By "derivatives" do you mean that olam most often occurs with the preposition governing it? I think you're overstating things to posit aion as representative of the Hebrew language: wouldn't it be more accurate to say perhaps that aion is the preferred Septuagint translation of olam? In any case, I'm pinging kosta and Kolokotronis -- since they know Greek, apparently "from the inside," they probably have insights to offer.
I would question the assertion that the Pharisees believed 2 Maccabees was a part of their "sacred scrolls." Matt. 12:32 mentions "age" to come, not "world to come". That is a translators input for the word "aioni". Literally, the Greek rendering says, "It will not be forgiven to him neither in this age (aioni) nor in the coming (one)." I think that you know that the word "world" is used for "age", and does not mean a planet. Am I right?
The question of why Maccabees were not finally included in the Jewish canon remains open. (There's an overview at myjewishlearning.com.) In any case the Jewish canon was not established until after the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 A.D., at Yavneh in approximately 90 A.D.
Arguing for its acceptance in the time of Christ (IMO) is the reference in John to the Feast of the Dedication, in winter -- Hanukkah, the story of which is only in Maccabees. (Presumably as a result of the later exclusion of Maccabees when the canon was established, Hanukkah was very much in eclipse among the Jews -- until enthusiasm for the establishment of the State of Israel renewed interest, though -- as I understand it -- the renewed interest was in large part nationalistic.) But anyway, the Jews were never anything like sola Scriptura, the Oral Torah being just as important. And any kind of developed belief in resurrection, as held by the Pharisees of Christ's time, would seem to have been developed in oral tradition; even in Maccabees, it is mentioned as accepted, not as an innovation.
I didn't check the KJV too -- the DR has "world to come." My feeling or intuition about olam, though is that it's much less specific or defined than you seem to assume. And once you get to words less concrete and specific than "mother," "father," "tree," etc., the chances of a real one-to-one correspondence between languages decline.
To me, God alone has immortality inherent in His nature. Man is a creation of God, and is not by nature immortal in any respect; and what God has chosen to reveal does not indicate that man has something within the body that is immortal.
The Catholic view (the only one I ever heard of) is that it is God's nature to be; it is not our nature -- we are contingent beings. If it's not our nature to be, and yet we are, why can't we be immortal, even if it's not strictly our "nature"?
That "something within the body" rings strange -- sort of like those guys in the 16th, 17th century who weighed bodies before and after death looking for what difference the soul made . . . We learned (not as doctrine, but as philosphical description) that the soul is the form of the body, but I'm pretty rusty on Aristotelian form and matter, so I'll leave it at that.
It does sound, though, as if you're trying to get something out of the Bible that's not there.
By "derivatives" do you mean that olam most often occurs with the preposition governing it? I think you're overstating things to posit aion as representative of the Hebrew language: wouldn't it be more accurate to say perhaps that aion is the preferred Septuagint translation of olam? In any case, I'm pinging kosta and Kolokotronis -- since they know Greek, apparently "from the inside," they probably have insights to offer.
Yes, that's close to what I meant. I have in other posts (maybe not on this particular thread) stated that a single word in one language many times cannot be stated as a single word in another language. When I use the word olam or aion, I'm using the basic term to mean what it is translated into our language to mean.
I think I would prefer to accept what the 70 scholars who translated the Biblical Hebrew into the Greek language knew what they were doing; for they knew their own language better than any modern man does, and they knew the use of the Koine Greek at that time also. Modern Hebrew is not representative of the Biblical Hebrew IMHO. And yes, I do use the LXX in my studies over any of the Hebrew (you may consider that a fault if you like).
The question of why Maccabees were not finally included in the Jewish canon remains open.
Yes, it remains open to many people, but not to all.
It does sound, though, as if you're trying to get something out of the Bible that's not there.
I suppose that could be said of Catholicism and other religious organizations, or with anyone who disagrees with another also, right? Anyway, that is not what the question is. It is "what does the Bible say about any topic of discussion?" What the Bible says is in the realm of hermeneutics and exegesis, not in esigesis - which is "reading into" instead of finding out "what is said". This will always, IMHO, be a point of contention among philosophers and exegets. One should stop and think why this same thing is not a point of contention when discussing what is said in, say, the writings of Plato, Virgil, and other ancient works.
Sorry to have to run, but a nice boat called me to come and enjoy some time on the water. I'll most likely will not be back before the start of next week. Now to get dressed, put my life-jacket on and leave. Go enjoy another cup of tea in my absence :-)
It is not to be found in the Torah (the Law). The Sadducee Party, who were in charge of the Temple, did not believe in this, and in afterlife precisely because it is not in the Torah. And because they considered only the Torah as the inspired part of the Tanakh (the Jeiwsh Bible, aka the Old Testament).
Olam Ba-Ha is also the term used to describe the messianic age, a period of prosperity and peace following the appearanc eof the (Jewish) messiah.
The Nicene Creed uses that concept in the last sentence "And life in the world to come. Amen."
In that sense the term "the world to come" is synonoymous with the aion (as used in +Matthew 12:32, +Luke 18:30, or Hebrews 6:5), which in English is better translated as "age to come."
Interestingly, in Hebrew 2:5 the author uses the word "oikoumene" (the world) as in "the world comming"
The Church Slavonic, reads
BTW, I am not Greek. Kolo is your Greek expert. I am merely studying biblical Greek, but I do understand Church Slavonic, which is extremely helpful in conveying the inteded Greek meanining because it is (by design) word-for-word, concept-for-concept, equivalent to Greek.