The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Chri

Studies Books
#1

Here’s an interesting looking and potentially helpful book. I read parts of it with Amazon’s “Look Inside” feature and wouldn’t mind having a copy if it wasn’t so expensive!

Terms for Eternity: Aiônios and Aïdios in Classical and Christian Texts
Ilaria Ramelli (Author), David Konstan (Author)

amazon.com/Terms-Eternity-Ai … _rhf_p_t_1

Here’s a review:
bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2009/2009-02-16.html

And here’s the authors’ response to the review:
bmcreview.org/2009/02/20090251.html

Sonia

#2

Wow Sonia, how did you find this? This looks really interesting. Too bad the book is 100 bucks! Sould we take a collection and pass it around? I guess the reviewer didn’t like the way they organized their info. Still sounds so interesting though!

After taking a peek inside the book it appears from pg. 11 as if the author takes the view that previous to Plato the word for things imperishable is aidios and never aioniosis. Of course, there are still so many pages to read. Just the fact that there is legitimate debate over this is great news!

#3

I think I should buy it for Luke’s birthday present :mrgreen:

#4

I just corrected the link above to the author’s response–so if you looked at that before and only found the review again, take another look! :smiley: (Thanks, Alex!)

Sonia

#5

Sonia, I wondered about that link that said the same as the first. Good to read the author’s response. I’m sure Luke would really appreciate that $100 book. :smiley: Since it’s $100 it must really be a reliable source, right? :laughing:

#6

Ok, so let me see if I’ve got this straight.

So am I understanding correctly that for the first time they show how aidios is only in the bible 2x in the OT and 2x in the NT to describe life, never punishment, whereas the majority of instances are aioniosis and no stoic ever thought of aioniosis as forever since this was reserved for aidios? Wow, this is huge!!! I like that they did not want to taint their study by delving into the implications of such a finding, to avoid circular reasoning, and wanted to look just at the evidence.

And how fascinating, that now, one of them is launching into a full on study of “apokatastasis, in which the thesis of the destruction of the wicked is also examined, along with the reasons that led Origen and his followers to reject it.”

Ok Sonia, which passages use the word aidios?

#7

Here’s the NT passages.

Rom 1:20 (ESV) For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal (aidios) power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.

Jude 1:6 (ESV) And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal (aidios) chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day

The Jude passage doesn’t seem to quite fit the claim that aidios is never used in reference to punishment, but, on the other hand, it would seem to me to indicate that even aidios is not necessarily “etermal” in the strict sense we tend to think of theologically, seeing as the chains are until the judgment.

I’ll see if I can find the OT passages – but It’s going to take me some work, since I’ve never done anything with the Septuagint. :sunglasses:

Sonia

#8

It would perhaps, be more reasonable not to call them “eternal” in the sense of ceaseless time, but rather “unbreakable, or imperishable” given the Roman’s verse.

Which would make sense for both the presented verses. Unbreakable (by the imprisoned angels) chains, and imperishable (by any force under God) divine power, and nature.

#9

Thanks Sonia, for looking that up! I was thinking too that eternal doesn’t make sense in that second verse since it’s until the judgement. I think you, Lefein, make some sense with your explanation.

#10

Unless “unto” doesn’t mean “until”. Does the word for “unto” have some flexibility? The variables have to be considered.

#11

It’s alway encouraging to find new people backing up our position, especially if they are highly qualified in the area! :sunglasses:

#12

This doesn’t help me, for the opponents of their viewpoint are also “highly qualified”. I guess what matters is the quality of their arguments…

#13

They would seem to be pretty well qualified to write on the topic.

Here’s a blurb on Ilaria Ramelli
event.uchicago.edu/maincampus/de … hicago.edu

Prof. Ramelli is an internationally recognized authority on ancient philosophy, patristics and the New Testament. She is the author of textual editions, with notes and commentary, on major ancient texts, both Christian and non-Christian, in Latin (Martianus Capella, Calcidius), Greek (the pre-Socratics, Epicurea, Musonius Rufus, Annaeus Cornutus, Diogenes Laertius, Acts of the Apostles), Syriac (the Chronicon of Arbela, the Acts of Mar Mari) and Coptic (Hermetica from Nag Hammadi), and is currently working on a commentary on the Correspondence between Seneca and Paul for the Novum Testamentum Patristicum series, and a translation of Hierocles the Stoic for Writings from the Greco-Roman World. Recent monographs have concentrated on ancient allegory (2 volumes of texts and analyses from the pre-Socratics through late antiquity) and Gregory of Nyssa, including her major edition, translation and commentary on Gregory’s de anima et resurrectione (2007, Bompiani, Il Pensiero occidentale) and on his doctrine of apokatastasis (forthcoming).

