Scholarly EUs Assemble!

[Origen]

That was an extremely rare and late occurrence, from the Greek Magical Papyri. In fact, it’s so rare that if you search Google for the actual Greek here (“αἰώνιος καὶ ἐπαιώνιος”), there’s apparently only one result on the entire internet: my own post from this thread where I commented on this.

How did you know my reference to Deismann’s tablet discovery was authentic, or that i wasn’t just making it up, or regurgitating something from a website that i hadn’t verified myself as being real?

I read about it, not in any biased pro ECT lexicon, but here in a book on the Tentmaker site:

"Adolph Deissman gives this account: “Upon a lead tablet found in the Necropolis at Adrumetum in the Roman province of Africa, near Carthage, the following inscription, belonging to the early third century, is scratched in Greek: ‘I am adjuring Thee, the great God, the eonian, and more than eonian (epaionion) and almighty…’ If by eonian, endless time were meant, then what could be more than endless time?” "
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/asw/Chapter9.html

And verified that by the following:

biblestudiescon00deisuoft.pdf

The original Greek he copied from the tablet is given at the url above, along with an English translation which was, in this case, “eternal and more than eternal and almighty…”

"Keeping up the formal peculiarities of the text, we may, perhaps, translate it as follows:…

“…I adjure thee by the great God, the eternal and more than eternal and almighty, who is
exalted above the exalted Gods.”

“…The tablet, as is shown not only by its place of origin (the Necropolis of Adrumetum belongs to the second and third centuries, A.D. ; the part in which the tablet was found is fixed in the third), but also by the character of the lettering, is to be assigned to the third century, that is to determine it by a date in the history of the Greek Bible about the time of Origen.” [page 275ff]

Some other quotes from the first url above are as follows. Unlike others i’ve posted in this thread, i haven’t yet been able to verify them, though i’d note that Keiser refers to the Nyssa quote in her dissertation. Do you have any comments about them:

“In the Apostolical Constitutions, a work of the fourth century A.D., it is said, kai touto humin esto nomimon aionion hos tes suntleias to aionos, “And let this be to you an eonian ordinance until the consummation of the eon.” Obviously there was no thought in the author’s mind of endless time…”

"St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of aionios diastêma, “an eonian interval.” It would be absurd to call an interval “endless.”

“Long ago in Rome, periodic games were held. These were referred to as “secular” games. Herodian, who wrote in Greek about the end of the second century A.D., called these aionios, “eonian,” games. In no sense could those games have been eternal.”

And I don’t have to rely on things like Tentmaker, because they’re extremely amateur-ish sites written by people who for the most part have no scholarly expertise at all, and who regularly misunderstand or misrepresent the data. It’s hard enough to get them to even spell aionios correctly, or to read/translate even the simplest of passages written in Greek script.

What i’ve found useful there are various references to aionios which have been shamefully omitted by the hell biased lexicons that are popular amongst the very large body of the pro eternal hell book buyers club. Which means they’ll be buying a lot of those lexicons. Cha ching.

To err is human, so we all make mistakes, such as the spelling errors you refer to above. For example at the following url, is that you speaking of aionios occurring in Lev.25:46 & Exo.21:6:

“For example, when it comes to the Septuagint’s use of aiōnios when translating, say, texts referring to the permanence of a slave’s bondage in particular Old Testament laws (Leviticus 25:46; Exodus 21:6), we say that the permanence here—which really does suggest a true endlessness, at least in potential—is nonetheless naturally limited by the length of the slave’s life.” http://www.patheos.com/blogs/atheology/2016/03/afterlife-punishment-in-the-new-testament-and-the-new-academic-apologetics/?ref_widget=trending&ref_blog=friendlyatheist&ref_post=the-ark-encounter-theme-park-will-feature-an-animatronic-noah-great-i-have-lots-of-questions#sthash.X6MqhXjE.dpuf

Is, then, my Apostolic Bible Polygot (Greek-English Interlinear) LXX in error when it has Strongs # 165 (aion) in those verses & not #166 (aionios)?

https://studybible.info/ABP_Strongs/Exodus%2021
https://studybible.info/ABP_GRK/Exodus%2021

https://studybible.info/ABP_Strongs/Leviticus%2025
https://studybible.info/ABP_GRK/Leviticus%2025

καὶ καταμεριεῖτε αὐτοὺς τοῖς τέκνοις ὑμῶν μεθ᾽ ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔσονται ὑμῖν κατόχιμοι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ οὐ κατατενεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς μόχθοις

Leviticus 25:1 (LXX)

[koine_lingua]

Okay, I’ll take the Apostolic Constitutions passage as a starting-point. (This post has already become super long, so I may try to get to the other things you mentioned in a follow-up.)

This reads καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν ἔστω νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, μέχρις ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ Κύριος.

In context, what this is saying is that the command for Eucharistic memorial/sacrifice (Luke 22:19) is an ordinance that’s to be observed permanently, a νόμιμος αἰώνιος; and it’s described here as “permanent” precisely because it’s designed to cover the maximum amount of time possible from its present going forward. Of course, here, it does have a potential end in mind: when the Second Coming actually takes place, at the end of time. (Though obviously here we are nearly 2,000 years later, still waiting for this; and for all we know it could never happen.)

Interestingly though, just a couple of lines later, we also have another use of αἰώνιος: that faith in Christ yields ἀθάνατος ζωὴ καὶ αἰώνιος, “life that is immortal, everlasting.” This is clear appositional synonymy, where two adjectives are used together to mean the same thing.

But I wanna get back to νόμιμος αἰώνιος briefly. This phrase has its origin in the Hebrew Bible, where it’s used to describe various ordinances in the Torah like Leviticus 6:18; 10:9, where חק־עולם לדרתיכם is translated as νόμιμον αἰώνιον εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν (see also Leviticus 3:17, νόμιμον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν). Here, the permanence of the statute(s) is followed by a clause that seems to orient this span of time particularly toward the longevity of the Israelites’ descendants – which may be taken as loosely analogous to what we found in the Apostolic Constitutions. (See also Exodus 12:14 for an even closer parallel.)

