Jeffrey Gibson

Actually, he is discussing something already known as "the sacred disease" (τῆς ἱερῆς νούσου καλεομένης) not a disease which he calls sacred. And as you apparently don't know, this is epilepsy, a disease known in the gospels and elsewhere as caused by evil spirits. His intent in his discussion is, among other things, to question whether this view of the cause is correct.


Here, once again is the Greek text that stands behind your "make the [DAIMON] divinity [δαίμων]to be most wicked and most impious" which is, I presume, the basis of your claim that here "Hippocrates is not saying the "daimon" is most wicked".

ὅ τε πουλὺς αὐτοῖσι τοῦ λόγου ἐς τὸ θεῖον ἀφήκει καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον.

Now as it's clear from the Greek, you are right to claim that "Hippocrates is not saying the "daimon" is most wicked" here, but not for the reasons you think.

In the first place, there is the fact -- of which you, being Greekless, are wholly ignorant -- that the word behind "divinity" in the translation above (of Charles Darwin Adams in 1868 -- nice of you not to give the attribution) is θεῖον NOT δαίμων. So obviously Hippocrates cant be saying anything about a δαίμων, since that is not the subject of this statement.

In the second place, as is clear from what's above, the word δαίμων is not used by Hippocrates here.It is δαιμόνιον

In the third place δαιμόνιον is used here as a predicate nominative, not as a subject.

So it is certain the Hippocrates is not saying "the demon is wicked". But he is saying that something is wicked, in this case the lesser god (θεῖον not θεός) he speaks of here as the one believed to be the cause of the experience in humans of "terrors which happen during the night, and fevers, and delirium, and jumpings out of bed, and frightful apparitions, and fleeing away",and that is that it is or acts as a δαιμόνιον .

Moreover, this statement is a report of what others think the nature or character of the divinity mentioned is. And as the syntax of the Greek shows, it is that they think that it is demonic.

Here again you are misreading this text and recasting what it says in a way that fits what you already believe. He is not saying that the actions of the disease marked by " terrors which happen during the night, and fevers, and delirium, and jumpings out of bed, and frightful apparitions, and fleeing away", are attributed to "various gods", but to one goddess in particular, Hecate, and that because of this attribution, she and no other divinity is viewed as an evil spirit.


Er, what??? "the "daimon" [of the sick person]" :huh::huh:

You are again mis reading and misunderstanding and misrepresenting what Hippocrates is saying here. He is not speaking of the daimon of a/the "sick person". He is speaking of what others think about the nature and character of the thedivine source of "terrors which happen during the night, and fevers, and delirium, and jumpings out of bed, and frightful apparitions, and fleeing away" is. And this is that it is a demon.


You once claimed, Pete, that you were capable of understanding English. I denied -- in the light of your track record of misrepresenting and misunderstanding the meaning of English texts that you quote wrong -- that you were. Thanks for providing more evidence in this matter.

Jeffey

Jeffrey Gibson

Are you sure the Greek word translated here as daimons (??)is δαίμων and not δαιμόνιονs.

More importantly, even if it is, is this the only instance of Philo's use of δαίμων in the whole of his writings?

Are you actually claiming that Philo does not know of evil spirits, let alone does not use forms of the word δαίμων (or its diminutive δαιμόνιον) when speaking of them?

Are you saying that because they are passive they can't be -- and weren't regarded by Apuleius (who wrote in Latin and who flourished around 150 CE) -- as "evil"

This is all very interesting, but it's not about minor gods or lesser divinities, is it. Does Sallust, another Latin writer who lived 86-35 BCE, use the Latin daemon or any of its cognates for gods in the above? (For that matter, does any Latin writer use the Latin word daemon for "god"?). Does Sallust believe in evil spirits? What terms does he use if an when he speaks of then?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Then why was Hipprocrates cited here by your self as an instance of the use of "daimon" when it isn't?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

Of course it is. δαιμόνιον is the diminutive of δαίμων and it no more signals a referent or idea significantly different from what δαίμων signals or represents than the use of πλοιάριον instead of πλοι̂ον does for what πλοι̂ον signals.

Sorry, Pete, but your Greeklessness is showing once again.

The real question is why you thought that the word behind "divinity" in the English translation of the Hippocrates text was δαίμων, let alone appeared at all in the Greek text, and why you didn't know that the word translated as "wickedness by Darwin was δαιμόνιον.

In the light of this and other faux pas you've made with respect to Greek (and Latin) words and texts, why should I -- let alone anyone here -- take anything that you say about Greek (and Latin) words and texts seriously.

All you do with each successive posting in this thread is give us additional evidence that you have no idea what you are taking about and absolutely zero competence to be speaking in any way whatsoever, let alone in the declarative way you've been using, about the texts you make claims about.

You must really enjoy shooting yourself in the foot. I cannot otherwise understand why you continue to do so -- and with larger and larger bullets -- as you've once again done here.

I urge you to stop this nonsense while you still have a little bit of your foot (and your dignity) left.

Jeffrey

mountainman

FFS the OP cites δαίμων and not δαιμόνιον.

