Does even aidios mean a limited duration?

[sven]

I came across this quote long ago for the first time

The word [aidios] is used in a limited sense by the Greeks. Thucydides has this phrase “othen aidion misthophoran uparchein” from whence he expected a perpetual salary. But this could be only a salary during his life time, therefore the word in Thucydides means a period unknown, though it will certainly end.

tentmaker.org/forum/discussions- … s-of-ages/

but was not able to verify it until now by searching “misthophoran” (misqoforan) in perseus.org

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/mor … ek#lexicon

I was hoping it might link me to Thucydides’ phrase and it actually did:

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex … g=original (Thuc. 6.24 if the link does not work)

καὶ ἔρως ἐνέπεσε τοῖς πᾶσιν ὁμοίως ἐκπλεῦσαι: τοῖς μὲν γὰρ πρεσβυτέροις ὡς ἢ καταστρεψομένοις ἐφ᾽ ἃ ἔπλεον ἢ οὐδὲν ἂν σφαλεῖσαν μεγάλην δύναμιν, τοῖς δ᾽ ἐν τῇ ἡλικίᾳ τῆς τε ἀπούσης πόθῳ ὄψεως καὶ θεωρίας, καὶ εὐέλπιδες ὄντες σωθήσεσθαι: ὁ δὲ πολὺς ὅμιλος καὶ στρατιώτης ἔν τε τῷ παρόντι ἀργύριον οἴσειν καὶ προσκτήσεσθαι δύναμιν ὅθεν **ἀίδιον μισθοφορὰν **

Could anyone translate the passage and verify if “adios” actually is to be understood in a limited sense here?

PS: perseus provides a translation, but my English and Greek skills are limited, so I would appreciate your opinion in the context.

PPS: one commentary says:

ἀίδιον μισθοφοράν—this is explained by editors to mean that the addition of Sicily to the empire would lead to continual campaigns; but Gilbert rightly paraphrases: ‘they hoped to get permanent employment out of the acquisition somehow’: μισθοφορά is used loosely for pay for any services.

perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/tex … apter%3D24

So I think it can be considered to be proven that aidios is to be understood in a limited sense here?

[JasonPratt]

No doubt not in an absolutely unlimited sense, yep. It can last unceasingly with qualifications, as long as something else lasts.

[sven]

I did a little research and made an interesting finding. It refers both to aidios and aionios:

I was familiar with his quote:

… Olympiodorus, who wrote on this very subject, to vindicate his language. In his commentary on the Meteorologica of Aristotle, he says: “Do not suppose that the soul is punished for endless ages in Tartarus. Very properly the soul is not punished to gratify the revenge of the divinity, but for the sake of healing. But we say that the soul is punished for an aeonian period, calling its life, and its allotted period of punishment, its aeon.” It will be noticed that he not only denies endless punishment, and denies that the doctrine can be expressed by aionios declares that punishment is temporary and results in the sinner’s improvement.

I came across this quote in another forum, and it seems as if the passage above was not quoted in its whole context:

textkit.com/greek-latin-foru … f=6&t=9602

And I also tracked down the quote from Olympiadorus. I don’t have a problem with the translation but it leaves out the part from before, which is

εἰς οὓς ἐμβάλλονται αἱ ψυχαὶ κατὰ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἁμαρτάδων, αἱ μὲν ἀιδίως κολασθησόμεναι διὰ τὸ ἀνίατα ἡμαρτηκέναι ἐν τῷ Ταρτάρῳ. πλὴν εἰ καὶ λέγω ἀιδίως, μὴ δὴ νομίσῃς, ὅτι εἰς ἀπείρους αἰῶνας κολάζεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν τῷ Ταρτάρῳ (εὖ γε οὐ διὰ μῆνιν τοῦ θείου κολάζεται ἡ ψυχή, ἀλλ’ ἰατρείας χάριν), ἀλλ’ αἰωνίως φαμὲν κολάζεσθαι τὴν ψυχὴν αἰῶνα καλοῦντες τὸν αὐτῆς βίον καὶ τὴν μερικὴν αὐτῆς περίοδον.

It says the souls will be punished aidios and despite the fact that he says that, he says don’t think the soul is punished for endless ages. Aidios, though, means “everlasting”, and here we seem him equate aionios with aidios, so I don’t see how this passage can be used to show that ainios doesn’t mean eternal – in fact I think it’s evidence that it does. He’s just interpreting what “eternal” means, just as you could in English.

About Olympiadorus, I’m now sure I misunderstood him. (The Greek passage is available online at toxolyros.gr/index.php?optio … Itemid=857 if anybody’s interested.) I stopped reading but in what comes after, he explicitly makes a distinction between aidios and aionios, so I don’t understand why he seems to mix the two in the passage I quoted. But the distinction he makes is interesting, he takes aionios to mean being all in the now (he says we call god aionios because his existence is not in time but all time, present, past and future, is like now to him) while aidios means existing for all time (we don’t call god aidios because his existence is not in time).

I’m still confused by the passage – he says some sins are incurable and says the punishments are everlasting, and yet it’s not to be understood as meaning for all ages. The only thing I can think of is that what he has in mind is a series of ages (or perhaps a cycle of ages), within which time exists and within which the punishment is everlasting, but the age might come to an end and the punishments with it. But you can ignore my comments on that passage now, since I’m not quite sure what to conclude from it.

Could anyone translate this passage:

εἰς οὓς ἐμβάλλονται αἱ ψυχαὶ κατὰ τὰς διαφορὰς τῶν ἁμαρτάδων, αἱ μὲν ἀιδίως κολασθησόμεναι διὰ τὸ ἀνίατα ἡμαρτηκέναι ἐν τῷ Ταρτάρῳ. πλὴν εἰ καὶ λέγω ἀιδίως, μὴ δὴ νομίσῃς, ὅτι εἰς ἀπείρους αἰῶνας κολάζεται ἡ ψυχὴ ἐν τῷ Ταρτάρῳ (εὖ γε οὐ διὰ μῆνιν τοῦ θείου κολάζεται ἡ ψυχή, ἀλλ’ ἰατρείας χάριν), ἀλλ’ αἰωνίως φαμὲν κολάζεσθαι τὴν ψυχὴν αἰῶνα καλοῦντες τὸν αὐτῆς βίον καὶ τὴν μερικὴν αὐτῆς περίοδον.

Does it provide new understanding concerning aionios and aidios?