But in line with some of the other things I’ve suggested, the idea here in Leviticus is almost certainly not just that this applies permanently throughout all the time the lineage continues, as if it foresaw some actual finite end to the lineage, but rather “permanently – that is, throughout all the time that it’s possible for the lineage to continue.” (The collocation of various uses of -לדר as in לדרתם or לדרתיכם, which are then followed by a noun modified by עולם, is suggestive here. See more on this below, e.g. in the section that mentions “close apposition of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν.”)

This gains additional support from how elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible/Septuagint, in phrases similar to לדרתיכם/εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν, the pronoun at the end is dropped (Genesis 9:12?), and thus what we might more literally gloss as “throughout [all] generations” is no longer attached to anything more specific like “your generations,” “their generations,” etc. In these instances, “throughout [all] generations” clearly becomes synonymous with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, attaining the simple meaning “forever” and “permanently.”

For that matter, interestingly, Philo of Alexandria, at Ebr. 141, interpreting Leviticus 10:9, glosses the substantive νόμιμος αἰώνιος, “permanent/everlasting ordinance,” as νόμος ἀθάνατος, “immortal law” – incidentally, using the same word for “immortal” here as in the Apostolic Constitutions passage.

Another instructive example is Leviticus 3:17, where חקת עולם לדרתיכם is glossed as νόμιμον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν. What’s interesting here is that adjectival עולם (which in context we would otherwise translate as αἰώνιος) is glossed as adverbial εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, creating a close apposition of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν. (See also Exodus 40:15, עולם לדרתם/εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἰς τὰς γενεὰς αὐτῶν.) Again though, there are instances where the pronominal suffix/modifier in phrases like לדרתיכם/εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν is dropped where we might otherwise expect it, like in Genesis 9:12. (Actually לדרת עולם/εἰς γενεὰς αἰωνίους here.)

In terms of this phrase without any pronominal suffix, LXX Isaiah 51:8 is a particularly instructive example – where צדקתי לעולם תהיה וישועתי לדור דורים is translated ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔσται, τὸ δὲ σωτήριόν μου εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν. Here we have a perfect apposition/doublet, where God’s righteousness lasts forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), and his salvation forever (εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν), too. (See also two verses prior to this, וישועתי לעולם תהיה וצדקתי לא תחת.)

---

You wrote

To err is human, so we all make mistakes, such as the spelling errors you refer to above. For example at the following url, is that you speaking of aionios occurring in Lev.25:46 & Exo.21:6:

You’re certainly correct. Rereading what I wrote, I gave the mistaken impression that instead of adverbial εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in Leviticus 25:46 and Exodus 21:6, we have adjectival αἰώνιος.

Of course, my point isn’t that people’s arguments are invalidated by innocent mistakes like accidentally writing αἰώνιος for αἰών (or, as I did, referring to αἰώνιος instead εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα in alluding to those Torah passages). Rather, I criticize people who don’t even have the knowledge to recognize that there’s a huge difference between αἰών and αἰώνιος in the first place – not that they simply mistakenly misread one for the other, but that they don’t recognize the difference to begin with. (Incidentally, that’s precisely what seems to be happening in a discussion in the comment section of another post that I’m currently taking part in. See here: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2018/05/08/david-bentley-harts-the-new-testament-a-review/.)

---

On one last note though, you wrote

What i’ve found useful there are various references to aionios which have been shamefully omitted by the hell biased lexicons that are popular amongst the very large body of the pro eternal hell book buyers club. Which means they’ll be buying a lot of those lexicons. Cha ching.

There is no such thing as a “pro eternal hell book buyers club.” Nothing remotely like it exists, even figuratively speaking. For one, lexicons like this are extremely expensive, and so very few non-scholars own them in the first place. Second, these are extremely lengthy works – thousands of pages with thousands of individual entries – for which an absolutely enormous amount of work has gone into producing them; and if you think that people are attracted to them just because of one little entry for one word that you don’t like, you’d be gravely mistaken.

And as always, if you have some criticism about the translation/interpretation of particular texts that appear in the controversial “pert. to a period of unending duration, without end” sub-entry for αἰώνιος in, say, BDAG, you’re free to elaborate on this. Again, here it is in full:

③ pert. to a period of unending duration, without end (Diod S 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 δόξα αἰ. everlasting fame; in Diod S 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their αἰ. οἴκησις; Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ἐς μνήμην αἰ.; Jos., Bell. 4, 461 αἰ. χάρις=a benefaction for all future time; OGI 383, 10 [I b.c.] εἰς χρόνον αἰ.; EOwen, οἶκος αἰ.: JTS 38, ’37, 248–50; EStommel, Domus Aeterna: RAC IV 109–28) of the next life σκηναὶ αἰ. Lk 16:9 (cp. En 39:5). οἰκία, contrasted w. the οἰκία ἐπίγειος, of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1. διαθήκη (Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km 23:5 al.; PsSol 10:4 al.) Hb 13:20. εὐαγγέλιον Rv 14:6; κράτος in a doxolog. formula (=εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) 1 Ti 6:16. παράκλησις 2 Th 2:16. λύτρωσις Hb 9:12. κληρονομία (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; AcPl Ha 8, 21. αἰ. ἀπέχειν τινά (opp. πρὸς ὥραν) keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cp. Job 40:28). Very often of God’s judgment (Diod S 4, 63, 4 διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15) κόλασις αἰ. (TestReub 5:5) Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7; κρίμα αἰ. Hb 6:2 (cp. κρίσις αἰ. En 104:5). θάνατος B 20:1. ὄλεθρον (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9. πῦρ (4 Macc 12:12; GrBar 4:16.—SibOr 8, 401 φῶς αἰ.) Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (cp. 1QS 2:8). ἁμάρτημα Mk 3:29 (v.l. κρίσεως, κολάσεω, and ἁμαρτίας). On the other hand, of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰ.; Diod S 8, 15, 3 life μετὰ τὸν θάνατον lasts εἰς ἅπαντα αἰῶνα; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3;PsSol PsSol:3, 12; OdeSol 11:16c; JosAs 8:11 cod. A [p. 50, 2 Bat.]; Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; SibOr 2, 336) in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3) Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f; Ac 13:46, 48; Ro 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f; Gal 6:8; 1 Ti 1:16; 6:12; Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1J 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jd 21; D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also βασιλεία αἰ. 2 Pt 1:11 (ApcPt Rainer 9; cp. Da 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Mel., P. 68, 493; OGI 569, 24 ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου βασιλείας ὑμῶν; Dssm. B 279f, BS 363). Of the glory in the next life δόξα αἰ. 2 Ti 2:10; 1 Pt 5:10 (cp. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.—SibOr 8, 410 φῶς αἰῶνιον). αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης 2 Cor 4:17; σωτηρία αἰ. (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk. Of unseen glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια 2 Cor 4:18.—χαρά IPhld ins; δοξάζεσθαι αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186–201; JvanderWatt, NovT 31, ’89, 217–28 (J).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW. Sv.

