Does the Bible Need a Major Overhaul?

[mwood30]

Most people are unaware that the translators of the first English Bibles guessed what many of the Greek words meant. They had to guess, for the first English Bibles were translated at a time when scholars didn’t know the language they were translating ever even existed.

For some time the Greek language of the New Testament confused many scholars. It was sufficiently different from Classical Greek that some hypothesized that it was a combination of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Others attempted to explain it as a "Holy Ghost language," assuming that perhaps God created a special language just for the Bible. – WikiChristian, entry for Koine Greek (02/02/10)
​

For centuries scholars had never come across any document that was written in the same type of Greek as the Bible, so they assumed the Bible was written in a special language, a language made specifically and only for the Bible itself. And the first English Bibles were translated by scholars who didn’t know the language they were translating ever even existed.

Talk about a total information vacuum. And since the scholars didn’t know the biblical language, they had to guess the meanings of many important words. Of course, they took the best guesses they could. But given their complete unawareness of the prior existence of the language itself, their translation was ultimately based on many shot–in-the-dark guesses--nothing more, nothing less.

But studies of Greek papyri found in Egypt over the past 120 years have shown that the Greek of the New Testament manuscripts was the "common" (koine) language of the everyday people - the same as that used in the writing of wills and private letters. – WikiChristian, entry for Koine Greek (02/02/10)
​

But with the dawning of the twentieth century everything was about to change. At the turn of this century archaeologists discovered so many original early Greek manuscripts that the mass of material was measured in the tons when it was shipped to London for analysis. Almost overnight, the world went from having none to literally having tons of original early Greek manuscripts. And it wasn’t long before archaeologists realized one of the biggest historical surprises – these manuscripts were written using the same vocabulary, grammar and style as the Bible itself. Archaeologists discovered the Bible wasn’t written in a special language after all; it was written in the native tongue of the common man. It was written in Koine Greek.

The discovery of the Koine Greek language caused a large rift to form in biblical scholarship circles. On one side were the scholars who were thrilled at the opportunity to examine the biblical texts afresh, with tons of new information to guide them in discovering teachings that might have been lost for almost two thousand years. On the other side were the traditionalists, who feared the possibility that the new material might show the church had embraced centuries of error because of poorly translated versions of the Bible.

Traditionalists have made every effort to downplay the significance of this monumental discovery, for when the wrongly guessed meanings are replaced with the actual meanings of the words, the Bible shows itself to be an entirely different document. The biblical passages come alive in surprising ways as they reveal the original Christian teachings, teachings which had been buried along with the language for almost two thousand years.

For example, the King James Bible has a rather strange reference to evil fruit. Fruit cannot murder. It is unable to rape. It doesn’t molest children. Fruit cannot be evil. But if we restore the common Koine Greek meaning of the word, this passage is breathed new life, and it reveals an incredible biblical teaching that had been lost for almost two thousand years.

And consider 1 Corinthians 6:6-9. Modern English translations make it seem that Paul told the Corinthians to not bring lawsuits against each other because the wicked won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Was the bringing of lawsuits really wicked, or did Paul possibly say something else will prevent them from inheriting the kingdom of God, something specifically related to the lawsuits themselves? If we restore the common Koine Greek meaning of the word, this passage is given new life, and it also reveals another biblical teaching that had been lost for almost two thousand years.

Let’s consider one more verse. According to modern translations Jesus’ disciple John supposedly wrote, “All unrighteousness is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.” In English, the word unrighteousness is itself a synonym for sin. To the modern reader, the passage sounds like John is saying, “All sin is sin, and there is sin that doesn’t lead to death”--a very confusing sentence to say the least. However, if we restore the common Koine Greek meaning of the word the passage takes on new life. And it reveals still another teaching that had been lost for almost two thousand years.

Word after word, sentence after sentence, passage after passage, biblical scholars analyzed the Bible in light of the actual meanings of the Koine Greek words. During the process a large number of lost teachings were unveiled. The Bible has shown itself to be an entirely different document than was previously believed.

Those who are avid readers of modern Bibles are likely going to be unsettled by the sudden shifts in learning that the archaeological discoveries are bringing with them. But for those who are curious to discover the teachings of the original Christian Bible, teachings buried for almost two thousand years, welcome.

