www.patheos.com
16-20 minutes
“But If You Look at the Original Greek…”: A Plea for Caution December 15, 2015 Stewart James Felker
The entry for the Greek word aiōnios in a modern Biblical lexicon
(Some of the impetus for this post was inspired by a similar one on Reddit’s /r/Christianity from about a
year ago. Since I mainly market my Patheos posts on that subreddit, well then… if you’ve already seen
Quite a few months ago, I was involved in an exchange that’s in some way stuck with me ever since, for
chrome-extension://ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh/data/reader/index.html?id=292 1/8
7/4/2019 “But If You Look at the Original Greek…”: A Plea for Caution :: Reader View
Hirsch, someone wrote that “[p]rayer is more than asking God for things, more than even a conversation
with God, it is judging yourself to see where you need to improve, and aligning yourself and your will
with God.”
As a kind of anticipatory note here, it might be noted that as a whole, this person’s mini-derasha was
almost unanimously received well. And if something positive might be said about the post, it could
certainly be conceded that it expressed a more cautious sentiment than that of the well-known quote
ascribed (rather apocryphally) to Søren Kierkegaard, that “[p]rayer does not change God, but changes
But there was a problem when the person attempted to go deeper here—specifically when they relied
on Rabbi Hirsch’s attempt to find support for this idea hidden in the very etymology of a/the Hebrew
When breaking down the word itself, להתפלל, it has three parts. פלל-הת-ל. Going right to
left, the first letter, ל, means “to”, as in “to do something”. The second set of letters, הת, is
reflexive. This turns the action towards the self. The last word, the root, is judge. That
means the word for prayer translated literally means “to judge yourself”.
Now, the first two observations here are correct. But it’s the last one that’s problematic—that the root
word here means “to judge.” Unfortunately, only on rare occasions does this root really have this
meaning; and furthermore, when we look at the actual contexts in which this form (reflexive) of the verb
is used, it becomes clear that “judge yourself” could not have been intended.
In the end, what this verb seems to suggest is nothing more than something like “to bring your own
When we look at several other popular examples where there’s been a dubious appeal to the original
language(s) of the Bible, we might detect a common argumentative strategy behind this: it’s often used
In the particular case of prayer above, we could certainly say that it offers a more sophisticated
genie. But in a way it also does apologetic double-duty, by diminishing the problem of prayers going
unanswered. (The more that prayer was only really intended to be self-transforming or merely a time of
chrome-extension://ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh/data/reader/index.html?id=292 2/8
7/4/2019 “But If You Look at the Original Greek…”: A Plea for Caution :: Reader View
“And there was evening and there was morning: the first day…”
Looking at another example of popular appeal to the original Biblical languages, we can find a similar
In the creation narrative of Genesis chapter 1, God creates the universe and all life on earth in six days.
On the surface, we certainly notice a conflict between this extremely brief period of time and the
timescale of scientific cosmology and evolution, in which cosmological and biological processes
unfolded slowly, over billions of years—in contrast to the instantaneous creation, merely over the course
of days, suggested in Genesis. Even beyond this though, we might also point to what appears to be
an internal contradiction in this creation narrative: the calculation of a “day” itself is dependent on earth’s
rotation vis-à-vis the sun and its light; yet the sun itself is not said to have been created until the 4th day.
The 3rd century Alexandrian Christian theologian Origen noted this problem, asking
Now what man of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third “day”
existed—(even) with “evening” and “morning”—without the sun and moon and stars? (De
Principiis 4.3)
Origen and others offered various solutions in an attempt to explain this apparent contradiction. In the
apologetic view came to prominence: that these “days” aren’t true days at all, in the way that we think of
them.
