FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-05-2013, 04:48 AM   #41
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Implicit in the OP is the original Greek usage of δαίμων as ..... a god, a goddess or an inferior deity, whether good or bad.


Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
What a fucking silly idea. A "subversion" of δαίμων. Words get used in all sorts of ways that aren't they way they started out.

It appears that Christian editors of the earliest Greek texts used the word δαίμων in a very specific way which was not the way the rest of the non Christian Greek editors used the word.

As you say

Quote:
Language gets used to reflect how people want to use it.
The Christian use of daimon and the Greek use of daimon require specific disambiguation and are significantly different.

The original Greek word daimon does not carry the negative connotation initially understood by implementation of the Koine δαιμόνιον (daimonion), and later ascribed to any cognate words sharing the root.

Quote:
Calling something like the way the Judeo-christian traditions used δαίμων "subversion" is tantamount to calling any new language use "subversion".
Well if you don't like 'subversion' and don't think that the change was just a random mistake by a bunch of Hebrew fishermen using Greek, what would you call this systematic negative connotation usage by the Christians whenever they used the original greek word δαίμων ?

Since you provided the citations, do you think the Gospel authors (and Josephus) simply used the LXX as a precedent in this systematic negative connotation of δαίμων? That's an easy fall back position for you.

In fact that appears to be the "official story".
mountainman is offline  
Old 03-05-2013, 05:11 AM   #42
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
What a fucking silly idea. A "subversion" of δαίμων. Words get used in all sorts of ways that aren't they way they started out.
It appears that Christian editors of the earliest Greek texts used the word δαίμων in a very specific way which was not the way the rest of the non Christian Greek editors used the word.
You can assert whatever nonsense your heart desires, but you know in the end you are just bullshitting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
As you say

Quote:
Language gets used to reflect how people want to use it.
The Christian...
We've already been through this. It is not christian per se. The christians inherited the use from Greek speaking Jews.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
...demon...
The use of "demon" in contrast to "daimon" is merely another sign of your polemic. You have no scholarly interest here. Neither Jewish writers nor christians wrote the word any differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
...and the Greek daimon require specific disambiguation. The original Greek word daimon does not carry the negative connotation initially understood by implementation of the Koine δαιμόνιον (daimonion),[1] and later ascribed to any cognate words sharing the root.

Quote:
Calling something like the way the Judeo-christian traditions used δαίμων "subversion" is tantamount to calling any new language use "subversion".
Well if you don't like 'subversion' and don't think that the change was just a random mistake by a bunch of fishermen using Greek, what would you call this systematic negative connotation usage by the Christians whenever they used the original greek word δαίμων ?
Merely more polemic. I think you are at a point now where the polemic is so ingrained that you cannot help yourself.

Knowing the word "cohort" and its significance within a Roman legion, would you be surprised to know that educationalists have appropriated the word to describe a group of people usually with the same year of birth who move through an education system? The word you might use is "appropriate" rather than "subvert" there is no justifiable reason for the bias you place in the choice of the Greek speaking Judeo-christian tradition to use δαίμων for a malevolent spirit, just as the Persians used daeva. Words are frequently appropriated for new uses without loading the act with the polemic you seek to employ.

:hitsthefan:
spin is offline  
Old 03-05-2013, 05:22 AM   #43
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
What a fucking silly idea. A "subversion" of δαίμων. Words get used in all sorts of ways that aren't they way they started out.
It appears that Christian editors of the earliest Greek texts used the word δαίμων in a very specific way which was not the way the rest of the non Christian Greek editors used the word.
You can assert whatever nonsense your heart desires, but you know in the end you are just bullshitting.
From WIKI on "demon".

Quote:


The Ancient Greek word δαίμων daimōn denotes a spirit or divine power, much like the Latin genius or numen. Daimōn most likely came from the Greek verb daiesthai (to divide, distribute).[3] The Greek conception of a daimōns notably appears in the works of Plato, where it describes the divine inspiration of Socrates.

To distinguish the classical Greek concept from its later Christian interpretation,
the former is anglicized as either daemon or daimon rather than demon.


The Greek term does not have any connotations of evil or malevolence. In fact, εὐδαιμονία eudaimonia, (lit. good-spiritedness) means happiness.

The term first acquired its negative connotations
in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible,
which drew on the mythology of ancient Semitic religions.
This was then inherited by the Koine text of the New Testament.
.

The Western medieval and neo-medieval conception of a demon (see the Medieval grimoire called the Ars Goetia) derives seamlessly from the ambient popular culture of Late (Roman) Antiquity. The Hellenistic "daemon" eventually came to include many Semitic and Near Eastern gods as evaluated by Christianity.
Is this all bullshit?
mountainman is offline  
Old 03-05-2013, 06:06 AM   #44
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post
Is this all bullshit?
What is bullshit is the polemic you spread over your threads, such as the crap about "subversion" here.