(Excerpted from The Jesus Secret, Chapter One)

So Here's The Jesus Secret Time Line:

1) The Bible was written in Koine.

2) Koine became extinct during the Medieval Age.

3) The first translators of the English Bibles didn't even know Koine existed. The only Greek they knew was significantly different from Koine. And they translated the Bible based on a significantly different Greek.

4) Literally tons of Koine papyri have been discovered; given us an almost complete understanding of the Koine vocabulary, grammar and style.

5) No mainstream Bibles have yet to really use the discovered Koine meanings in any significant way.

Let's take dikaios as a case in point. The general Koine usage of the word expressed: justice, equality, human rights. Yet the first translators placed a religious spin on the word, translating it as 'righteousness'.

So what's the big deal? Does it really matter?

Words derived from dikaios appear 193 times in the New Testament. Any spin put on this word would, quite literally, put a particular spin on the entire New Testament.

The general Koine usage of dikaios expressed a person's responsibility to his neighbor. However the translators of the first English Bibles translated the word as an expression of a person's moral relationship to God.

Have 193 instances of treating others equitably been rewritten as 193 instances of moral righteousness to God?

Have we disconnected 193 instances that originally connected back to Jesus' statement, "Treat others the same way you want to be treated (i.e. treat others equitably) for this is the Law"?

Have we disconnected 193 instances that would illuminate why Paul wrote, "love of neighbor fulfills the entire Law"?

Have we disconnected 193 instances that explain why Jesus said that the kingdom will be inherited by:

those who feed the poor (i.e. those who promote justice),
those who share their clothes with the naked (i.e. those who treat others equitably)
those who shelter the homeless (i.e. those who promote human rights).
​

Is is possible that modern translations of the Bible need a very serious, one fell swoop overhaul in order for them to truly express the teachings of the original Koine Greek Bible? Is it possible that such an overhauled translation would explain the doctrinal differences between modern Christian denominations and those of the Christians of the pre-Nicene Age?

What do you think?

 

[Timothew]

I think you are overstating the differences between koine greek and classical greek. Koine is a different dialect from the greek of Homer, but it is very similar to Attic Greek.

"The principal form of Greek of this period (the NT period) is called the koine (from n koine dialektos the common dialect). It was basically Attic but without many of the latter's subtleties and grammatical complexities." Gavin Betts, New Testament Greek

koine is classical greek, but simplified. It's easier to understand, not more complex.

 

[Timothew]

"Let's take dikaios as a case in point."

Yes, let's do that.

δίκαιος: just, righteous.
From dike; equitable (in character or act); by implication, innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively) -- just, meet, right(-eous).
(Strong's Greek Dictionary, courteous of biblos.com)
In other words, the koine,

δίκαιος: observant of right, righteousness, just.
II. equal, even: strict, exact.
III. right, lawful, just.
(Oxford Press, A Lexicon, Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, 27th Edition)
In other words, classical greek.

There is not much difference in these definitions.

 

[mwood30]

I think you are overstating the differences between koine greek and classical greek. Koine is a different dialect from the greek of Homer, but it is very similar to Attic Greek.

"The principal form of Greek of this period (the NT period) is called the koine (from n koine dialektos the common dialect). It was basically Attic but without many of the latter's subtleties and grammatical complexities." Gavin Betts, New Testament Greek

koine is classical greek, but simplified. It's easier to understand, not more complex.

The differences between classical and koine go far beyond subtleties and grammtical complexities. There are significant differences in vocabulary as well; the very meanings of words.

Let me start by giving you an example in English, then give you an example in Koine. Then you can decide for yourself whether your source (Gavin Betts) is leading people to truth or not.

Let me first illustrate the principle of how all languages change vocabulary over time by giving you an example of how it happened even in English.

I want to you think about what the following sentence means:

The sophisticated girl was brave.
​

Now, would you feel confident you have a good idea on what the writer was saying? But what if I told you the sentence was written hundreds of years ago? Woud you still be as sure? For here is what an Old English writer could be expressing with the sentence:

The corrupt boy was a coward.
​

What? How can that possibly be what the writer was expressing?

At one point in time:

Brave meant cowardice
Girl referred to a young person of either sex
Sophisticated meant corrupted
​

Over time, the meanings of words can change. And, in some instances, the words can even change to their very opposite.