This reinterpretation has often centered on the Hebrew word for “day” used here, yōm. Favored by
various types of Old Earth creationists, these people have appealed to purported instances in Biblical
Yet there are serious problems with this. If we actually look at most, if not all of the instances in
which yōm is claimed to denote something other than a literal day, we find that these other
uses of yōm are as a part of idiomatic phrases: think something like “any day now” or “on the day that
[something happens]…”
other ancient Near Eastern texts that came from roughly the same cultural milieu that the Israelites did;
Finally, as suggested above, the Genesis text itself says that these days consisted of an “evening” and
“morning.” Again, Origen simply could not imagine that the Biblical text would have such an absurdity or
chrome-extension://ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh/data/reader/index.html?id=292 3/8
7/4/2019 “But If You Look at the Original Greek…”: A Plea for Caution :: Reader View
contradiction here—which for him, then, was proof that these details could not mean what they
appeared to mean. In retrospect, though, Origen’s view here strikes one as naive and ad hoc; and,
today, there are several other options that allow us to accept that the text really did intend to suggest
actual 24-hour days here, and to understand the apparent contradictions that arise from this as a sort of
As evangelical Old Testament scholar John Walton writes—who at the moment is probably
the undisputed leading authority on the subject of the Genesis creation narratives in their ancient
context—
These are seven twenty-four-hour days. This has always been the best reading of the
Hebrew text. Those who have tried to alleviate the tension for the age of the earth
commonly suggested that the days should be understood as long eras (the day-age view).
This has has never been convincing. (The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient
What Walton, myself, and others accept, then, is that while on the level of story there’s no good reason
to think that these “days” were intended as anything other than solar days, the creation narrative is just
that: (part of) a story. The creation days were used as a component of the story—possibly related to
those associated with the construction of ancient Near Eastern temples²—but perhaps were never truly
There’s been an increasingly prominent debate in recent years with regard to Biblical teachings on Hell,
and the general nature of the afterlife—one in which the interpretation of several Greek words has
played a crucial role (and where, in my opinion, some of the most egregious misuse of the original
Of course, the word “hell” itself has long been the subject of dispute, in regard to its appropriateness, or
lack thereof, in rendering Biblical terms for afterlife realms. Yet this is old news³; and what’s come to
forefront in more recent times is another set of words in the New Testament relating to the afterlife—
particularly afterlife punishment.
Perhaps the most common starting point here is with Mathew 25:46. In this verse, it’s suggested that at
the grand final judgment at the end of time, “[the unrighteous] will go away into eternal punishment, but
the righteous into eternal life” (New Revised Standard Version translation). In what we might rightly call
chrome-extension://ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh/data/reader/index.html?id=292 4/8
7/4/2019 “But If You Look at the Original Greek…”: A Plea for Caution :: Reader View
the “traditional” interpretation of this verse, this is taken to suggest, more or less, the unrighteous ending
escape.
Yet, in tandem with recent trends in theology and philosophy of religion in which the justice of this
portrait of afterlife punishment has been challenged, some have begun to wonder if verses like Mathew
original Greek text here—turning to Biblical Greek lexicons, and etymology in general, for insight into the
components of one phrase in the verse, similar to what was done for the disputed Hebrew words
described earlier.
The relevant Greek phrase from Matthew 25:46, translated above as “eternal punishment,” is kolasin
aiōnion. The first word here (in uninflected form) is kolasis. For those who’ve taken a closer look at this
word, in hopes of finding a window for an alternative interpretation that might questions its association
with the traditional understanding of afterlife punishment or torment, a well-known use of the word by
Aristotle has come into focus.⁵ In this, Aristotle contrasts kolasis with another word for
“punishment,” timōria, in that
kolasis “is inflicted in the interest of the sufferer,” whereas timôria is inflicted “in the
interest of him who inflicts it, that he may obtain satisfaction.” (Ilaria Ramelli and David
Taking a cue from this, and again in line with recent theological trends, this is used in support of
that often kolasis is taken to have had an original meaning of “cutting off,” which is associated with
the pruning of trees. To this effect, prominent modern univeralist Thomas Talbott reproduces a quote
from the Scottish theologian William Barclay, who went as far as to say that “in all Greek secular
literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment … [kolasis] was not an ethical word
at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better.”⁶
One takeaway here is that—as anyone serious about historical linguistics and ancient translation quickly
instance.⁷ And as anyone familiar with ancient Greek literature knows, philosophers and other writers
could themselves capitalize on faulty etymologies in the course of making a particular philosophical or
rhetorical point, or otherwise make far too much of a distinction between otherwise synonymous
words. (And ironically, elsewhere Aristotle erroneously etymologizes a particular word with precisely the
chrome-extension://ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh/data/reader/index.html?id=292 5/8
7/4/2019 “But If You Look at the Original Greek…”: A Plea for Caution :: Reader View
meaning that’s often denied for it by those who’d wish to diminish support for eternal punishment, as will
be described later.⁷ᵇ)
Further, as the premiere modern lexicon of Biblical Greek suggests, “Aristotle’s limitation of the term . . .