[Origen]

Okay, I’ll take the Apostolic Constitutions passage as a starting-point. (This post has already become super long, so I may try to get to the other things you mentioned in a follow-up.)

This reads καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν ἔστω νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, μέχρις ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ Κύριος.

In context, what this is saying is that the command for Eucharistic memorial (Luke 22:19) is an ordinance that’s to be observed permanently, a νόμιμος αἰώνιος; and it’s described here as “permanent” precisely because it’s designed to cover the maximum amount of time possible from its present onward. Of course, here, it does have a potential end in mind: when the Second Coming actually happens. (Though obviously here we are nearly 2,000 years later, still waiting for this; and for all we know it could never happen.)

Interestingly though, just a couple of lines later, we also have another use of αἰώνιος: that faith in Christ yields ἀθάνατος ζωὴ καὶ αἰώνιος, “life that is immortal, everlasting.” This is clear appositional synonymy, where two adjectives are used together to mean the same thing.

Long posts are fine, though i may at times respond to them with a series of shorter posts.

Regarding the quote above, i’m wondering if you can provide a reference. A link to a source with Greek & an English translation, such as i’ve done above re Diodorus Siculus 17.112.2, would also be helpful. Then those here who read Greek can weigh the validity of your comments based on their Greek context, while others can do so re the English context.

[koine_lingua]

Sure, that’s fine.

In the Apostolic Constitutions, it’s from the fifth book, 19th section – at the end of the second-to-last section here: https://churchgoc.org/Library/const_ap5.html.

Διὰ τοῦτο οὖν καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἀναστάντος τοῦ Κυρίου, προσενέγκατε τὴν θυσίαν ὑμῶν, περὶ ἧς ὑμῖν διετάξατο δι᾿ ἡμῶν λέγων· Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, καὶ λοιπὸν ἀπονηστεύετε, εὐφραι νόμενοι καὶ ἑορτάζοντες, ὅτι ἀρραβὼν τῆς ἀναστάσεως ὑμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν ἔστω νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, μέχρις ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ Κύριος. Ἰουδαίοις γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ἔτι τέθνηκεν, Χριστιανοῖς δὲ ἐγήγερται, τοῖς μὲν δι᾿ ἀπιστίαν, τοῖς δὲ διὰ πληροφορίαν, ὅτι ἡ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλπὶς ἀθάνατος ζωὴ καὶ αἰώνιος

For this reason you should also, now that the Lord is risen, offer your sacrifice, concerning which He made a constitution by us, saying, “Do this for a remembrance of me;” Luke 22:19 and thenceforward leave off your fasting, and rejoice, and keep a festival, because Jesus Christ, the pledge of our resurrection, is risen from the dead. And let this be an everlasting ordinance till the consummation of the world, until the Lord come. For to Jews the Lord is still dead, but to Christians He is risen: to the former, by their unbelief; to the latter, by their full assurance of faith. For the hope in Him is immortal and eternal life.

(For the English, I just grabbed the first translation I came across.)

[Origen]

I think one very important thing to remember here is that there’s a religion which follows the Hebrew Bible – in fact, this religion spawned the Hebrew Bible – that really does accept that the covenants and Law, etc. are genuinely still intended to be permanent/eternal.

I take the position that it is God who authored the Hebrew Scriptures (OT/39 books). Since He knew the future, the end from the beginning, He knew in advance what things would be finite. Therefore, of such things, He wouldn’t use a word that must mean eternal, but a word (aionios) that can refer to a finite duration, even if it can also refer to an eternal duration in other contexts. Otherwise He would make Himself a liar. But that is not possible.

And to maybe help you see its perspective better – or, rather, to see the faults of the other perspective – consider an analogy: a future U.S. president decrees that some military monument should be constructed, and says that it will “be symbolic that the might of the U.S. military will remain forever.” Now imagine some thousand years in the future after that, where we have total world peace, and all militaries are disbanded. Imagine a U.S. president during this time removing the older monument, on the basis that it’s no longer relevant or appropriate.

Yeah, the monument is taken down. But does that mean that the original “forever” proclamation (“symbolic that the might of the U.S. military will remain forever”) was intended to mean anything less than forever? Does the fact that it was later removed somehow make the original proclamation mean “symbolic that the might of the U.S. military will remain for a finite time” or something like that?

A mere human president, if he knew the future as God does & that something would be of finite duration, would not declare that finite thing to be eternal. Well, not unless he was a liar, as all politicians are.

[Origen]

More specifically though, as for “the fact that it is thought desirable to repeat the word,” this actually doesn’t really do much by way of criticism. And it’s really easy to illustrate this, for example by noting that when modern supporters of eternal torment emphasize that sinners will be tormented “forever and ever,” this (obviously) doesn’t mean anything less than “forever” just because they add “and ever.”

Repetition is often simply employed to intensify the given meaning, i.e., it’s a Hebraism, like Jesus’… ἀμὴν ἀμὴν “truly truly” or quite literally “amen amen” aka “without doubt!” — 23 time in John’s gospel.

Exactly; so it’s a mistake to think that this just because something says “forever and ever,” that “forever” here can’t mean really forever simply because the latter (“and ever”) rhetorically intensifies the former. Actual language usage doesn’t abide by rigid logic.

