Your quote of Strong's does not help your position. It puts into question the translation you posted. As do other lexicons.
The context supports the view that both the life & the punishment referred to in v.2 are of finite duration (OLAM), while v.3 speaks of those who will be for OLAM "and further".
2 From those sleeping in the soil of the ground many shall awake, these to eonian life
and these to reproach for eonian repulsion." 3 The intelligent shall warn as the warning
of the atmosphere, and those justifying many are as the stars for the eon and further."
(Dan.12:2-3, CLV)
The Hebrew word for eonian (v.2) & eon (v.3) above is OLAM which is used of limited durations in the OT. In verse 3 of Daniel 12 are the words "OLAM and further" showing an example of its finite duration in the very next words after Daniel 12:2. Thus, in context, the OLAM occurences in v.2 should both be understood as being of finite duration.
The early church accepted the following Greek OT translation of the Hebrew OT of Dan. 12:3:
καὶ οἱ συνιέντες ἐκλάμψουσιν ὡς ἡ λαμπρότης τοῦ στερεώματος καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν ὡς οἱ ἀστέρες εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι[and further]
Notice the words at the end saying KAI ETI, meaning "and further" or "and still" or "and yet" & other synonyms.
eti: "still, yet...Definition: (a) of time: still, yet, even now, (b) of degree: even, further, more, in addition." Strong's Greek: 2089. ἔτι (eti) -- still, yet
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας καὶ ἔτι means "into the ages and further" as a translation of the Hebrew L'OLAM WA ED[5703, AD]
So this early church Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures agrees with the above translation (& those below) using the words "and further" & similarly.
3 and·the·ones-being-intelligent they-shall- warn as·warning-of the·atmosphere
and·ones-leading-to-righteousness-of the·many-ones as·the·stars for·eon and·futurity (Daniel 12:3, Hebrew-English Interlinear)
http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/dan12.pdf
2 and, many of the sleepers in the dusty ground, shall awake,—these, [shall be] to age-abiding life, but, those, to reproach, and age-abiding abhorrence; 3 and, they who make wise, shall shine like the shining of the expanse,—and, they who bring the many to righteousness, like the stars to times age-abiding and beyond. (Daniel 12:2-3, Rotherham)
2 And the multitude of those sleeping in the dust of the ground do awake, some to life age-during, and some to reproaches—to abhorrence age-during.
3 And those teaching do shine as the brightness of the expanse, and those justifying the multitude as stars to the age and for ever*. (Dan. 12:2-3, YLT)
* for "for ever" Young of YLT says substitute "age during" everywhere in Scripture:
http://heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/bibles/ylt.pdf
This is an appeal to man, not Scripture. Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth? Even if those producing them are almost all believers in endless punishment? I can appeal to man as well. In the early church most Christians were at one time universalists. If printing presses were available then, who do you suppose would have printed the most versions favorable to their viewpoint?
"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."
"Of course there were antiuniversalists also in the ancient church, but scholars must be careful not to list among them — as is the case with the list of “the 68” antiuniversalists repeatedly cited by McC on the basis of Brian Daley’s The Hope of the Early Church — an author just because he uses πῦρ αἰώνιον, κόλασις αἰώνιος, θάνατος αἰώνιος, or the like, since these biblical expressions do not necessarily refer to eternal damnation. Indeed all universalists, from Origen to Gregory Nyssen to Evagrius, used these phrases without problems, for universalists understood these expressions as “otherworldly,” or “long-lasting,” fire, educative punishment, and death. Thus, the mere presence of such phrases is not enough to conclude that a patristic thinker “affirmed the idea of everlasting punishment” (p. 822). Didache mentions the ways of life and death, but not eternal death or torment; Ignatius, as others among “the 68,” never mentions eternal punishment. Ephrem does not speak of eternal damnation, but has many hints of healing and restoration. For Theodore of Mopsuestia, another of “the 68,” if one takes into account also the Syriac and Latin evidence, given that the Greek is mostly lost, it becomes impossible to list him among the antiuniversalists. He explicitly ruled out unending retributive punishment, sine fine et sine correctione.
"I have shown, indeed, that a few of “the 68” were not antiuniversalist, and that the uncertain were in fact universalists, for example, Clement of Alexandria, Apocalypse of Peter, Sibylline Oracles (in one passage), Eusebius, Nazianzen, perhaps even Basil and Athanasius, Ambrose, Jerome before his change of mind, and Augustine in his anti-Manichaean years. Maximus too, another of “the 68,” speaks only of punishment aionios, not aidios and talks about restoration with circumspection after Justinian, also using a persona to express it. Torstein Tollefsen, Panayiotis Tzamalikos, and Maria Luisa Gatti, for instance, agree that he affirmed apokatastasis.
