Dear Dr. Konstan,
Thanks again for all of this! I’m especially interested in the bit where you say:
"Origen … in the Commentary on Matthew, the future life (aiônios) is contrasted with that in the present (proskairos). Again, Origen in a series of passages opposes the ephemeral sensible entities of the present time (proskaira) to the invisible and lasting objects of the world to come (aiônia)."
I’m wondering if this solves one of my big textual problems: 2 Corinthians 4:18 – with things proskaira being set against things aionia. Cf these 3 translations of the verse:
King James Bible
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen [are] temporal; but the things which are not seen [are] eternal.
English Standard Version (©2001)
as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.
International Standard Version (©2008)
because we do not look for things that can be seen but for things that cannot be seen. For things that can be seen are temporary, but things that cannot be seen are eternal.
What I always wanted to do with that verse was this:
to take proskaira as temporal /in time, over against aionia which is outside of time, or at least belonging to the age to come.
However, it always bugged me that the other three appearances of proskairos in the NT (Mk 4:17 / Mt 13:21 and Heb 11:25) clearly had a “temporary” nuance rather than a “temporal” (in time) nuance.
But now there’s hope for me, I think.
Is it the case, from Origin’s quote, that the proskaira in 2 Cor 4:18 could indeed have the temporal nuance, over against a Platonic aionia ? Pls let me know what you think. I don’t mind if I’ve got it wrong – my life doesn’t depend on it !!