The resource that was quoted is one of the most popular OT lexicons, abbreviated as TWOT. A more complete quote from my copy actually uses your exact same example in support of its conclusion:

“The LXX generally translates Olam by Aion which essentially has the same meaning. That neither the Hebrew or Greek word in itself contains the idea of endlessness is shown both by the fact that they sometimes refer to events or conditions that occurred at a definite point in the past, and also by the fact that it is thought desirable to repeat the word, not merely saying “forever”, but “forever and ever”.”

(Theological Wordbook Of The Old Testament; Harris, Archer, Waltke, c 1980 by The Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, page 673, article by A.A.M., Ph.D., President & Professor of OT, Biblical School of Theology, Hatfield, Pennsylvania).

The author doesn’t explain his example re “forever”, or even cite any Scripture passages, so i can only guess as to how he thinks such an example supports his point.

Literally speaking, “forever and ever” is nonsense. If there is time beyond “forever”, then “forever” must be finite.

In the NT the deceptive English rendering “forever and ever” by the pro ECT hell clubs cloned translations is actually often literally “EIS the ages of the ages”. As such it bears little resemblance to the distortion “forever and ever”. It is not a construction of the type “X1 and X2”, let alone “Amen, amen”, but of “X1 of the X2” like “song of songs”, “Lord of lords”, “King of kings”, “book of books”, “holies of the holies”. None of these (X1 of X2) type of English phrases are repetitions “employed to intensify the given meaning” like “Amen, amen”. Neither do any of them express endlessness. The “holies of the holies” is not an endless succession of holies. Though “ages of the ages” proves there is at least one age that is finite.

Rev.14:9-11 & 20:10 & forever & ever a deceptive translation:

If endless conscious torments were true, is God a monster?

12 points re forever and ever being finite:

For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:

[koine_lingua]

Literally speaking, “forever and ever” is nonsense. If there is time beyond “forever”, then “forever” must be finite.

In the NT the deceptive English rendering “forever and ever” by the pro ECT hell clubs cloned translations is actually often literally “EIS the ages of the ages”. As such it bears little resemblance to the distortion “forever and ever”.

I have a feeling that “ages of ages” is nonsense too, strictly speaking. (If it were singular “age of ages,” that’d be much more tolerable. Anyways, more below on this.)

It is not a construction of the type “X1 and X2”, let alone “Amen, amen”, but of “X1 of the X2” like “song of songs”, “Lord of lords”, “King of kings”, “book of books”, “holies of the holies”. None of these (X1 of X2) type of English phrases are repetitions “employed to intensify the given meaning” like “Amen, amen”. Neither do any of them express endlessness. The “holies of the holies” is not an endless succession of holies.

You’re totally missing the point. These Semitic doublets aren’t specifically about a succession or infinite series of these things, but suggest a kind of maximality in relation to whatever category they’re a part of. For example, “king of kings” means the greatest and most magnificent king in existence; “holy of holies” suggests the holiest thing/place possible.

αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων or whatever is a little unique because it’s not just this, but almost always the adverbial εἰς (τοὺς) αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

But I think I’ve suggested or demonstrated that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and/or לעולם and לעד already suggest permanence or the greatest amount of time possible. Based on this alone, it’s hard not to think that εἰς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων doesn’t just suggest the greatest amount of time possible (in line with what I said above about maximality and categories, etc.), but is in fact a rhetorical intensification of this. And in fact, we even find a kind of double rhetorical intensification along these lines in LXX Psalm 119:44, where the Psalmist says he will uphold the Law διὰ παντός εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος – which I can only imagine being translated “continually/perpetually, forever, and forever and ever.” (The original Hebrew is simply תמיד לעולם ועד, “continually, forever and ever.”) We also find this amplified εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος on a few other occasions, too.

In terms of the singular εἰς (τὸν) αἰῶνα (τοῦ) αἰῶνος, this is a common translation of the simple לעד in the Septuagint Psalms. The plural εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας translates comparable Semitic plurals, and is particularly common in the Aramaic of Daniel (for לעלמין). But most importantly though, it becomes common in doxologies that praise God – that he and his blessedness/kingship/power/goodness/whatever will endure forever and ever. In this sense, functionally speaking, singular εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and plural εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας, as well the expansive forms of these, are all identical.

As for how the genitive/construct “of” in αἰών τοῦ αἰῶνος and αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων and their Semitic equivalents entered the picture in the first place: we find this as a translation of עדי עד in Psalm 83:17 (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος) and 92:7, etc. I already mentioned above, though, that this same translation is also found for just לעד alone in LXX Psalms. Another interesting point is that in Psalm 111:8, it says that God’s power/works are established in the world לעד לעולם: “eternally, forever”; and yet LXX actually blends these appositive adverbial clauses into just one clause, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα τοῦ αἰῶνος. Also relevant is that עולמי עולמים is attested in later Hebrew; and I know there’s the doubled Aramaic עלמי עלמין, too. Again in terms of synonymy, לעולם (LXX εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα) in Psalm 44:8’s doxology is rendered in the Aramaic Targum as לעלמי עלמין.

Again this all goes to suggest that functionally, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας and all the expansive forms are semantically identical.

One last note here, this also connects back to the phrase γενεαί γενεῶν, e.g. in LXX Isaiah 51:8 as I cited in an earlier post. (And this all brings us back around to αἰώνιος, too: see e.g. the parallel of ὄνομα αἰώνιον and μνημόσυνον γενεῶν γενεαῖς in LXX Exodus 3:15.)

Literally speaking, “forever and ever” is nonsense. If there is time beyond “forever”, then “forever” must be finite.

That’s what I mean by language and idiom not abiding by strict rules of logic though. Again, do you think of when people today use the modern English phrase “forever and ever,” they just mean “a finite time + more”? No, they truly mean forever. (“And ever” functions just to reiterate the gravity of forever, not to really introduce any new element here.)

[Origen]

. See here: https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2018/05/08/david-bentley-harts-the-new-testament-a-review/.)