Here's some text from David Konstan's faculty page at Brown University:
[brown.edu/Departments/Classi ... 1106970156](http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Classics/people/facultypage.php?id=1106970156)

David Konstan's research focuses on ancient Greek and Latin literature, especially comedy and the novel, and classical philosophy. In recent years, he has investigated the emotions and value concepts of classical Greece in Rome, and has written books on friendship, pity, the emotions, and forgiveness. He has also worked on ancient physics and atomic theory, and on literary theory.

Biography

David Konstan's B.A. was in mathematics; in in senior year of college, he began ancient Greek and Latin, and went on to obtain a doctorate in classics.
 
He has been at Brown since 1987; from 1992-2010 he was the John Rowe Workman Distinguished Professor of Classics and the Humanistic Tradition and Professor in Comparative Literature. Previous to coming to Brown, he taught for 20 years at Wesleyan University in Connecticut.
 
David Konstan has held visiting appointments in New Zealand, Scotland, Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, Australia, and Egypt, among other places.  He serves on the Editorial Boards of numerous journals around the world.  He has been President of the American Philological Association, and is a fellow of the American Academy of Ars and Sciences.  He has been awarded NEH, ACLS, and Guggenheim ellowships, among others.
#14

See my edited message. Thank you!

#15

There will always be different opinions. But can anyone come up with an as highly qualified person who will disagree? So far I haven’t come up with anything.

So far, from what I’ve found, the most highly knowlegdeable people seem to agree that aionios does not mean eternal. When I found this source, and the other I posted recently (and I haven’t read that yet at all, so maybe that researcher doesn’t agree!), I was not looking for agreement, I was trying to find general research–preferably from an unbiased source–on the development of the concept of “eternity” and/or usages of aion/aionios among the non-Christian Greeks.

But the problem with trying to find an unbiased source is that anyone whose research leads them to believe that aionios doesn’t mean “eternal” is likely to quickly become “biased.”

And when it comes to bias, the only people I’ve found who insist on the meaning of aionios as “eternal” seem to be biased theologians! :mrgreen:

As I pointed out elsewhere, J.I. Packer (while not highly qualified in this area) :wink: is one non universalist theologian who does agree that “aionios” does not in itself mean “endless”, as expressed in one of the articles posted by Alex. He doesn’t derive the doctrine of eternal punishment from the definition of aionios, but from the fact that the punishment (as described in Matt 25) is “of the age to come” which he assumes is never-ending, and in comparison to the “aionios zoe” of the righteous which, we have reason to believe, will not end.

If you can find a source that disagrees, I hope you’ll post it for balance! I agree it’s always good to look at the other side of an issue.
Sonia

#16

I’ll have to admit defeat here. I can’t find them. :blush: Someone help me out!!

Sonia

#17

Those two people are highly qualified! I wonder,then, where they’ve come out in their conclusions about whether it’s God’s plan to save all? Perhaps I’m wrongly concluding that they are believers? Sure would be interesting to hear from these two. You think they’d be willing to talk to us? I’ve never seen a book cost so much! I wonder what the reason is for that?

#18

It’s hard to understand how everyone isn’t already a believer :wink:

Great idea! I’ll try to invite them over straight away…

Robin was also very excited about the above book went I told him yesterday, but said

Cool he posted it on his blog too: theologicalscribbles.blogspot.co … f-age.html :smiley:

#19

I’ve changed this to a “Sticky” post as it seems quite important. Once someone has managed to read it, I think we should put it in the “Materials we recommend” section too, if it’s as good as I suspect it is. I’ve also asked Robin, who has way more “street cred” then me, to invite the authors to discuss their book here…

#20

Sonia said: “But can anyone come up with an as highly qualified person who will disagree? So far I haven’t come up with anything.”
How’s about’s the BDAG gang?