to [corrective] disciplinary action . . . is not reflected in gener[al] usage.”⁸ In fact, elsewhere, even
The argument of William Barclay, then, does not stand. Not only is kolasis used in “secular Greek” to
suggest clearly non-remedial punishment—a particular gruesome example comes from the Greek
them within a hollow bronze bull, underneath which a fire would be lit⁹—but in Biblical Greek and other
early Jewish and Christian Greek texts, too. In fact, in many cases—like in the Septuagint—it may
(I’ve demonstrated all of this in exhaustive detailed in my post here, starting at the section “On the Word
Kolasis and Its Relatives,” and continued both in the comment section at the bottom of that post, as well
I had originally ended here with a very long section here on the Greek word aiōnios, the second
component of Matthew 25:46’s kolasin aiōnion; but due to length, I’ve decided to save it for another
post.
In the meantime though, what can we do to ensure that we’re not making similar sorts of mistakes about
Usually, I’d say that if that we’re in doubt about the issue we’re talking about—especially if we don’t
otherwise have a good grasp on the Hebrew or Greek language, or some of the complex issues
of lexicography and translation that really allow one to speak authoritatively about Biblical language in its
original context—we should refrain from repeating tidbits of folk linguistics/translation that we’ve picked
up second-hand.
At the very least, we might be careful to, say, cautiously frame our arguments in terms of the knowledge
that we do have: “(I haven’t done an exhaustive study of the issue, but) to the best of my
understanding…” Needless to say, this certainly applies to me, or anyone else, too, whenever they
To conclude: if you want to offer some more homiletic thoughts on (translated) Biblical texts, in a more
casual setting, there’s nothing wrong with that. But if you really want to offer truly substantive analysis of
chrome-extension://ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh/data/reader/index.html?id=292 6/8
7/4/2019 “But If You Look at the Original Greek…”: A Plea for Caution :: Reader View
something in the Bible from a historical standpoint, or a textual one, this is usually a long process that
involves a lot of both direct and tangential research and knowledge. Many people see the
passage, to help bolster whatever theological point they’re making; but they want to take historical or
As suggested earlier, specifically when this comes to looking at the original languages, this can often
take the form of a haphazard appeal to etymology, or a glance at (often outdated) lexicons, from which
wide-ranging and unrestrained conclusions are drawn. One of the problems with an over-reliance on
things like these, in the absence of having a more thorough background on the issue, however, is—as
my predecessor before me wrote—that “they give people the confidence to use languages they don’t
know to prove points they shouldn’t make by making claims that aren’t true about a text they don’t
understand.”
On one final note: if you want to consult Biblical language lexicons for insight here, try to avoid outdated
ones like Strong’s Concordance. Of course, Strong’s is still among the most popularly used lexicons,
due to its being freely available online. But for Greek, the academic standard has for some decades now
been the Bauer-Danker lexicon, its most recent edition commonly known as BDAG. For Hebrew, The
Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, abbreviated HALOT, is now the standard; though
the Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon, BDB, is also still in use, and more easily available.
⁂ ⁂ ⁂
Notes
to the gods, and prayer a request for something from the gods.”
[2] See especially the chapter “The Seven Days of Genesis 1 Relate to the Cosmic Temple
now transliterated: that is, the sound of the word in the original language is spelled out phonetically in
the language of whatever translation you’re looking at. For example, Hebrew שְׁ אוֹלis transliterated as
chrome-extension://ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh/data/reader/index.html?id=292 7/8
7/4/2019 “But If You Look at the Original Greek…”: A Plea for Caution :: Reader View
tradition.
[5] 1369b13
[8] Noted in BDAG. I’ve lost the exact page reference here.
[9] Cf. a fragment of Aristotle quoted in Iamblichus’ Protrepticus, itself probably derived from
Aristotle’s Protrepticus.
[10] The Greek text reads εἴ τινα βούλει, Φάλαρι, κολάζειν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ἔνδον τοῦ ταύρου
κατειργνὺς πῦρ ὑποστρώννυ κάτω: δόξει δ᾽ ὁ ταῦρος στεναγμοῖς μυκᾶσθαι τοῖς ἐκείνου, σὺ δ᾽ ἡδονὴν
chrome-extension://ecabifbgmdmgdllomnfinbmaellmclnh/data/reader/index.html?id=292 8/8