Interesting. Thanks for sharing that, Stewart. Have you had the chance to express your POV in the blogs where EO scholar David Bentley Hart responds to critiques of his NT translation, including that by N.T. wright here:

A Reply to N. T. Wright

Translating the N. T. Wright and David Bentley Hart Tussle

There is no such thing as a “pro eternal hell book buyers club.” Nothing remotely like it exists, even figuratively speaking. For one, lexicons like this are extremely expensive, and so very few non-scholars own them in the first place. Second, these are extremely lengthy works – thousands of pages with thousands of individual entries – for which an absolutely enormous amount of work has gone into producing them; and if you think that people are attracted to them just because of one little entry for one word that you don’t like, you’d be gravely mistaken.

By that expression i just meant the body of eternal hell advocates - such as pastors, bible colleges & their students, etc - who are huge book (paper or electronic) purchasers, in this case specifically lexicons & the like. Everything from the relatively inexpensive & unscholarly, like Vine’s, Strong’s or Mounce’s (~$20) lexicons, to the more scholarly & expensive BDAG or LSJ (~$150). There’s lots of money to be made there. But who’s going to buy a lexicon written by a universalist with a universalist bias to it? Even if it’s only bias is regarding a few words - like aion, aionios, kolasis - that’s all it might take to be generally rejected by pro endless punishment advocates. https://www.logos.com/product/3878/a-greek-english-lexicon-of-the-new-testament-and-other-early-christian-literature-3rd-ed

[Origen]

In the Apostolic Constitutions, it’s from the fifth book, 19th section – at the end of the second-to-last section here: https://churchgoc.org/Library/const_ap5.html .

Διὰ τοῦτο οὖν καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἀναστάντος τοῦ Κυρίου, προσενέγκατε τὴν θυσίαν ὑμῶν, περὶ ἧς ὑμῖν διετάξατο δι᾿ ἡμῶν λέγων· Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν, καὶ λοιπὸν ἀπονηστεύετε, εὐφραι νόμενοι καὶ ἑορτάζοντες, ὅτι ἀρραβὼν τῆς ἀναστάσεως ὑμῶν Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν, καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν ἔστω νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, μέχρις ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ Κύριος. Ἰουδαίοις γὰρ ὁ Κύριος ἔτι τέθνηκεν, Χριστιανοῖς δὲ ἐγήγερται, τοῖς μὲν δι᾿ ἀπιστίαν, τοῖς δὲ διὰ πληροφορίαν, ὅτι ἡ εἰς αὐτὸν ἐλπὶς ἀθάνατος ζωὴ καὶ αἰώνιος

For this reason you should also, now that the Lord is risen, offer your sacrifice, concerning which He made a constitution by us, saying, “Do this for a remembrance of me;” Luke 22:19 and thenceforward leave off your fasting, and rejoice, and keep a festival, because Jesus Christ, the pledge of our resurrection, is risen from the dead. And let this be an everlasting ordinance till the consummation of the world, until the Lord come. For to Jews the Lord is still dead, but to Christians He is risen: to the former, by their unbelief; to the latter, by their full assurance of faith. For the hope in Him is immortal and eternal life.

(For the English, I just grabbed the first translation I came across.)

Okay, I’ll take the Apostolic Constitutions passage as a starting-point. (This post has already become super long, so I may try to get to the other things you mentioned in a follow-up.)

This reads καὶ τοῦτο ὑμῖν ἔστω νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος, μέχρις ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ Κύριος.

In context, what this is saying is that the command for Eucharistic memorial/sacrifice (Luke 22:19) is an ordinance that’s to be observed permanently, a νόμιμος αἰώνιος; and it’s described here as “permanent” precisely because it’s designed to cover the maximum amount of time possible from its present going forward. Of course, here, it does have a potential end in mind: when the Second Coming actually takes place, at the end of time. (Though obviously here we are nearly 2,000 years later, still waiting for this; and for all we know it could never happen.)

Interestingly though, just a couple of lines later, we also have another use of αἰώνιος: that faith in Christ yields ἀθάνατος ζωὴ καὶ αἰώνιος, “life that is immortal, everlasting.” This is clear appositional synonymy, where two adjectives are used together to mean the same thing.

Thank you for the reference & texts. From the English translation above it says “For the hope in Him is immortal and eternal life” which appears as a pointless redundancy to me. If life is immortal, then it is eternal, so there is no need to add that it is eternal. But perhaps a study of the context would debunk (or confirm) that viewpoint. The quote seems quite similar to Romans 2:7 of the New Testament. At the following post i suggest from the context of Romans 2 that aionios in verse 7 refers to a finite duration:

Romans 2 Conditional Immortality

Mark, please note that many other translations say “incorruptibility” rather than “immortality”. In fact it has been said by a number of Greek scholars that the word here, APTHARSIA, does not mean “immortal”, & there is another Greek word, ATHANASIA, conveying that idea. Also the same word is variously translated in the NT as “sincerity”, “integrity”, “purity”, “sincerity”, etc. Furthermore, Thayer gives “perpetuity” as one meaning. So, for your interpretation to be valid, you’ld need to prove…

If you wish to comment on this, feel free to respond either in that thread or here or both.

[Origen]

And as always, if you have some criticism about the translation/interpretation of particular texts that appear in the controversial “pert. to a period of unending duration, without end” sub-entry for αἰώνιος in, say, BDAG, you’re free to elaborate on this. Again, here it is in full:

