Jeffrey Gibson

It describes what type of δαίμων Aeolus thinks has beset Odysseus when Odysseus unexpectedly comes back to Aeolus. It testifies to the fact that you keep refusing to acknowledge that as far back as Homer a δαίμων was used with reference to an "evil spirit".


So your claim that this idea was a Christian one, let alone a 4th century one, is absolute nonsense.




More importantly, you haven't given a single reason, let alone a sound linguistic reason why 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 spirit, Antipho 5.43; Arrian Epict.4.4.38), and κᾰκοδαιμονάω (to be tormented by an evil spirit, 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?

And until you do, we just have more reason to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Leaving aside the fact that you didn't know where to find many of the references in question, that you were pressed for time is not a good reason, and is certainly not a good linguistic reason, for not investigating the words and expressions I noted above. And in fact, if you really wanted to actually know what the semantic range of δαίμων was you need to investigate the meaning that the cognates of δαίμων bore.

Exemplified?? Shades of Inigo Montoya.

On this what?

Horseshit. Not only was there no singular monolithic Greek concept of δαίμων (as Philostratus and Pausanius -- who wrote before Ammianus [330-400]) did, show plainly, but you are again assuming what needs to be proved with respect to the Jewish derived notion of what the "holy spirit" was for Christians, let alone that Ammianus here has any Christian concept in mind as a target..


Translations provide this evidence, or the actual use of δαίμων by MA and Epictetus do so?


You are aware, are you not, not only that both Marcus Aurelius and Epictetus use κακόδαιμον

e.g.,

Epictetus Phil., Gnomologium Epicteteum (e Stobaei libris 1-2)
Sententia 1, line 5

Θεοῖς θῦε μὴ ἡνίκα ἂν πλουτήσῃς, ἀλλ' ἡνίκα ἂν φρονήσῃς,
τὸ μὲν γὰρ πλουτεῖν καὶ τῶν κακοδαιμόνων, τὸ δὲ φρονεῖν
μόνον ἴδιον εὐδαιμόνων.




Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Imperator Phil., Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν
Book 2, chapter 8, section 1, line 2

Παρὰ μὲν τὸ μὴ ἐφιστάνειν, τί ἐν τῇ ἄλλου ψυχῇ γίνεται, οὐ
ῥᾳδίως τις ὤφθη κακοδαιμονῶν· τοὺς δὲ τοῖς τῆς ἰδίας ψυχῆς
κινήμασι μὴ παρακολουθοῦντας ἀνάγκη κακοδαιμονεῖν.

but that they both use δαίμων with senses other than you mention? uses

But you need to be precise linguistically --- and you certainly you haven't been precise about the use and meaning of δαίμων. You've been anything but. To be precise about the semantic range δαίμων you need to take into the semantic range of the words and expressions I've noted above.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

You haven't shown that there was a shift in meaning.


I'll ask again: are there no instances f Christian use of the term in which the term has no pejorative sense?

Jeffrey

Robert Tulip

The shift in meaning is obvious. Today, demon means evil spirit. For Plato, daimon meant a spirit who could be good, evil or neutral. Somewhere along the way, the meaning changed.

All the mentions of demon in the New Testament - as listed at http://biblez.com/search.php?q=demon - are evil, but none of them apply any adjective such as 'evil' to qualify the moral nature of the demon. Therefore the New Testament uses the word with a different meaning from Plato.

The word daimon = demon has evolved and mutated. Comparing, for example, to how fish evolved into humans, the process of linguistic change is not simply linear, although it is gradual. Etymological memetic evolution is different from genetic evolution, since older meanings remain known when they become archaic and can be revived. For example 'terrible' used to mean terrifying, but now means very bad. The older meaning of terrible is still known, and is occasionally used, just as Koine Greek speakers were aware that daimon had an older pagan meaning that was rejected by Christians.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=terrible
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=demon

mountainman

Jeffrey why are you being so defensive?

"Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible"


After the Jesus Super Release Patch was installed
the spiritual operating system of antiquity appears
to have been quite different to what it was before.

There appeared to be some faint hope of resurrection
following the pathway of ascension through the cloud
banks above Jerusalem. The Last Judgement appeared
as a threat to be hung over the heads of the populace,
as was the threat of blasphemy.








εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

If Plato used the term to signify "evil spirit", then no meaning changed.

Moral nature??? Did the demons that Plato speak of as "evil" or those that Philostratus speaks of (also without any qualifying adjective) in the same manner chose to be so?