With this in mind, let's consider the Greek word aionios. The classical author Plato used aionios exclusively to express eternal. But during the Koine period, the word meant: lasting for an age, enduring. And there is historical evidence it was also a Hebraism when used eschatologically to mean: of the age.

So what's the big deal?

During the first five hundred years of Christianity there were six mainstream orthodox Christian theological schools. Five of them were native Greek speaking schools (one wasn't, it was Latin).

Now, all five (100%) of the Greek theological schools taught temporary punisment. None of them taught eternal punishment. None of the schools which shared the same native language as the New Testament taught eternal punishment. And the rediscovery of Koine now explains why.

Today, we have a very different doctrine, and very different Bibles. Most churches teach eternal punishment based on the classical meaning of aionios, and they have classically translated Bibles to support them. But Jesus' teachings were not recorded in classical Greek, they were recorded in Koine. Yet millions of people today are convinced Jesus taught eternal punishment, and these people will confidently proclaim, "God said..." all the while quoting a book that contains the opposite of what Jesus actually taught.

The change in aionios is an empircal counter-example to Gavin Baits claim. His underplay of the differences between Koine and Classical is disingenuous. It's time for people such as this to be shown as the Emperors with no clothes. And it's time to unhide the Bible by restoring the actual meanings of the words.

 

[mwood30]

"Let's take dikaios as a case in point."

Yes, let's do that.

δίκαιος: just, righteous.
From dike; equitable (in character or act); by implication, innocent, holy (absolutely or relatively) -- just, meet, right(-eous).
(Strong's Greek Dictionary, courteous of biblos.com)
In other words, the koine,

δίκαιος: observant of right, righteousness, just.
II. equal, even: strict, exact.
III. right, lawful, just.
(Oxford Press, A Lexicon, Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon, 27th Edition)
In other words, classical greek.

There is not much difference in these definitions.

In my post above, I discussed the differences between the Classical meaning of aionios vs. the Koine meaning of aionios. And I documented that 100% of the original native Greek speaking Christian theological schools understood the teaching of Jesus relative to the Koine meaning.

Now, look up aionios in Strongs. Is the Koine or Classical meaning found there? Oh, only the Classical meaning? You mean Strongs doesn't even include the Koine meaning? Now that wouldn't be disingenuous, would it?

And as for Liddell and Scott, please remember it catalogues the meanings of words over the span of many centuries. It's definitions include Classical, Koine, and even Byzantine Greek:

The Main Dictionary: Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (9th edition 1940), is the central reference work for all scholars of ancient Greek authors and texts discovered up to 1940, from the 11th century BC to the Byzantine Period. The early Greek of authors such as Homer and Hesiod, Classical Greek, and the Greek Old and New Testaments are included. Each entry lists not only the definition of a word, but also its irregular inflections, and quotations from a full range of authors and sources to demonstrate usage. - From Liddell and Scott's A Greek English Lexicon.
​

Given it's inclusion of Classical Greek of course the definition would sound like the Classically translated Bible.

In my post above, I gave an empiracle counter-example to show how Gavin Betts was disingenous. And once you realize Strongs doesn't even contain the Koine meaning of aionios you will see it is disingenous as well. It's very sad that people are being led by disingenuous theologians. Very sad indeed. Below is an excerpt from my book The Jesus Secret where I discuss, and document, the disinenguous teachings of today's theologians when it comes to Koine Greek:

Prior to the discovery of the Koine papyri, such a gross level of mistranslation was not only acceptable but pretty much expected. After all, the translators were translating a language they didn’t even know. But today this gross level of mistranslation is not only unacceptable, it’s very disingenuous.

For some time the Greek language of the New Testament confused many scholars. It was sufficiently different from Classical Greek that some hypothesized that it was a combination of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Others attempted to explain it as a "Holy Ghost language," assuming that perhaps God created a special language just for the Bible. But studies of Greek papyri found in Egypt over the past 120 years have shown that the Greek of the New Testament manuscripts was the "common" (koine) language of the everyday people - the same as that used in the writing of wills and private letters. – WikiChristian, entry for Koine Greek
​

On one hand, mainstream Christian scholars applaud the discovery of the language of the Bible. They marvel that the vocabulary, grammar, and style of the Bible were found “in the writing of wills and private letters.” But on the other hand, they disingenuously continue producing Bibles that don’t make use of the information in the discovery they publicly applaud.