③ pert. to a period of unending duration, without end (Diod S 1, 1, 5; 5, 73, 1; 15, 66, 1 δόξα αἰ. everlasting fame; in Diod S 1, 93, 1 the Egyptian dead are said to have passed to their αἰ. οἴκησις; Arrian, Peripl. 1, 4 ἐς μνήμην αἰ.; Jos., Bell. 4, 461 αἰ. χάρις=a benefaction for all future time; OGI 383, 10 [I b.c.] εἰς χρόνον αἰ.; EOwen, οἶκος αἰ.: JTS 38, ’37, 248–50; EStommel, Domus Aeterna: RAC IV 109–28) of the next life σκηναὶ αἰ. Lk 16:9 (cp. En 39:5). οἰκία, contrasted w. the οἰκία ἐπίγειος, of the glorified body 2 Cor 5:1. διαθήκη (Gen 9:16; 17:7; Lev 24:8; 2 Km 23:5 al.; PsSol 10:4 al.) Hb 13:20. εὐαγγέλιον Rv 14:6; κράτος in a doxolog. formula (=εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας) 1 Ti 6:16. παράκλησις 2 Th 2:16. λύτρωσις Hb 9:12. κληρονομία (Esth 4:17m) vs. 15; AcPl Ha 8, 21. αἰ. ἀπέχειν τινά (opp. πρὸς ὥραν) keep someone forever Phlm 15 (cp. Job 40:28). Very often of God’s judgment (Diod S 4, 63, 4 διὰ τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐν ᾅδου διατελεῖν τιμωρίας αἰωνίου τυγχάνοντα; similarly 4, 69, 5; Jer 23:40; Da 12:2; Ps 76:6; 4 Macc 9:9; 13:15) κόλασις αἰ. (TestReub 5:5) Mt 25:46; 2 Cl 6:7; κρίμα αἰ. Hb 6:2 (cp. κρίσις αἰ. En 104:5). θάνατος B 20:1. ὄλεθρον (4 Macc 10:15) 2 Th 1:9. πῦρ (4 Macc 12:12; GrBar 4:16.—SibOr 8, 401 φῶς αἰ.) Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jd 7; Dg 10:7 (cp. 1QS 2:8). ἁμάρτημα Mk 3:29 (v.l. κρίσεως, κολάσεω, and ἁμαρτίας). On the other hand, of eternal life (Maximus Tyr. 6, 1d θεοῦ ζωὴ αἰ.; Diod S 8, 15, 3 life μετὰ τὸν θάνατον lasts εἰς ἅπαντα αἰῶνα; Da 12:2; 4 Macc 15:3;PsSol PsSol:3, 12; OdeSol 11:16c; JosAs 8:11 cod. A [p. 50, 2 Bat.]; Philo, Fuga 78; Jos., Bell. 1, 650; SibOr 2, 336) in the Reign of God: ζωὴ αἰ. (Orig., C. Cels. 2, 77, 3) Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; J 3:15f, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2f; Ac 13:46, 48; Ro 2:7; 5:21; 6:22f; Gal 6:8; 1 Ti 1:16; 6:12; Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1J 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jd 21; D 10:3; 2 Cl 5:5; 8:4, 6; IEph 18:1; Hv 2, 3, 2; 3, 8, 4 al. Also βασιλεία αἰ. 2 Pt 1:11 (ApcPt Rainer 9; cp. Da 4:3; 7:27; Philo, Somn. 2, 285; Mel., P. 68, 493; OGI 569, 24 ὑπὲρ τῆς αἰωνίου καὶ ἀφθάρτου βασιλείας ὑμῶν; Dssm. B 279f, BS 363). Of the glory in the next life δόξα αἰ. 2 Ti 2:10; 1 Pt 5:10 (cp. Wsd 10:14; Jos., Ant. 15, 376.—SibOr 8, 410 φῶς αἰῶνιον). αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης 2 Cor 4:17; σωτηρία αἰ. (Is 45:17; Ps.-Clem., Hom. 1, 19) Hb 5:9; short ending of Mk. Of unseen glory in contrast to the transitory world of the senses τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα αἰώνια 2 Cor 4:18.—χαρά IPhld ins; δοξάζεσθαι αἰωνίῳ ἔργῳ be glorified by an everlasting deed IPol 8:1. DHill, Gk. Words and Hebr. Mngs. ’67, 186–201; JvanderWatt, NovT 31, ’89, 217–28 (J).—DELG s.v. αἰών. M-M. TW. Sv.

Much of that entry, in particular biblical references, especially those that relate to the future of the lost, such as Mt.25:41,46, have been addressed in other threads on these forums, and which you are welcome to peruse & critique to your heart’s content, here or there, if you find there is anything worth your scholarly time to address. For a few examples, I’ve commented on some of the above referenced BDAG topics here:

John 3:36, 3:16, 1 Jn.1:2, Dan.12:2, aionios life:

Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

Mt.25:46:

Augustine's ignorance & error re Matthew 25:46

my interpretation of Matthew 25:31-46

“This specious argument goes back at least to Augustine. As has long ago been said, however, due to its unreasonableness, it ought never be heard again.” Augustine was rather ignorant of Greek. For some other parallels in Scripture consider: Rom 5:18 Consequently, then, as it was through one offense for all mankind for condemnation, thus also it is through one just act for all mankind for life’s justifying." Rom 5:19 For even as, through the disobedience of the one man, the many were consti…

Mark 3:29:

Spirit blasphemy - unpardonable sin

This post is my response to a list of 19 NT passages that allegedly “define/describe αἰών and αἰώνιος” as being eternal, including 2 Cor.4:17-5:1 & others with aionios in them:

What Does Aionios Mean? (part 2, It is wrong to define aionios based on aion)

[Origen]

But I wanna get back to νόμιμος αἰώνιος briefly. This phrase has its origin in the Hebrew Bible, where it’s used to describe various ordinances in the Torah, like Leviticus 6:18; 10:9, where חק־עולם לדרתיכם is translated as νόμιμον αἰώνιον εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν. This may be taken as loosely analogous to what we found in the Apostolic Constitutions, where the permanence of the statute(s) is followed by a clause that seems to orient this span of time particularly toward the longevity of Israelites’ descendants.

But in line with some of the other things I’ve suggested, the idea here is almost certainly not just that this applies permanently throughout all the time the lineage continues, as if it foresaw some actual finite end to the lineage, but rather “permanently – that is, throughout all the time that it’s possible for the lineage to continue.”

According to the ABP Greek-English Interlinear it is not “throughout” their generations, as you emphasize & appear to rely on for your interpretation, but EIS/unto (or, “into”) their generations. A significant difference which allows for aionios to be finite in Lev.6:18 & 10:9.

https://studybible.info/ABP_Strongs/Leviticus%206

Moreover, if the NT teaches that such ordinances are abolished forever, then that also weighs against your POV. Though i understand that you do not interpret Scripture in this manner.