(Wikipedia is not a source for this forum, just as Barron Notes are not a source for your education, but you may find something helpful in it for personal use.)
spin is offline  
Old 03-05-2013, 10:04 AM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

And how, pray tell, do you KNOW that the Jews got the idea from the Persians??
This approach is rather funny. In the case of Christianity it can be claimed that it got ideas from Judaism because the religion itself and its advocates refers to Jewish teachings, themes and ideas. But to speculate that Judaism got its ideas from the Persians with no internal or explicit corroborative evidence at all as a statement of empirical fact way is too much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post
Demons are a Judaic invention.
The Jews got the idea from the Persians and their daevas. The Zoroastrian religion provided Judaism with is dualism, which was passed on to christianity. The daevas were on the bad side with Ahriman, while the Ahuras were on the good side with Ormazd (Ahura Mazda). (And amusingly enough the Hindu side of the affair had the devas as the goodies and the asuras as the baddies!) Demons as comes out of diaspora Judaism are a facet of dualism and that falls on Zoroaster.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 03-05-2013, 12:20 PM   #46
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: nowhere
Posts: 15,747
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
And how, pray tell, do you KNOW that the Jews got the idea from the Persians??
This approach is rather funny. In the case of Christianity it can be claimed that it got ideas from Judaism because the religion itself and its advocates refers to Jewish teachings, themes and ideas. But to speculate that Judaism got its ideas from the Persians with no internal or explicit corroborative evidence at all as a statement of empirical fact way is too much.
I don't expect to pray tell you anything that contravenes your religious beliefs. But I will respond.

The Persians had control over Yehud for over 200 years to around 330 BCE. While the religion of the Hebrews tended to resist any external influences, the Persians obviously had a visible effect. The word "paradise" (פרדס) used in Song of Sol. 4:13 is Persian. The form of reference to god in the texts given Persian contexts (Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, part of 2 Chron.) is the Persian form, "god of heaven", twice put into the mouth of Cyrus ("Yahweh, god of heaven"). This is also seen in a letter from Jews in Elephantine to the Persian governor of Yehud (AP 31/32). The 360-day Persian calendar is that assumed in the earliest calendar form found in 1 Enoch. After Judaism came into contact with the Persians, the notion of resurrection, prevalent in the Persian religion, found its way into Judaism, as evinced for example in Dan 12. This provides us with a context for other Persian ideas, including for the complex net of good and bad spirits in Zoroastrianism. Later Judaism, as for example seen in 1 Enoch: Watchers, reflects such a complex array of good and bad spirits. Judaism may have developed an early notion of angels as messengers, but the contrast with evil spirits is something that came after Persian contact.
spin is offline  
Old 03-05-2013, 12:23 PM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Birmingham UK
Posts: 4,876
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman View Post


Thanks spin.

I take it there is a difference between demon (δαιμονων) and daimon [δαίμων] in the Greek, but so far I have only looked at "daimon". I'd guess that the former is associated with "malefic" in contrast to the latter.
It would be good if you stopped trying to talk about things you have no knowledge of. You might learn about Greek noun forms. δαιμονων is the genitive plural of δαίμων, ie it's the same word, but adapted to the grammatical necessity of the context. So, no there is no difference between them. Try again.
However IIUC there is a distinction between δαίμων and δαιμόνιον with δαιμόνιον being the most usual form in the LXX and NT.

Andrew Criddle
andrewcriddle is offline  
Old 03-05-2013, 01:56 PM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

You are still reiterating your claims. But what are the causal relationships and empirical evidence?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
And how, pray tell, do you KNOW that the Jews got the idea from the Persians??
This approach is rather funny. In the case of Christianity it can be claimed that it got ideas from Judaism because the religion itself and its advocates refers to Jewish teachings, themes and ideas. But to speculate that Judaism got its ideas from the Persians with no internal or explicit corroborative evidence at all as a statement of empirical fact way is too much.
I don't expect to pray tell you anything that contravenes your religious beliefs. But I will respond.

The Persians had control over Yehud for over 200 years to around 330 BCE. While the religion of the Hebrews tended to resist any external influences, the Persians obviously had a visible effect. The word "paradise" (פרדס) used in Song of Sol. 4:13 is Persian. The form of reference to god in the texts given Persian contexts (Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, part of 2 Chron.) is the Persian form, "god of heaven", twice put into the mouth of Cyrus ("Yahweh, god of heaven"). This is also seen in a letter from Jews in Elephantine to the Persian governor of Yehud (AP 31/32). The 360-day Persian calendar is that assumed in the earliest calendar form found in 1 Enoch. After Judaism came into contact with the Persians, the notion of resurrection, prevalent in the Persian religion, found its way into Judaism, as evinced for example in Dan 12. This provides us with a context for other Persian ideas, including for the complex net of good and bad spirits in Zoroastrianism. Later Judaism, as for example seen in 1 Enoch: Watchers, reflects such a complex array of good and bad spirits. Judaism may have developed an early notion of angels as messengers, but the contrast with evil spirits is something that came after Persian contact.
Duvduv is offline  
Old 03-05-2013, 06:05 PM   #49
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iskander View Post
...... but the Christian origins are Judaic, not Greek.
According to the "official story" the Early Christians got their inspiration from and specifically preserved the Greek LXX and not the Hebrew manuscripts.

This fact does cast some doubts over the claim that the Christian origins are necessarily Judaic, because the source manuscripts are found only to be in Greek.

Thanks Iskander.
mountainman is offline  
Old 03-05-2013, 06:12 PM   #50
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spin View Post
....

Wikipedia is not a source for this forum....
It can often provide a useful starting point for discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
You are still reiterating your claims.
But what are the causal relationships and empirical evidence?

Here is such a starting point for the causal relationships and empirical evidence:

Quote:

The Greek term does not have any connotations of evil or malevolence.
In fact, εὐδαιμονία eudaimonia, (lit. good-spiritedness) means happiness.

The term first acquired its negative connotations
in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible,
which drew on the mythology of ancient Semitic religions.
This was then inherited by the Koine text of the New Testament.

It seems that spin does not wish to address the history of the acquirement of negative connotations of the term,
which seems to have been commenced in the Greek LXX and from here flowed through to the gospel writers of the new testament.

As a related issue, the Greek LXX appearing in Vaticanus is presumed AFAIK
to have originated from the translation made by Origen in the 3rd century.
mountainman is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:52 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.