This has been pointed out a number of times already in this thread.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

So what? Leaving aside the question of whether it is illegitimate to leave out how the diminutive δαιμόνιον is used as evidence for or against your claim (since for Greeks the use of δαιμόνιον is clearly a use of δαίμων) -- and one wonders why you avoided using what LSJ and BDAG sayy about the use and meaning of the clearly related verb δαιμονάωas well the use and meanings ofδαιμονητιᾷ· δαιμονιάζομα, δαιμονιακός,δαιμονιάω,δαιμονιάρχης,δαιμονίζομαι, δαιμονικός,δαιμονιόπληκτος δαιμονιόπλοκοςδαιμονίςδαιμονισμόςδαιμονιώδης,δαιμονοβλάβεια,δαιμονοκλησία andδαιμονομᾰχέω -- which testify to what the Greeks thought δαίμων meant --- the OP also also cites evidence that shows δαίμων was used by non Christians to mean "demon". As does BDAG and the entry in TDNT. And I have given you evidence from Philostratus, from the LXX, and from texts which, through the use of adjectives with δαίμων, quite clearly show that non/pre Christian Greeks viewed the entity designated by the word in question as harmful and wholly evil. So what's your point?

It strikes me, Pete, that one of the reasons you persist in shooting yourself in the foot on this matter is not only that you are Greekless and agenda driven, don't take into account, and are unaware of, all of the relevant evidence, and inconsistent on what counts as relevant data (you have no right to limit the data to be looked at to BCE).

It's that you have been reading the LSJ entry δαίμων as if it says that Greeks thought a δαίμων was a lesser divinity that was neither wholly good nor wholly bad.

Is this correct?

And you still wholly misread Hippocrates.

Jeffrey

mountainman

I have every right to ask for an instance of the use of δαίμων in the same negative and pejorative way in which Christians used the term, before the Christians used the term.

You have failed to provide such an instance.
This suggests you cant provide one.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

In the 4th century, yes?

But even if your right to ask for this is not in question (and it isn't], what right (or sound linguistic reason) have you to say that the uses of δαιμόνιον,

let alone of the verb δαιμονάω, as well the use and meanings of δαιμονητιᾷ, δαιμονιάζομα, δαιμονιακός, δαιμονιάω, δαιμονιάρχης, δαιμονίζομαι, δαιμονικός, δαιμονιόπληκτος, δαιμονιόπλοκος, δαιμονίς, δαιμονισμός, δαιμονιώδης, δαιμονοβλάβεια, δαιμονοκλησία and δαιμονομᾰχέω and other words like κᾰκοδαιμων (possessed by an evil genius, Antipho 5.43; Aristophanes; evil spirit -- τοῦ δαίμονος δέδοιχʼ ὅπως μὴ τεύξομαι κακοδαίμονος Aristophanes.Eq.112, Arrian Epict.4.4.38), andκᾰκοδαιμονάω (to be tormented by an evil genius, possessed by an evil spirit, Aristophanes Pl.372, Xenophon Mem.2.1.5, D.8.16, Din.1.91),κᾰκοδαιμονιστής (worshipper of the κακὸς δαίμων, member of a ‘Satanist’ club, Lys.Fr.53.2) κᾰκοδαιμονέω (to ... occupy the region of κακὸς δαίμων, Dorotheus 3.9, Ptolemaeus.Tetr.195), κᾰκοδαιμονημα (occupation of the region of κακὸς δαίμων, Vett.Val.74.6), not to mention the expression κακὸς δαίμων that is used by a variety of non/pre Christian authors

cannot be used as evidence for what pre/non Christian Greeks thought that δαίμων signified?

There is none whatsoever. And you show yourself as having no understanding of how language works if you say you do have one.

I have provided at least one -- in Philostratus. And there's Aristophanes Eq.112. There's also Homer Odyssey 10.64 (τίς τοι κακὸς ἔχραε δαίμων) where, as you've probably not noted, especially if you've read, as you must, the Odyssey in English, the δαίμων spoken of is described as evil, and, as LSJ notes, Josephus AJ 8.2.5 Alexander Aphr. Pr.2.46; Aretaeus. SD (Concerning Epilepsy) 1.4 -- a text in which Aretaeus is directly commenting upon our passage in Hippocretes' "Sacred Disease" and in which he not only speaks of the known practice of expelling of evil spirits, but uses the exorcism terminology that the NT uses when Jesus expels demons to do so (πρᾶξις ἐκβάλλουσα δαίμονας, and in PMag.Par (= Greek Magical Papyri =C. Wessely, Wiener Denkschr. xxxvi (2) (1888) pp. 44–126, pp. 139–148; partly in A. Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie, Leipzig 1903, pp. 1ff., and A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, London 1919, pp. 258 ff) 1227 among others.

That you don't see this in Philostratus Life 4 shows not only (and once again) that you are Greekless and cluless as to how to determine what ancient words mean, but that you are agenda driven and distortionate, not dispassionate, when it comes to evaluating evidence.

Bam! You've done it again.

Jeffrey

mountainman

You have a conveniently bad memory.

I have agreed for the sake of the OP that Christians wrote Matthew in the 1st century.




Who wrote in the 3rd century, and about whom I have already corresponded, but we can return to Philostratus again after the pre-Christian (traditionally 1st century) instances are examined.




Well I guess we're just going to have a look at your claims one by one.





But is not the "daimon" here expressly made evil by the term κακὸς ?





Josephus is late 1st century, and can wait.





Alexander of Aphrodisias? If so, late 2nd early 3rd century can wait.





We have already seen that in the Hippocrates instance the "daimon" is not itself evil.


Isn't this after the 1st century?

If so, it can wait with the other later instances.

Matthew does not appear to have many earlier precedents if any.



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

stephan huller

Pete,

You can't just switch your dating of the gospel 'for the sake of the OP.' What kind of nonsense is this? The fact that you make claims like this about a particular word and then switch the dates of the gospel just to save your thesis can hardly be said to be 'because of the OP.' You are doing this to save your argument which is not the same thing.