This gains additional support from how elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible/Septuagint, in phrases similar to לדרתיכם/εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν, the pronoun at the end is dropped, and thus what we might more literally gloss as “throughout [all] generations” is no longer attached to anything more specific like “your generations,” “their generations,” etc. In these instances, “throughout [all] generations” clearly becomes synonymous with εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, attaining the simple meaning “forever” and “permanently.”

I’d have to see the passages you refer to, but don’t reference, in context to comment upon them. Regarding εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα i’d suggest from a verse remarked upon earlier in this thread, Exo.21:6, that it does not mean “forever” in that context, but merely (at most) for the duration of the finite mortal life of the servant:

New International Version
then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.

Similarly, in Josephus in “The Wars of the Jews” book 6, it states that Jonathan was condemned to “αἰωνιος” imprisonment." According to TDNT, ed Kittel, author Sasse, Vol 1, p.168, on AIDIOS, Sasse remarks concerning Jude 6 “in everlasting chains” & "Cf. for this expression Jos.Bell.,6,434…“of the lifelong imprisonment of John…”, with “lifelong” being the Greek word aionios. That interpretation seems similar to that in the OT of a slave being his masters for olam, i.e. for life. Here is the Greek & an English translation:

JOSEPHUS, The Jewish War | Loeb Classical Library

If the preview isn’t available there, a search of these Greek words may find it as it did when i tried it:

ἐφυλάχθη δ᾽ ὁ μὲν [i.e. Simon] τῷ θριάμβῳ σφάγιον, ὁ δ᾽ Ἰωάννης δεσμοῖς αἰωνίοις.

For that matter, interestingly, Philo of Alexandria, at Ebr. 141, interpreting Leviticus 10:9, glosses the substantive νόμιμος αἰώνιος, “permanent/everlasting ordinance,” as νόμος ἀθάνατος, “immortal law” – incidentally, using the same word for “immortal” here as in the Apostolic Constitutions passage.

Can you provide the Greek text, an English translation & some context?

BTW, regarding Philo:

“Philo [20 BC - 50 AD, contemporary with Christ] used the exact phraseology we find in Matthew 25:46 - just as Christ used it - in the context of temporal affairs between people of different socio-economic classes:”

" “It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment (kolasis aiónios) from such as are more powerful” (Fragmenta, Tom. ii., p. 667)."

Eternal or Eonian? Part Five (The Greek Adjective Aiónios)

“It is better absolutely never to make any promise at all than not to assist another willingly, for no blame attaches to the one, but great dislike on the part of those who are less powerful, and intense hatred and long enduring punishment from those who are more powerful, is the result of the other line of conduct.”

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book45.html

" “It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and everlasting punishment [kolasis aiónios] from such as are more powerful.” Here we have the exact terms employed by out Lord, to show that aiónion did not mean endless but did mean limited duration in the time of Christ."

http://tentmaker.org/forum/word-studies/kolasis/

Another instructive example is Leviticus 3:17, where חקת עולם לדרתיכם is glossed as νόμιμον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν. What’s interesting here is that adjectival עולם (which in context we would otherwise translate as αἰώνιος) is glossed as adverbial εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, creating a close apposition of εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν. Again though, there are instances where the pronominal modifier in phrases like לדרתיכם/εἰς τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν is dropped. LXX Isaiah 51:8 is a particularly instructive example, where צדקתי לעולם תהיה וישועתי לדור דורים is translated ἡ δικαιοσύνη μου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔσται, τὸ δὲ σωτήριόν μου εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν. Here we have a perfect apposition/doublet, where God’s righteousness lasts forever (εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα), and his salvation forever (εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν), too.

Here again at Lev.3:17 it is EIS/unto/into, not “throughout”, your generations:

https://studybible.info/ABP_Strongs/Leviticus%203

Lev.3:17 `A statute age-during to your generations in all your dwellings: any fat or any blood ye do not eat.’ (YLT)
17 An age-abiding statute to your generations, in all your dwellings,—none of the fat nor of the blood, shall ye eat. (Ro)

Christians don’t abide by such laws, believing in accord with the NT that they are abolished, hence not eternal, but temporary.

As for:

Isa.51:8 For, as if a garment, eating them is the moth, and, as if wool, eating them is the roach. Yet My righteousness for the eon shall come, and My salvation for the generation of generations (CLV)

this Greek-Interlinear is much the same:

“into the eon…for generations of generations”

https://studybible.info/ABP_Strongs/Isaiah%2051

In neither case IMO is an interpretation, let alone a translation, of “forever” necessary.

[davo]

Koinelingua is killing it. He’s shown just how silly the arguments to interpret aionios as something other than eternal are.

So qaz… why have you ignored the answer I gave to your query HERE?

In response to Origen’s post HERE koine_lingua replied…

You’re totally missing the point. These Semitic doublets aren’t specifically about a succession or infinite series of these things, but suggest the greatest possible of whatever category they’re a part of. “King of kings” means the greatest and most magnificent king in existence; “holy of holies” suggests the holiest thing/place possible. αἰῶνες τῶν αἰώνων or whatever is a little unique because it’s not just this, but the adverbial εἰς (τοὺς) αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων.

I think I’ve already suggested or demonstrated that εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα and/or לעולם and לעד suggest permanence or the greatest amount of time possible. Based on this alone, it’s hard to think that εἰς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων isn’t simply a rhetorical intensification of the greatest amount of time possible.

Even though on a strict literal basis some time-related bookends can apply to αἰώνιος the sense of… “permanence or the greatest amount of time possible” still works BECAUSE like us moderns the ancient’s were also able to apply QUALITITATIVE meanings to words beyond any strict, straight-jacketed, literal form.

This whole argument gets whacky BECAUSE ‘universalism’ per sé demands trying to defend a certain position (in this case Mt 25:46) via a less than adequate argument; I just think there is a better, logical and less torturing of the text way to the desired end, which I laid out HERE, to which absolutely no one responded; which might suggest either nobody got it or if they did cannot fault it… what say you qaz?

[koine_lingua]

You’re right, no one responded to your previous comment, where you mention John 17:3, etc. That being said, I’ve actually addressed John 17:3 in relation to this issue in particular several times before, e.g. at length here.