Because dikaios words appear so many times in the Bible, over the centuries scholars had learned to fall in love with a sorely mistranslated form of the Bible. And they even equated the stab-in-the-dark guesses with being the very words of God himself. By the time the Koine papyri were discovered, it was far too emotionally upsetting to apply the newly discovered meanings to the biblical texts.

We find a stunning example of this from Moulton and Milligan, two of the first biblical scholars to pore through and catalogue the meanings of the Koine Greek papyri. Regarding a dikaios based word they wrote:

Our sources [the tons of Greek papyri] have naturally little light to throw upon the deeper Christian significance of this important word, but we may give a few examples of its general usage. – Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Moulton and Milligan, p. 162

​

Think about what these Christian scholars wrote. They wrote “Our sources have naturally little light to throw upon the deeper Christian significance of this important word.” Let me translate this for you: “We did not find one single Koine manuscript that used this important word the same way the original biblical translators did.” Let me repeat: Moulton and Milligan admit that out of tons of material, they didn’t find one document which used this popular word in the same way the first biblical translators did. But these indoctrinated Christian scholars were so enamored with the stab-in-the-dark guesses of the first biblical translators that they couldn’t see what was right in front of their faces.

Tons of material screamed to them that the word means something else, yet they still swore allegiance to the meanings guessed by men who didn’t even know the language they were translating ever existed. And if tons of archaeological material can’t get them to see what’s in front of their faces, there’s only one word for that – insanity.

Moulton and Milligan acknowledge with glee that the actual language of the Bible has finally been discovered. Meanwhile they applaud the production of Bibles which aren’t based on the discovered meanings of the words. What’s the purpose of acknowledging an incredible archaeological discovery if you aren’t going to apply it to the Bible? If you discover the actual meanings of biblical words, yet you don’t use them, why applaud the discovery of them in the first place?

We need to finally start producing Bibles which are translated according to the real meanings of the words. We need to stop the insanity.

(Excerpted from The Jesus Secret)

 

[The Penitent Man]

How many overhauls has the Bible already had?

If the Word becomes entirely fluid, what use is it as such?

 

[Timothew]

Forgive me, but I'm still not convinced. I'm stubborn.

The discussion is getting above my ability level, but I still have questions and remarks. (I've been studying greek on my own for about 16 months.)

Is is OK if I make a few posts in line, as questions occur to me? Your posts are Big, and there is a lot to respond to.

My first issue, I guess, is "How different is Koine from Attic?" What is the extent of the differences? I quoted Betts, from the textbook I have. Obviously, I'm no scholar, I'm doing the best I can with "Teach Yourself New Testament Greek," but you've discounted Betts as an expert.

I checked the wikichristian page that you referenced, and I checked the wiki article on koine, (Now I'm an expert ).

They also say "The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as Common Attic."
The quote reference is Andriotis, Nikolaos P. History of the Greek Language.

Am I not understanding this properly? Was the NT written in the Hellenistic Age? Or does this statement not apply because the NT letters were not "literary," but intended for Joe Lunchbox? Or is it just that Andriotis is defending a church position?

It seems that Andriotis and Betts agree that Attic and Koine are very similar. I believe they are similar enough that Koine could be understood by the translators of the Bible (into English).

I'm not saying that languages don't change, and that the King James is the only translation we need. English has changed since 1611, and the bible translation should be in the language we speak. I'm saying that the definitions of the greek are understandable, the meanings didn't flip-flop from Homer to Plato to Paul.

With all that said, I'm going to read your book, is it available now? As I write this, I'm thinking, "Where am I going to find the time?"

 

[Timothew]

You said, "We need to finally start producing Bibles which are translated according to the real meanings of the words. We need to stop the insanity."

You mentioned that the word δίκαιος has a different meaning in Koine.

On another thread here on CF www.christianforums.com/t7438795-10/#post54646907
I've put my translation of Matthew 5:6, here it is:

μακαριοι οι πεινωντες και διψωντες την δικαιοσυνην οτι αυτοι χορτασθησονται

Blessed the hunger and thirst the righteousness that they fed

The (people that) hunger and thirst (for) righteousness (are the) blessed, since they (will be) fed.

The Authorized King James Version reads: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

My beloved red-letter NASB reads: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

How should Matthew 5:6 be translated, in light of your research on the meaning of dikaios (or δικαιοσυνην in this case)?

