English and not at the Pali.
Now all I hope Ven. Sujato will take this on board, and then this little rant will have been more than worth it! 
So, @Sujato, here’s my feedback again from just after you finished the Majjhima:
MN 25: “after death, a Realized One exists, or doesn’t exist, …” A Realized One (referring to ‘self’) doesn’t exist after death (neither before), so the statement “after death, a Realized One […] doesn’t exist” would technically be right. The issue, I think, is that Pali tenses do not always translate well into English, especially in cases such as this (Cf. “natthi atta”). I suggest: “after death, a Realized One [still] exists, or doesn’t exist [anymore] …” Or: “after death, a Realized One [keeps existing], or [stops existing]…” Something like this will avoid (hopefully) unnecessary confusion surrounding this passage.
I rest my case. 
And I’m gonna rest my brain. See y’all again later. 