is “not seen” a translation of a derivative of the greek word “aidios”
thank you very much
Nope. “Aidios” means “eternal.”
The word is derived from “aei” which means “perpetually” or “incessantly.”
David Konstans has agreed that the pun is both viable and was known to the Greeks; strictly speaking, context would determine whether the term is {aidios} or {aïdios} (or maybe even both).
Knoch in his Concordant Literal Translation thought it was a-idios, invisible; although admittedly he might have been fudging in favor of his ideological preference for Christian universalism. (I try to be fairly nuanced and context-based in my arguments on the forum elsewhere for the term primarily meaning “unseen” in its two NT usages: could I fairly agree with the translation that way completely apart from whether I accept or reject Christian universalism? It’s entirely possible Knoch had the same contextual arguments in mind; I don’t know, as I don’t have his commentaries.)
In any case, the term at 2 Cor 4:18 is neither {aidios} nor {aïdios}, nor a derivative from either of them, but is {mê blepomena}, negative look-things.
So for example the final phrase reads {ta de mê blepomena aiônia}, the not-seen-things are eonian.
eirEnopoiEsas
So what if he added “are”? Most translators do it in order to make good English. In Greek, the verbs “is” and “are” are frequently omitted. For example, all of the beatitudes omit the verb. “Blessed the meek”, etc.
This is not the case in English.