"It is not the case that “the support for universalism is paltry compared with opposition to it” (p. 823). Not only were “the 68” in fact fewer than 68, and not only did many “uncertain” in fact support apokatastasis, but the theologians who remain in the list of antiuniversalists tend to be much less important. Look at the theological weight of Origen, the Cappadocians, Athanasius, or Maximus, for instance, on all of whom much of Christian doctrine and dogmas depends. Or think of the cultural significance of Eusebius, the spiritual impact of Evagrius or Isaac of Nineveh, or the philosophico-theological importance of Eriugena, the only author of a comprehensive treatise of systematic theology and theoretical philosophy between Origen’s Peri Archon and Aquinas’s Summa theologiae. Then compare, for instance, Barsanuphius, Victorinus of Pettau, Gaudentius of Brescia, Maximus of Turin, Tyconius, Evodius of Uzala, or Orientius, listed among “the 68” (and mostly ignorant of Greek). McC’s statement, “there are no unambiguous cases of universalist teaching prior to Origen” (p. 823), should also be at least nuanced, in light of Bardaisan, Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter’s Rainer Fragment, parts of the Sibylline Oracles, and arguably of the NT, especially Paul’s letters.
The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: The Reviews Start Coming In
SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research
Ilaria Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (Brill, 2013. 890 pp.)
Scholars directory, with list of publications:
Ilaria L.E. Ramelli - ISNS Scholars Directory
It is not an absence of info, but based on the word EIS, as i said. EIS occurs in Matthew 25:46. Did you look it up in some lexicons. As i said:
If aionios refers to, as you say, "an infinite series of ages", then those who enter "into" such a punishment may only experience it during the first of those ages. For the term EIS, "into", speaks of entrance into a period of time, not necessarily lasting for the entire duration of it. Likewise with regards to passages such as Rev.20:10 that use the word EIS in reference to "ages of the ages".
That is a legitimate possible interpretation of Mt.25:46, based on what you said, just as yours is a legitimate possible interpretation.
But you just expressed an assumption right there, i.e. that the verse should be interpreted to speak of what is "everlasting", rather than aionion, "eonian", age lasting, or pertaining to an age, (e.g. a Messianic age, such as the millennial age, for an example.). In Strongs under aion (#165), it says it means properly an age, & can refer to a Messianic age. Aion is the noun, aionios (#166) the corresponding adjective.
I'd suggest that is tantamount to a Catholic blindly accepting whatever the Pope says. I'd also suggest you consider other experts besides those who already believe in endless torments translating Bibles according to their preconceived theological dogmatic biases. Just considering them is not even beginning to consider this topic objectively. Look into how the ancient Jews translated the LXX, the Greek OT accepted by the early church, how Early Church Father universalists understood aionios, how modern secular scholarship considers the issue, modern universalist scholars and universalist books by learned men & women on the topic, etc. This site full of books would be a start:
https://www.tentmaker.org/books/hope_beyond_hell.pdf
Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth? You answered:
If "Whoever can produce the most Bible versions has the truth", as you say, then all any group would have to do is just that. With all their money the JW's or Mormons could be the ones you'ld be following as "the truth" by the end of the week.
Speaking of Bible versions, following are various translations of Matthew 25:46:
Translation of the New Testament from the Original Greek Humbly Attempted by Nathaniel Scarlett Assisted by Men of Piety & Literature with notes, 1798:
"And These will go away into onian punishment: but the righteous into onian life."
The New Testament by Abner Kneeland, 1823:
"And these shall go away into aionian punishment*: but the righteous into aionian life."
The New Covenant by Dr. J.W. Hanson, 1884:
"And these shall go away into onian chastisement, and the just into onian life."
Youngs Literal Translation of the Holy Bible, 1898:
"And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during."
The Holy Bible in Modern English, 1903
"And these He will dismiss into a long correction, but the well-doers to an enduring life."
The New Testament in Modern Speech, 1910:
"And these shall go away into the Punishment 1 of the Ages, but the righteous into the Life 1 of the Ages."
1. [Of the Ages] Greek "aeonian."
A Critical Paraphrase of the New Testament by Vincent T. Roth, 1960
"And these shall go away into age-continuing punishment, but the righteous into life age-continuing."
The Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible, 1976
"And these shall go away into age-abiding *correction, but the righteous into **age-abiding life."
The Twentieth Century New Testament, 1900
"And these last will go away into onian punishment, but the righteous ?into onian life."
The People's New Covenant, 1925
"And these will depart into age-continuing correction, but the righteous, into age-continuing life."
Emphatic Diaglott, 1942 edition
"And these shall go forth to the aionian 1 cutting-off; but the RIGHTEOUS to aionian Life."
The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Anointed, 1958
"And these shall go away into agelasting cutting-off and the just into agelasting life."
The New Testament, a Translation, 1938
"And these will go away into eonian correction, but the righteous into eonian life."
The New Testament, A New Translation, 1980
"Then they will begin to serve a new period of suffering; but God's faithful will enter upon their heavenly life."
Concordant Literal New Testament, 1983
And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."
Rotherham Emphasized Bible, 1959
"And these shall go away into age-abiding correction, But the righteous into age-abiding life."
Why did Paul become as if under law to those who were under law?
Your author,
Richard Bauckham, states above, in your quote of him:
"Eternal punishment was firmly asserted in official creeds and confessions of the churches. It must have seemed as indispensable a part of universal Christian belief as the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation."
That's a lie. There were several early creeds prior to 500 A.D.. Not one of them mentioned "eternal punishment":
Apostles' Creed 120-250
Creed of Nicaea 325
Nicene Creed (Nicaea-Constantinopolitan Creed) 381
Chalcedonian Creed 451
So it took at least 5 centuries for "the church" to finally condemn universalism. And then, with endless punishment ruling by the might of the sword, there followed dark ages, Crusades, Inquisitions, burning opposers to death, and destroying their writings for over a millenium.
Your author also said:
"Until the nineteenth century almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell."
In light of my previous comment re the dark ages, etc, i doubt that is something to boast about! Almost without exception any theologians for over 1000 years were not Protestants. Does that makes Catholicism or EO true? Endless hell must be true because "the church" killed off anyone who thought otherwise or silenced them with threats of imprisonment, tortures & such? Which goes a long way towards explaining why most Bible versions today follow the same tradition. The conquerors of history write the history books. That doesn't make them true or objective.
During the more enlightened first 500 years it was not the case that "almost all Christian theologians taught the reality of eternal torment in hell." BTW, your author didn't comment on the Ramelli quote:
"Augustine himself, after rejecting apokatastasis, and Basil attest that still late in the fourth and fifth centuries this doctrine was upheld by the vast majority of Christians (immo quam plurimi)."
www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.html
I already did, as follows:
Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as "everlasting". Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the "range of meanings" the word holds in any specific context. What biased scholars after the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages "church" have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.
"Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false."(Prov.30:6)
"After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version)."
Eon As Indefinte Duration, Part Three
I'd say i'm working from an extremely powerful argument. Especially when it's up against yours about whoever has the most Bible versions has the truth. If the universalist majority in the early church had the most Bible versions, then it would have been the truth according to you, eh? Who had the most versions during the dark ages when Catholicism ruled by the sword, Catholicism or Protestantism?
My basis for what i say about aionios is based on a comparison with other words that would have been understood to teach what you claim had they been used by Jesus in Mt.25:46. Since those words were not used, but one which often refers to finite duration, it is evident Christ did not teach endless punishment.
The ambiguity is in the word aionios which can refer to duration that is undefined but not endless, or duration that is endless. If Christ wished to teach endless punishment unambiguously, He would have chosen words with less ambiguity. Since He didn't use such words, He didn't teach such a doctrine. Perhaps that helps clarify the meaning of what was said before:
If one wishes to teach something clearly, they use words that are definitive or less ambiguous, not words that are full of ambiguity. Therefore Christ did not teach "endless" punishment or torments that have "no end". For if Christ meant to teach "endless" punishment, why use the ambiguous words olam, aion and aionios? Why not instead use the word APERANTOS ("endless"; 1 Tim. 1:4)? Or why not use the words "no end" as in Lk1:33b: "And of His kingdom there will be no end"? Why not use the word "eternal" (AIDIOS) as in Rom.1:20 and Jude 6? Why not use the word His contemporary Philo used, APEIRON, unlimited? The answer seems obvious.
This has no bearing on the word being discussed, aionios. Clearly Mt.25:46 is speaking of future destiny & Jesus' listeners would have known that. Furthermore the only Scriptural reference to aionios life (Mt.25:46) they could have known was from Dan.12:2-3 discussed above.