[Admin edited to add a link [url=https://forum.evangelicaluniversalist.com/t/what-do-you-make-of-u-koine-linguas-arguments-part-5/5388/1]to part 5 on the EU forum here. I don’t know yet where the poster found the original article, but he didn’t preserve its links; apparently on a Reddit somewhere.]
[Admin edit of the thread title to clarify this ends the article series.]
I apologize for basically spamming the subreddit here, that this wasn’t all ready to go in one long document that I could have just linked to (I’ll eventually do that)… but to be honest, a lot of this wasn’t even written/edited yet; so getting the ball rolling on the earlier parts would be motivation for me to finish in the first place. (I had been promising /u/DadIamStrong and a couple of others for months that I’d finish it.)
[Continued from Part 5 here]
As mentioned, it is in a footnote (p. 66 n. 74) to their revisionistic analysis of aiōnios in Hebrews 6:2 that Ramelli and Konstan also ascribe the same meaning to the aiōnios of σωτηρίας αἰωνίου in Hebrews 5.9. This verse reads
Ramelli and Konstan would consequently understand this as the source of “salvation of/in the world to come*.”
We would search in vain for New Testament parallels to this phrase itself, minus one unique text: the lesser-known Shorter Ending of the gospel of Mark:
The earliest evidence of this text is found in the 4th-5th century Latin Codex Bobiensis; yet this ultimately derives from a 2nd century manuscript, attesting to the (relative) antiquity of this text. Of greatest interest in the Greek manuscripts here is the line τὸ ἱερὸν καὶ ἄφθαρτον κήρυγμα τῆς αἰωνίου σωτηρίας, “the holy and imperishable proclamation of (the) eternal salvation.” Here, with αἰωνίου σωτηρίας (aiōniou sōtērias), we have the exact same words as in Hebrews 5.9, only in reverse order. The “holy . . . proclamation” obviously cannot be of the “salvation of/in the world to come,” but the possibility of eternal salvation in Christ. This is all the more secured by its appearance in conjunction with the word ἄφθαρτος, apthartos, “imperishable.”
Returning to a few pages earlier, though: on p. 61, τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας in Heb 9.15 is translated as “proclamation of the inheritance of the world to come”; yet this does great injustice to the context, where we have a classic Pauline anti-Judaic polemic against the “old covenant”—one that truly is “passing away”—contrasted with the “new” one, which is truly eternal (unlike the first one). (We also have “eternal redemption” in 9.12, contrasted with the idea that Christ’s sacrifice supersedes that of regular animal sacrifices, which are not effective “once for all,” but have to be performed over and over.)
It’s curious that they translate αἰώνιος as simply “future” here; though doubtlessly this is because their normal translation of this as “in the age/world to come” would show how intolerable this is: that, in effect, in the “time to come” his followers will receive “life in the time to come”—clearly redundant.
They suggest
Yet a simple look at the larger context here goes to conclusively refute this. The words immediately preceding the quoted verse are
This sets up the contrast of the water that Jesus “gives,” which—quite similar to the line of argumentation taken up in Hebrews 9, as discussed a couple of paragraphs ago—by contrast does not require repeated use, but will suffice for the person to “never be thirsty (again)”: which is how we should translate οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.
Further, if “water” and “life” are parallel here (which they are), then just as the water is “eternal,” then the life is, too; consequently we can translation John 4.13-14 as NRSV does,
After this, on p. 63, they even go so far as to suggest that ζωὴ αἰώνιος in the Gospel of John “may in every case, we believe, be understood as referring to life in the future world.” They give, as another purported example of this here, John 3.15-16, ‘where believers in Christ will have ζωὴν αἰώνιον, “for he came not to judge this world κόσμον] but to save it”’. Yet the contrast of ζωὴν αἰώνιον in John 3.15 is simply to “perishing” (from ἀπόλλυμι); and the sort of state that does not result in death is most naturally/simply characterized (and translated) as “eternal life,” and not something like “eschatological life” (for which we have to go a step further in connecting this with imperishability). Suffice it to say, it cannot be true that in John, this “may in every case . . . be understood as referring to life in the future world.”
Ramelli/Konstan next translate 1 Timothy 6.12’s ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς as “seize life in the aiôn.” This is incredible, as they then note that this is parallel to 1 Tim 6.19’s (ἵνα) ἐπιλάβωνται τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς, with τῆς ὄντως ζωῆς translated as “the true life.” Yet the identical structure of the two clauses should suggest that just as we have “true life” in 6.19, we probably have the simple “eternal life” in v. 12 (not the much more complex “life in the aiôn”).
Next, they suggest that John 6.51 is to be understood as
They admit that this interpretation of ὑπὲρ as “beyond” and not “on behalf of” (or “for the sake of”) is “perhaps tendentious,” and I agree: especially in light of parallels in the other gospels: e.g. Mark 14.24, where the eucharistic blood is poured out ὑπὲρ πολλῶν (cf. Matthew 26.28, where it’s περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυννόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν).
Finally, they mention John 12.25—and cf. again my comments on this in conjunction with 4 Maccabees 15.3.