In regard to the interpretation of Matthew 25:46 though, one very important thing that I mentioned in one of my more detailed linked posts is that Matthew 18:8 – which was taken over from its source text in the gospel of Mark – substitutes τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον (“the everlasting fire”) for Mark 9:43’s τὸ πῦρ τὸ ἄσβεστον (“the inextinguishable fire”).

Every indication suggests, however, that there’s no real change in meaning here, and that these function more or less as exact synonyms. But the real salient point here is that in so modifying Mark – which, it might be noted, doesn’t use this phrase “everlasting fire” anywhere in the gospel (only using the synonymous “inextinguishable fire”) – Matthew 18:8’s τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον’s can now connected with the other occurrences of this in Matthew, e.g. Matthew 25:41.

And this is important because it helps us understand Matthew 25:46 itself as doubly connected to both Matthew 25:41 and 25:34. More specifically, it helps us identity this “everlasting punishment” in 25:46 as the same punishment in Matthew 25:41 (and consequently that of Matthew 18:8 and Mark 9:43, too).

In other words, to the extent that “inextinguishable” itself points in a quantitative, or at least a clearly temporal direction, this weakens the argument that Matthew 25:46 might be seen in light of traditions like John 17:3 or this suggested abstract qualitative meaning. And, again, in my linked post here, I emphasized just how idiosyncratic things like John 17:3 are, and how difficult they are to correlate with other more traditional eschatological texts like Matthew 25:46. On this note, we can further see the “traditional” eschatological nature of Matthew 25:46 and 18:8 in light of several other considerations – e.g. when we look at other Jewish intertexts which (re)interpret Isaiah 66:24, like Judith 16:17. And incidentally, we might even be able to draw a connection between Matthew 25:46 and Isaiah 66:24, at least if Daniel 12:2 serves as somewhat of a “mediator” between these (in its use of דְּרָאוֹן, etc.).

Finally, it might also be added that Isaiah 66:24 is also related to Isaiah 34:10, which itself is to be directly connected with Revelation 14:10-11; 20:10, etc.

[davo]

Thanks for your thoughtful response koine_lingua.

In other words, to the extent that “inextinguishable” itself points in a quantitative, or at least a clearly temporal direction, this weakens the argument that Matthew 25:46 might be seen in light of traditions like John 17:3 or this suggested abstract qualitative meaning.

I’m not so sure on that… though as I noted in my comment regarding the quantitative aspect “I don’t discount it” and that in terms of the “temporal direction” and nature of that eschatological judgement on their horizon being pertinent to the DoJ of AD70, and as such Mt 25:46 has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the postmortem realities of universalism, ECT or annihilationism.

The destruction of that OC world was total and complete, qualitatively so, i.e., said destruction came in its fullness and NOTHING of any redemptive value from the OC age of death survived into the NC age of life.

Thus those that perished or those who survived experienced the fullness of either ruin or reward in that ‘end of the age’ period according to their heeding to Jesus’ words to get out of Dodge (Lk21:21).

[koine_lingua]

Re: some of the destruction you talk about: it’s certainly possible, and perhaps even intrinsically probable, to see this in texts like Matthew 25:46. After all, annihilationism was the dominant eschatological view in a large amount of Jewish literature that was roughly contemporary with the New Testament.

But we can’t get annihilationism purely from aionios itself.

More importantly, when doing critical exegesis/philology/lexicography, it’s also dangerous to harmonize different texts; and this is especially true when it involves bringing the complex schemata of Revelation and/or Isaiah into the picture.

Also, to the extent that the NT gospels each serve as a sort of “repository” of different early Christian traditions, it can even be dangerous to harmonize these traditions with themselves – sometimes even when it’s material within the same gospel!

In any case, any number of complex scenarios are imaginable. It’s actually possible that, say, some material in Mark plays more in favor of eternal torment, while the same material in Matthew (slightly modified in places, e.g. where the qualifying statement in Mark 9:48 is omitted) is intended to suggest annihilationism.

But of course in either case, whether annihilation or eternal torment, both of these obviously play against universalism; and most importantly here, there’s no warrant for understanding aionios to suggest merely temporary eschatological punishment – whether temporary in effect or duration. (Annihilation is punishment that’s permanent in effect.)

Of course, as for some of the other things you hinted at, if you’re suggesting that the aforementioned texts/traditions in Matthew 25:31-46 should be identified in any way with what happened with the destruction of Jerusalem, I couldn’t disagree more. I certainly think Matthew 25:31-46 envisions a scenario that hasn’t take place yet (and, as a non-believer, that I don’t think will ever take place, for several reasons). But that’s a whole other discussion.

[anon12438761]

For those of you wanting Jason Pratt to weigh in - I think his contributions earlier in the thread already made the case contra KL .

Also, in one of the recent threads, there was a criticism of Jason’s dense writing style. Yes, I find I have to really concentrate to parse out his arguments, but - gosh - is concentration a bad thing? I have found that the time I spend in understanding what he has to say is more than amply rewarded. As I’ve said before, we are so fortunate to have him (and others too!) here to man the watchtower.

[anon12438761]

I think you’re better off reading Jason’s posts above and his responses to KL. Also, Ramelli (which I have not yet read).
From what I can gather, the word can be construed differently in context; also for me the doctrine mainly depends on the character of God, not in contested minutiae.

[koine_lingua]

What are your reasons?

I don’t want to pull the conversation too far off track; but, in short, the earliest Christians (including Jesus himself, if the gospels are to be believed) thought that the event described in Matthew 25:31f., as well as associated events – that is, the eschatological coming of the Son of Man, the universal resurrection and final judgment, etc. – would all take place within the generation (Matthew 16:27-28, etc.). These cannot be identified with any events in the Jewish-Roman war, or anything like that.

[koine_lingua]

I think you’re better off reading Jason’s posts above and his responses to KL. Also, Ramelli (which I have not yet read).

I’d advise against anyone actually reading Ramelli. She just isn’t honest or competent enough to accurately represent… well, almost anything here.

[anon12438761]

Qaz, I know that you can make up your own mind on Ramelli. I’d be glad to hear your take.