 

[Timothew]

You said,
"Over time, the meanings of words can change. And, in some instances, the words can even change to their very opposite.

With this in mind, let's consider the Greek word aionios. The classical author Plato used aionios exclusively to express eternal. But during the Koine period, the word meant: lasting for an age, enduring. And there is historical evidence it was also a Hebraism when used eschatologically to mean: of the age.

So what's the big deal?

During the first five hundred years of Christianity there were six mainstream orthodox Christian theological schools. Five of them were native Greek speaking schools (one wasn't, it was Latin).

Now, all five (100%) of the Greek theological schools taught temporary punisment. None of them taught eternal punishment. None of the schools which shared the same native language as the New Testament taught eternal punishment. And the rediscovery of Koine now explains why.

Today, we have a very different doctrine, and very different Bibles. Most churches teach eternal punishment based on the classical meaning of aionios, and they have classically translated Bibles to support them. But Jesus' teachings were not recorded in classical Greek, they were recorded in Koine. Yet millions of people today are convinced Jesus taught eternal punishment, and these people will confidently proclaim, "God said..." all the while quoting a book that contains the opposite of what Jesus actually taught.

The change in aionios is an empircal counter-example to Gavin Baits claim. His underplay of the differences between Koine and Classical is disingenuous. It's time for people such as this to be shown as the Emperors with no clothes. And it's time to unhide the Bible by restoring the actual meanings of the words."

The Strong's definition of aionios is:
eternal, forever, everlasting.
From aion; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well) -- eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).
My copy of Liddell and Scott (I got it in a used bookstore for $12.50, good find huh?) has this definition: lasting, eternal.

John 17:3 is a verse that uses the word aionios.
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

How does the meaning of this verse change, with your understanding of the meaning of aionios?

My old NASB translates the verse "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."

 

[mwood30]

You said, "Over time, the meanings of words can change. And, in some instances, the words can even change to their very opposite.

With this in mind, let's consider the Greek word aionios. The classical author Plato used aionios exclusively to express eternal. But during the Koine period, the word meant: lasting for an age, enduring. And there is historical evidence it was also a Hebraism when used eschatologically to mean: of the age.

The Strong's definition of aionios is:
eternal, forever, everlasting.
From aion; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well) -- eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).
My copy of Liddell and Scott (I got it in a used bookstore for $12.50, good find huh?) has this definition: lasting, eternal.

John 17:3 is a verse that uses the word aionios.
αὕτη δέ ἐστιν ἡ αἰώνιος ζωή ἵνα γινώσκωσιν σὲ τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν.

How does the meaning of this verse change, with your understanding of the meaning of aionios?

My old NASB translates the verse "And this is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."

I'll need a couple of posts to fully address everything you have brought up. And I would like to address everything, because you bring up terrific points.

Let me address Strong's, Liddell and Scott, and Classical/Koine differences in this post.

To start, please: click here.

Then click on the "Middle Liddell" in the link.

Notice on the left is the primary meaning of the word aionios which is 'lasting for an age'. Then notice on the right it says that Plato used the word to express 'everlasting, eternal'.

Here you have quick, immediate verification of what I've said. The Koine meaning was: lasting for an age, enduring, and 'of the age' when used by Hellenestic Jews. The Classical defintion (the one used by Plato) was eternal.

In a previous post I made the following claims:

1) In Classical Greek aionios expressed the aboslute 'eternal'. In Koine, the word was relative: lasting for an age, enduring, or of the age (when used eschatologically by Hellenistic Jews).

2) Strongs Concordance disingenously includes only the Classical meaning.

3) Liddell and Scott includes both the Classic and Koine.

The link I provided documents there is a difference between the Hellenistic usage and Plato's; there is a difference between Koine and Classical.

Now, with this in mind, does the Strongs entry you quoted even include the Koine definition? No, it does not. So ask yourself, why would a Christian Lexicon of the New Testament (a Koine document) give the Classical definition instead of the Koine? If you spend time with this question, your eyes will open and you will realize you really have been duped.

Does Strongs know the difference between Classical and Koine? Of course they do. So they can't plead ignorance. Yet they censure the Koine and insert the Classical, forcing people to conclude the Bible says things it really does not.

