Thanks Alex and Ilaria. This is a real gem.
Aboslutely fascinating 
I’d love to pick up the book he references, “Terms for Eternity”, but it’s more than I can spend right now.
I’m glad others found it helpful. I’ve already printed it & given it to a non-EU friend who found it thought provoking 
Great stuff. Thanks Alex (and especially Ramelli!). I’ve shared the link with some of my friends 
{annoyed sigh} Yes, I especially want to know why Prof. Ramelli cites TfE (whom she co-authored) as support for her contention that {aidios} never refers to punishment in scripture, when one of its only two occurrences in the NT is Jude 1:6!
I mean, I know why I would argue that this term doesn’t refer to proper eternity there, but that’s because I’d argue the context indicates the term a-idios not ai-dios is being used there instead. But I gathered when talking to her co-author David Konstans that they don’t make this argument in the book, even though he agreed in discussion that the Greeks were aware of the difference in terms (and used it for puns) and that this might explain Jude 6.
(The rest of the article is quite interesting, but I had a hard time getting past this. Educated non-universalists will know right off the bat that {aidios} is used to describe the bonds of Jude 6.)
Jason in Jude it’s “everlasting (aidios) chains” so doesn’t that mean aidios isn’t used to describe punishment as such, just the quality of the chains? 
Whereas in Matthew, for example, it’s “aionios chastisement” not “aidios chastisement”.
Anyway, it would be interesting to hear if that’s what she had in mind.
It’s still very obviously punishment in context. Whereas Ilaria writes (admittedly in her summary but one supposes this represents positions taken in her longer presentation), “in Scripture only life and beatitude are said to be eternal proper (ἀΐδιος), while fire, death, and punishments are just ‘otherworldly’ (αἰώνια)”. If anyone has a copy of Terms for Eternity, she’s referencing pages 47-80.
Being kept in bonds for judgment later is a punishment for doing evil in Jude 6; it is certainly not life and beatitude.
(Strictly speaking, the only other usage of the term in the canonical NT, Romans 1:9, describes God’s power and divine nature, not life and beatitude. Maybe she has OT LXX usages in mind…?)
I’m certainly in agreement with her claim that “eonian” means something like “otherworldly” (a generalized translation that would apply across cultures, but which Jews and other theists would more specifically mean something like “specially and uniquely from God Most High”) – although I recognize some problems with that application in Judeo-Christian works (including canonical) outside the NT.
Interestingly that statement isn’t in the full 23 page paper (unfortunately I’m not allowed to post or cite it as it’s about to be published).
I have Terms for Eternity but unfortunately it’s been awhile since I read it & don’t have time tonight to look at pages 47-80. Those pages are in the chapters “From the LXX to NT” & “Early Church Fathers”.
I’ll email & ask Ilaria, because as you say, it could be a stumbling block to some people reading the summary.
I don’t want to obscure my interest in the other points of her argument over that problem, btw.
[tag]JasonPratt[/tag] here’s the answer to your question
Excellent.
I found a schoalrly article on Manichean escahtology here -
cais-soas.com/CAIS/Religions … tology.htm
Here are the relvant bits that I’ve put together fmor the article. They provide some useful context for Professor Ramelli’s discussion I think (hope 
)
It is interesting to note the Manichean idea of God being unable to help the damned. I’m sure Augustine both reacted against his former Manichean faith and, at the same time, unconsciously imported parts of it into orthodox Christianity; and in both ways upset the balance of the faith… In terms of reaction - instead of the Manichean god who is powerless to bring about universal salvation, we have the Augustinian God who has the power to do so, but lacks the inclination. (I owe this insight to a post that Allan has made thsi week to Alex).
And I will always wonder if the doctrines of pre-election and the damnation of most of humanity owe a lot to Manicheism and the other form of Gnosticicm (or at least a significant amount to them)
Who, then, are the heretics? 
The Protestant emphasis on doctrine and belief also has a Gnostic whiff.
Yes I’d agree Allan – at least Universalists can draw analogies between some of the beliefs of early heretics and those who today accuse Universalists of heresy (even if just to keep the spirits up especially Alex’s 
).
The Gnostics did think salvation was attained by correct ‘knowing’ – although this ‘knowing’ was more akin to direct intuitive insight (brought about by graded exercise of initiation) rather than intellectual assent to correct propositions that modern orthodoxy often seems to require. But there is an analogy.
The Gnostics taught that there are three classes of people: the hylical/carnal doomed to perdition - most of humanity including the Jews; the psychical orthodox Christians who could attain a lower form of salvation by adhering to the outer rites and beliefs of the Church; and the pneumatical Gnostics – who participated in divinity though gnosis. Yes again its different from Orthodox hard ECT but both systems of belief are prepared to consign the majority of humankind to perdition
The Gnostics not only believed in themselves as the elect and select but were also deterministic in other aspect of their worldview; for example in their beliefs in the Archon/Star Rulers who controlled the fates of the majority of human beings. This strict determinism was opposed by all Church Fathers – and Gregory of Nyssa wrote passionately against Gnostic astrological determinism in his defence of freedom of the will. Again there are obvious differences between Gnostic determinism and orthodox Augustinian forms of double determinism – but hmmmmm.
[tag]JasonPratt[/tag] I finally figured out why she says Scripture refers to life as aidios!!
There is more from Ilaria Ramelli and David Konstan here…
Thanks Davo!
It saddens me that Origen, although already dead, was exposed to such a bigoted and hateful persecution. If Augustine was so against universalism then he should also have attacked all proponents of it, such as Gregory of Nyssa. Instead, Origen became the guy we love to hate. This attitude has persisted until this day!
S.
Yeah, the more I find about about Origen, the more I think he has unfairly copped a lot over the years