Several texts from Romans are then discussed, where “life αἰώνιος” is contrasted with “death.” Here, perhaps my comment
is again relevant (of course it could be argued that the “eternal” part is unnecessary here; but this applies just as much to Ramelli/Konstan, who merely alter it to “life in the eschatological age”).
Ramelli/Konstan continue that
Before discussing this, I’d like to just quote the NRSV of these verses:
It’s interesting that Paul here refers to αἰώνιον βάρος δόξης (NRSV’s “eternal weight of glory”), followed by καθ’ ὑπερβολὴν εἰς ὑπερβολὴν (NRSV “beyond all measure”)—as e.g. 1 Enoch 54.3 has the unrighteous being given ዘአልቦ መድሎት in the eschaton, which Knibb translates as iron chains of “of immeasurable weight.” (And cf. again the “eternal chains” of Jude 6.)
In any case, as the most usual meaning of πρόσκαιρος is “temporary,” then αἰώνιος is most easily taken as its opposite, “eternal,” and thus NRSV’s translation is on point. (Ramelli/Konstan note that the Vulgate translates them as temporalia and aeterna; but of course they must suggest that ‘the Latin obscures the sense of the Greek, “pertaining to the αἰών”’. πρόσκαιρος will be discussed further in a subsequent post.)
It’s to their credit—as I mentioned in my second post—that on the next page (66), Ramelli and Konstan acknowledge that “αἰών is never used absolutely, but always have a modifier: this αἰών, the current αἰών, and the like”; yet virtually right after this, 2 Thess 2.16 is translated as “encouragement for the world to come” (παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν), whereas the juxtaposition with ἐλπίδα ἀγαθὴν here (παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν καὶ ἐλπίδα ἀγαθὴν) suggests that “eternal encouragement/comfort/solace” is the more preferable translation.
On p. 67, Ramelli and Konstan write
Yet this is by no means an ‘an odd way of saying “do not have forgiveness for all eternity”’. As has been suggested several times, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα is simply idiomatic for “never” ; and we can compare John 11.26’s πᾶς ὁ ζῶν καὶ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ ἀποθάνῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, “everyone who lives and believes in me will never die.” (Cf. also, in the Septuagint, LXX Deut 12.19, πρόσεχε σεαυτῷ μὴ ἐγκαταλίπῃς τὸν Λευίτην πάντα τὸν χρόνον ὅσον ἐὰν ζῇς ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; LXX Josh 1.5, οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου.)
(Also, it’s surprising that, here, Ramelli/Konstan did not cite the parallel to Mark 3.29 in Matthew 12.32: “Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come”—though this, too, is simply an extended way of saying “never” as well; and is another example of the explicitly qualified “this age” and “the age to come.”)
Yet there were plentiful contemporary (and pre-Christian) traditions that Sodom and Gomorrah were in fact still burning: e.g. Wisdom 10.6-7 states that
Following this, there’s more discussion of Romans 1 and Jude 6, which can be found at the beginning of my post here, in conjunction with discussion of aidios.
Finally, Ramelli and Konstan comment (67-68) that
Of course, it’s big “if” in “if Aristotle’s distinction holds true for New Testament usage,” because there’s obviously a very wide gulf between the Attic Greek of the 4th century BCE and the Greek of the New Testament (to say nothing of Aristotle’s particular rhetorical purpose in that passage)—something that surely also applies to the purported distinction between aidios and aiōnios, I might add. (More on that later, perhaps.)
More importantly, though: if we really want to examine all of the uses of κόλασις – and here just limiting ourselves to the Septuagint – the verses where it’s used are Wisdom 11:13, Wisdom 16:2, Wisdom 16:24, Wisdom 19:4, 2 Maccabees 4:38, 3 Maccabees 1:3, 3 Maccabees 7:10, 4 Maccabees 8:9, Jeremiah 18:20, Ezekiel 14:3, Ezekiel 14:4, Ezekiel 14:7, Ezekiel 18:30, Ezekiel 43:11, Ezekiel 44:12 (and, in the New Testament, Matthew 25:46 and 1 John 4:18). Uses of the verb form κολάζω are found in 1 Maccabees 7:7, 2 Maccabees 6:14, 3 Maccabees 3:26, 3 Maccabees 7:3, 3 Maccabees 7:14, 4 Maccabees 2:12, 4 Maccabees 8:6, 4 Maccabees 18:5, (Old Greek) Daniel 6:12, Wisdom 3:4, Wisdom 11:5, Wisdom 11:8, Wisdom 11:16, Wisdom 12:14, Wisdom 12:15, Wisdom 12:27, Wisdom 14:10, Wisdom 16:1, Wisdom 16:9, Wisdom 18:11, Wisdom 18:22, 1 Esdras 8:24 (and 2 Peter 2:9 and Acts 4:21 in the NT).
I’d do it myself with enough prodding… though, just from a casual glance, there are a few other instances) where it’s unambiguously non-corrective: e.g. 2 Maccabees 4:38 (ἐκεῖ τὸν μιαιφόνον ἀπεκόσμησε, τοῦ Κυρίου τὴν ἀξία αὐτῷ κόλασιν ἀποδόντος); 4 Maccabees 8:9; and 1 Esdras 8:24 (tellingly, in the latter, τιμωρία is a type of κόλασις). Justin Martyr also says something highly relevant in his Apology (8):