Now, as for your copy of Liddell and Scott. If you have a full copy, "lasting for an age" should be the very first entry in your lexicon. If you don't have a full copy, no problem, please: click here. Then click on LSJ and you will find the full version of Liddell and Scott's entry for aionios. Please notice the first entry is "lasting for an age".

I believe I have now fully documented the following:

1) In Classical Greek aionios expressed the aboslute 'eternal' (hence the reference to Plato's usage in the link I provided [Middle Liddell]). In Koine, the word was relative: lasting for an age, enduring, or of the age (hence, "lasting for an age" as the Hellenistic meaning in the link I provided [Middell Liddell)

2) Strongs Concordance disingenously includes only the Classical meaning.

3) Liddell and Scott includes both the Classical (as your comment shows) and the Koine (as my link documents).

Once you realize Strongs disingenously defends the first translators of the Bible, perhaps you will realize all the theologians who downplay the significance of the Koine papyri are doing the same. Aionios is one counter example to their claims. Aionios shows Betts and Strongs are simply not telling the truth... really.

I will address the translation of John in a separate post shortly.

 

[mwood30]

You said, "We need to finally start producing Bibles which are translated according to the real meanings of the words. We need to stop the insanity."

You mentioned that the word δίκαιος has a different meaning in Koine.

On another thread here on CF www.christianforums.com/t7438795-10/#post54646907
I've put my translation of Matthew 5:6, here it is:

μακαριοι οι πεινωντες και διψωντες την δικαιοσυνην οτι αυτοι χορτασθησονται

Blessed the hunger and thirst the righteousness that they fed

The (people that) hunger and thirst (for) righteousness (are the) blessed, since they (will be) fed.

The Authorized King James Version reads: Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

My beloved red-letter NASB reads: "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

How should Matthew 5:6 be translated, in light of your research on the meaning of dikaios (or δικαιοσυνην in this case)?

In the OP I mentioned:

dikaios

Justice
Equality
Human Rights
​

With this in mind, let's generate a literal representation of the word used in Matthew 5:6 (diakiosunen):

dikaio + sune

"justice-ness", of justice
Equitableness, of equity
Of human rights
​

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after that which is of justice, for they will be filled.

The Bible really is a different book when read in Koine.

In The Jesus Secret I go through various Koine words derived from dikaios and show how many passages of the Bible read in light of the Koine meaning. If you PM me with your address, I will gladly send you a copy free of charge. I appreciate the honest questions very much.

 

[mwood30]

John 17:3 is a verse that uses the word aionios.

Now, I've already documented that the Koine word aionios meant: lasting for an age, enduring, of the age. So let's see where the root word aion takes us? Maybe our journey will not only explain John 17:3, but perhaps it will allow you to translate all the biblical passages using aionios in the very same way the first Greek theological schools did.

Let's start with Matthew 13:49:

"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous"
​

Let's follow this passage. Let's restore the Koine meanings of all the key words, after all there is both an aion based word and a dikaios based word in the passage as well.

"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the worthless from among those who treated others equitably."
​

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. At the end of the age, there will be a separation into two groups: those who treated others equitably and those who did not.

So what comes after the separation:

so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. - Ephesians 2:7
​

Oh, there are at least two ages to come after the separation occurs.

And do you remember that I told you 100% of the original Greek theological schools taught temporary punishment? Now let me tell you that 4/5 of them also believed in universal salvation. They believed that at the end of the age humanity would be divided into two groups: those who treated others equitably and those who did not. Those who treated others equitably will receive 'the life of the coming age', while those who did not would receive 'the punishment of the coming age.' And they believed after the age of separation was over, all of humanity will be reconciled to God so that God could be all in all.

We've already seen one verse in Koine which talks about the separation of those who treat others equitably and those who don't. But please allow me to share with you my favorite passage on the matter, a passage which contains dikaios and aion based words (and shows the inter-relationship between them):

But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.

Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 'For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.'

Then those who treated others equitably will answer Him, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 'And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?'

The King will answer and say to them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.'

Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the fire of the [coming] age which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.'

"Then they themselves also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?'

Then He will answer them, 'Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.'

These will go away into the punishment of the age, but those who treated others equitably into the life of the age." - Matthew 25:31-46
​

Do you see the consistency between Jesus' quintessential teaching on judgment and Matthew 13:49?

