plato and aion etc

[tonyatl]

there is considerable scholarly attention paid to platonic writings as a source of interpreting aion and its cognates. my understanding is that the earliest known manuscript of plato dates to somewhere between the 10-11th C. AD.

as such, how would such a late dated document be beneficial to etymological or semantic discovery from the 5th C. BC? how does one know that late greek linguistic artifacts did not interrupt or corrupt the text some 15 centuries later? How does anyone know that this so-called platonic document has any resemblance to 5th C. BC writings of plato if in fact he even wrote any of this work attributed to him?

it seems to me that some basic questions need to be answered regarding the provenence of platonic works before anchoring too much upon its value.

and why is anyone wanting to use platonic categories of thought to interpret hebraic thought or christian theology?

[sven]

Plato possibly used Aión in a limited sense:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/Aion_lim.html

there was a long discussion here, even if aiónios means eternal in the platonic sense it would not necessarily contradict universalism:

http://www.tentmaker.org/forum/index.php?topic=4738.0

this is a very interesting explanation also, though the author believes in annihilation:

It is important to note that the Greek word aionios, translated "eternal" or "everlasting," literally means "lasting for an age." Ancient Greek papyri contain numerous examples of Roman emperors being described as aionios. What is meant is that they held their office for life. Unfortunately, the English words "eternal" or "everlasting" do not accurately render the meaning of aionios, which literally means "age-lasting." In other words, while the Greek aionios expresses perpetuity within limits, the English "eternal" or "everlasting" denotes unlimited duration.

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com//books/immortality_resurrection/6.htm

[Seth]

it seems to me that some basic questions need to be answered regarding the provenence of platonic works before anchoring too much upon its value.

and why is anyone wanting to use platonic categories of thought to interpret hebraic thought or christian theology?

Hi tonyatl, I don't post much but I saw this and since it has been on my mind, I wanted to comment. To your bolded line, I say BINGO!!!!!

2 Timothy 3:16
All SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I mean where do you start with a scripture like that? Do we need to ask ourselves regarding word usage, did Paul, John, Peter etc believe that Plato's musings on aion and aionios in Timaeus were God inspired or Spirit breathed? I saw a giant thread on the aion/aionios question where someone spent the entire thread appealing to Plato's uses of the words. If we are to correct eachother about doctrine, the various philosophies of Greeks who also taught about many gods other than the one God, is probably not the best place to start.

Yet we know that the quality of eternity as a timeless state, as opposed to linear time was a Hellenistic construct! Here we have the Septuagint substituting aion and age for the Hebrew "olam" and we somehow believe that the Platonic derivative of aion is the authority? Hmm. I think it does us well to understand usage in the NT of those words in relation to scriptures they taught from that they believed were inspired by the Almighty God.

Basically, we should look at aion through the glass of olam. It's pretty much agreed upon throughout scholarship that I have seen that the philosophy of "timelessness" was foriegn to the Jews through their scriptures. If it entered in, it was through Hellenistic influence, not through the Scripture. The Jewish Bible / Torah / Old Testament, whatever you want to call it, does not speak about "timelessness" or "eternity" in association with olam.

When the Jews lived among the Greeks, they needed to be able to translate eachother's words. So regardless of what the typical Greek person thought about aion/aionios didn't matter as much as whether the Jews needed a word close enough to "olam" when they translated their scriptures to Greek. Neither the Greek or Hebrew languages have very many words, at least in comparison to English. So the Jews were limited in their selection to choose the word to best fit THEIR OWN concept of "olam" into Greek. This probably caused confusion if at any time a Greek follower of Plato had a differing view of time and "timelessness."

Judaism they have a concept called "ha olam ha-ba" which is called "the world to come." In the Book of Daniel we see a reference to "olam chayya" and "olam derowon (shame)" Daniel 12:12. In Judaism they teach about a "world to come" and the "life of the world to come." Aion and Olam refer to age, and world. It's basically the age along with what characterizes the age. The best example to give is this: The Industrial Age and The Industrial World. You see how interchangeable they become. The concept of "olam haba" or the age to come, is very important in Judaism and it where they placed much hope.

Jesus said in Mark 10:30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world (aion) to come aionios life.

The lord was talking about "chayya olam ha-ba" the life of the coming age/world mentioned in Daniel.

This "world/age" to come is the "life of the world/age." First of all the fact that Jesus speaks of the "aion to come" rules out aion as timeless/eternal. And I don't think I would have to stress to you that in the New Testament, aionios life was available at that time, and was defined by them as the life within according to the Spirit. I have more info here about that:  http://mercifultruth.com/eternity.htm. So when Jesus spoke of the "aion to come" where that same aionios life would be given, he was obviously talking about post-Pentacost world/age in which the fortaste of the Spirit would be given. When Jesus spoke those words, he had not died and been resurrected, and so that "age to come" or "olam ha-ba" or "chayya olam ha-ba" (life of the age to come) had not yet happened. The Apostles were CRYSTAL clear that at the time they wrote their epistles, the age of life had indeed come.

It came after Jesus was resurrected and then gave the Spirit of Life: aionios life, that they may know thee, the one true God and him who God sent. The phrase "pertaining to aion/olam" is the right usage of the word according to what THE SCRIPTURES teach about time and ages/worlds, not what Plato taught.

Here is a little more info as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tikkun_olam

Tikkun Olam refers to "repair of the world" or "to fix the world." which refers to the present day. Obviously, "repair of eternity" would be absurd. In relation to God, "el olam" would mean "God of the world." The Jews thought of olam in terms of distant time and the world associated with whatever olam they were talking about. Just my thoughts.

[sven]

http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=386

this might be interesting for you, I examined the use of the phrase eis ton aióna in the Septuagint (you can download it there as a pdf file)

[Tim B]

The problem I have with people quoting Plato to suggest that aion/aionios means "eternal" is this: words change their meanings over time. Plato might have meant eternal, but when people used the same word in the time of Jesus, such as when Josephus used it, it was only ever used in a limited sense. What matters is what the words meant at the time they were being used (aka, what did they mean for Plato? and what did they mean for Jesus and those of his time?).

For instance, the word "sick" used to mean simply that a person was physically ill. Now it's often used as in "that's cool," such as when people say "that's sick!". It would be improper to suggest what it used to mean (that being of a physical illness) must be what it means now when people use the term "that's sick!" to define something as "cool." This isn't the best example, but I think it gets the point across.

[sven]

a further point is, Plato called time (chronos) an eternal (aiónios) image of eternity (aión) if I not err, time can't be eternal as we understand it, his idea is totally abstract, and I've read that also he used aiónios in a limited sense.

[Tim B]

a further point is, Plato called time (chronos) an eternal (aiónios) image of eternity (aión) if I not err, time can't be eternal as we understand it, his idea is totally abstract, and I've read that also he used aiónios in a limited sense.

I've heard he used aionios in a limited sense as well, but I'm not sure exactly where I read that.

[sven]

today I came across that maybe some works ascribed to Aristotle (I think peri kosmou), were possibly not his'; this would also affect the position of those who claim Aristotle used aión to mean eternity.