In Jesus' quintessential teaching on judgment, it's not those who are necessarily wicked who are tossed into the fire. Rather, it is those who do not help others - those who are worthless. And notice it is not necessarily those who are morally righteous who inherit the kingdom. Rather, it is those who help others - those who treated others equitably.

Now is it a coincidence that we find those very meanings for the Koine words used in Matthew 13:49 in the Koine papyri?

"So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the worthless from among those who treated others equitably."
​

Of course not. In Koine, the entire New Testament is written to describe the fates of those who follow the Golden Rule and those who don't; what an entirely different book.

 

[Timothew]

The Bible really is a different book when read in Koine.

In The Jesus Secret I go through various Koine words derived from dikaios and show how many passages of the Bible read in light of the Koine meaning. If you PM me with your address, I will gladly send you a copy free of charge. I appreciate the honest questions very much.

I appreciate the offer, but I've already rushed over to Amazon to buy your book. I love this kind of stuff. My Old Testament professor said "I can tell that you have knowledge (about the documentary hypothesis), and you have the devil of a time remaining dispassionate about it!"

 

[Timothew]

OK, I'm still trying to digest all that you have posted. This is going to take some time.

I looked at the Perseus Project link that you sent regarding aionion, I see from that link, that Homer also used the word to mean a man's age. So in Classical Greek, the word can mean "eternal," or "an age." So it seems to me that in Koine, the word could be used either way, depending on the author's intent. (There is not a word for word English Translation for every Greek word.) So to understand what the greek writer is saying, we have to try to enter their "mindset," which of course, is impossible. But what does John (or Matthew or Paul) think about eternal life?

My own viewpoint is that this eternal life, or life in the age (to come), is available to anyone who goes to Jesus Christ for it, and he will supply it when he returns. It is only available from him, since he is the only son of God and the only one who has successfully risen from the dead.

 

[Timothew]

You said:

And do you remember that I told you 100% of the original Greek theological schools taught temporary punishment? Now let me tell you that 4/5 of them also believed in universal salvation. They believed that at the end of the age humanity would be divided into two groups: those who treated others equitably and those who did not. Those who treated others equitably will receive 'the life of the coming age', while those who did not would receive 'the punishment of the coming age.' And they believed after the age of separation was over, all of humanity will be reconciled to God so that God could be all in all.

​

This was after Matthew 13:49, "So in the end of the age, the angels come and separate the ponerous (wicked) from the dikaion (just).

Then in verse 50, Jesus says that the ponerous will be tossed into the kaminon the puros, the fiery furnace.

How did the 80% schools say that these burnt up people will be reconciled to God?

Then in verse 51 Jesus says, (and I love this) "Are you putting this together?" or "Do you understand what I'm saying to you?" And they actually say "Yes." I wish they had said "No, please explain it again, for the slow ones."

 

[mwood30]

OK, I'm still trying to digest all that you have posted. This is going to take some time.

I looked at the Perseus Project link that you sent regarding aionion, I see from that link, that Homer also used the word to mean a man's age. So in Classical Greek, the word can mean "eternal," or "an age." So it seems to me that in Koine, the word could be used either way, depending on the author's intent. (There is not a word for word English Translation for every Greek word.) So to understand what the greek writer is saying, we have to try to enter their "mindset," which of course, is impossible. But what does John (or Matthew or Paul) think about eternal life?

My own viewpoint is that this eternal life, or life in the age (to come), is available to anyone who goes to Jesus Christ for it, and he will supply it when he returns. It is only available from him, since he is the only son of God and the only one who has successfully risen from the dead.

You have raised the central issue of translating: what was in the minds of the writer. And here I would argue from history and the Bible that the New Testament writers had multiple ages in mind when the text was written. They did not believe 'eternity' begins after the great throne judgment. And, to support my thesis, I will remind you this was how all the original Greek theological schools understood the New Testament. They did not believe in eternal punishment because they did not believe the immediate age after judgment was going to be an eternal one.

So what about the non-Greek Latin school, the only school of the time that did teach eternal punishment? Is there anything historically significant about this school that would explain its stark contrast to every single Greek school?

And the answer is a resounding yes. What do Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all have in common? They all believed The Book of Enoch was the inspired Word of God. And this book, cherished by the early Roman fathers, taught the two age model: this temporary age will be followed by an eternal age. And it was from this book that the Latin fathers drew their eschatology from, even to the point of denying biblical Old Testament passages (such as the complete and total restoration of Sodom's inhabitants as foretold by Ezekiel).

The biblical prophecy about restoration of Sodom was embraced by the Greek theological schools; while the Latin school overroad the biblical prophecy based on the Book of Enoch. And now today, modern Bibles are translated based on the Book of Enoch's two age model; instead of Ezekiel's multi-age model which includes the total and complete restoration of the inhabitants of Sodom.

"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Samaria did not commit half the sins you did. You have done more detestable things than they, and have made your sisters seem righteous by all these things you have done. Bear your disgrace, for you have furnished some justification for your sisters. Because your sins were more vile than theirs, they appear more righteous than you. So then, be ashamed and bear your disgrace, for you have made your sisters appear righteous.

"'However, I will restore the fortunes of Sodom and her daughters and of Samaria and her daughters, and your fortunes along with them, so that you may bear your disgrace and be ashamed of all you have done in giving them comfort. And your sisters, Sodom with her daughters and Samaria with her daughters, will return to what they were before; and you and your daughters will return to what you were before. You would not even mention your sister Sodom in the day of your pride, before your wickedness was uncovered. Even so, you are now scorned by the daughters of Edom and all her neighbors and the daughters of the Philistines—all those around you who despise you. You will bear the consequences of your lewdness and your detestable practices, declares the LORD. - Ezekiel 16:49-58
​

I believe John's use of aion and aionios would include an age where the biblical restoration of Sodom can occur; even though modern Bibles do not.

 

[Timothew]

You translated Matthew 25:46

These will go away into the punishment of the age, but those who treated others equitably into the life of the age."

​

I get the translation of aionion here as "the age," and I think that it is valid. But what is the author of Matthew saying, or what was Jesus saying in this parable? I think the age he refers to is the coming age, the age of his kingdom. The life of the age means life in his kingdom, and punishment of the age means "not life" in the kingdom, since they will go off into the pur the aionion, the eternal fire. In other words, they will die.

My viewpoint here is a little different from the orthodox christian viewpoint of the eternal suffering of the lost.

 

[Timothew]

You have raised the central issue of translating: what was in the minds of the writer. And here I would argue from history and the Bible that the New Testament writers had multiple ages in mind when the text was written. They did not believe 'eternity' begins after the great throne judgment. And, to support my thesis, I will remind you this was how all the original Greek theological schools understood the New Testament. They did not believe in eternal punishment because they did not believe the immediate age after judgment was going to be an eternal one.

So what about the non-Greek Latin school, the only school of the time that did teach eternal punishment? Is there anything historically significant about this school that would explain its stark contrast to every single Greek school?

And the answer is a resounding yes. What do Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all have in common? They all believed The Book of Enoch was the inspired Word of God. And this book, cherished by the early Roman fathers, taught the two age model: this temporary age will be followed by an eternal age. And it was from this book that the Latin fathers drew their eschatology from, even to the point of denying biblical Old Testament passages (such as the complete and total restoration of Sodom's inhabitants as foretold by Ezekiel).

The biblical prophecy about restoration of Sodom was embraced by the Greek theological schools; while the Latin school overroad the biblical prophecy based on the Book of Enoch. And now today, modern Bibles are translated based on the Book of Enoch's two age model; instead of Ezekiel's multi-age model which includes the total and complete restoration of the inhabitants of Sodom.

Sorry for this history lesson. But I do agree with you, one cannot separate the historical perspective from the ultimate translation of any given word.

I welcome the history lesson, I need to know this stuff. So what are the 5 schools?

 

[mwood30]

I welcome the history lesson, I need to know this stuff. So what are the 5 schools?

The Christian theological schools—Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, Edessa, and Ephesus—taught that sinners will be punished for a limited amount of time.

And please check out my quote of Ezekiel above. I added it to my post to document Ezekiel's prophecy. I think this prophecy explains why the Greek schools taught what they did.

 

[Timothew]

So what comes after the separation:

so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. - Ephesians 2:7
​

Oh, there are at least two ages to come after the separation occurs.

​

Do you say "at least two ages to come" because "ages" is plural in the greek? I thought Paul meant that in your future, after you are saved from your transgressions, being saved by His grace, God continues to show us His grace.