From some of the uses in Plato, but not in all. See his use of the term in the Symposium. And Philostratus also consistently uses it with the meaning that it has in the NT. How do you explain that?

In any case, the word Plato used for Socrates' "demon" was δαιμόνιον.

And I ask again, are there no uses by Christians (including the Church fathers) of δαίμων with a non derogatory sense?The Vulgate uses a Greek word??

So, was this pre- Christian Jewish use political, too?

A plural form of δαίμων. So what?

And if δαίμων was not already generally thought of in Classical and Hellenistic times as meaning "evil spirit" how do you account for the fact that the verb δαιμονάω , as well as words whose root is δαίμων (δαιμονητιᾷ, δαιμονιάζομα, δαιμονιακός, δαιμονιάω, δαιμονιάρχης, δαιμονίζομαι, δαιμονικός, δαιμονιόπληκτος, δαιμονιόπλοκος, δαιμονίς, δαιμονισμός, δαιμονιώδης, δαιμονοβλάβεια, δαιμονοκλησία and δαιμονομᾰχέω) all have something to do with "evil spirits" and their actions in Classical and Hellenistic usage (see their respective entries in LSJ)?


Sorry, but your analysis of the use and meaning of δαίμων and your thesis about how it changed in meaning, is agenda, not fact, driven.

Jeffrey

mountainman

What? The term κακὸς means bad.
The term δαίμων itself is not bad.




APPLE = APPLE

GOOD + APPLE = Good Apple

BAD + APPLE = Bad Apple.

It does not matter which language underlies this stuff.





Ammianus was well aware that the plain and simple religion of the Christians had been adopted by the Roman Emperors of the 4th century (with the exception of Julian). The Christians were actively promulgating a singular monolithic Greek concept of the "HOLEY MOLEY SPIRIT. Jesus has entered the world of politics and all "daimons' (the god like spirits of men and women) were to be subservient to this McDonalds Corporate Spirit.





I disagree. I do not see it as a mandatory requirement to include the derivatives. A study of the meaning of the noun δαίμων alone will yield how the meaning of that noun has altered in time, and this is not an illegitimate project.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

andrewcriddle

This may be over-simplified.

One of the ways words shift meaning is by being mostly used to refer to a sub-group of their original semantic range. The sub-group is originally just one of the possible references of the word but it becomes one of the meanings of the word.

E.G. daimon originally meant good evil or neutral spirit, if however it was mostly used to refer to evil or at least dubious spiritual beings then "dodgy spiritual being" would be likely to become its primary meaning. This change of meaning would occur long after the word was first used to refer to evil spirits. Plato could use the word to refer to spirits that were actually evil without "evil spirit" being one of the word's meanings.

(I am not making the positive claim that a semantic shift occurred in this way. I don't know whether it did or not. I am merely illustrating a possibility.)

Andrew Criddle

Jeffrey Gibson

What we must do to see if the meaning of a word altered over time is to establish conclusively what its meaning was at given times. And to do this one must take into account the meaning that a word's cognates had at those given times. There is no getting round this. And if you don't do this work, you have no right to claim that you know how any word was used, and what meanings it did or did not bear, before the 4th century.

Sorry, Pete, but you obviously have no idea how a diachronic analysis of the semantic range of a word is carried out.

Below is a list of uses by non Christian Greek authors who wrote between the 3rd century CE and up to the end of the 2nd century CE of the singular and plural nominative forms of δαίμων and of the singular nominative form of δαιμόνιον. (Note: I have not listed the uses of the singular or plural genitive, dative and accusative or vocative forms of
δαίμων nor of the nominative plural or plural and singualy genitive, dative, and accusative or vocative forms of δαιμόνιον)

The first three numbers beside a name is the TLG catalogue listing of a given author's work. The number after the colon indicates how many times the word listed word is used within that work.

http://www.tlg.uci.edu/authors/cd-rome.php


So .... Are you willing to state categorically, Pete , not only (a) that there is not a single pre CE instance of these uses that bears the meaning "evil spirit", but also (b) that it is not true that what ever may have been true in the Classical period, by the Hellenistic age, the meaning "evil spirit" for the terms had not become predominant,, contra what seems to be indicated in Philostratus's uses of δαίμων ?

Do you know?

Jeffrey

****
Search for: daimwn
3BCE-1CE

Apollonius Rhodius Epic. 001: 6
Euphorion Epic. 001: 1
Nicomachus Trag. 001: 1
Theognetus Comic. 001: 1
Theognetus Comic. 002: 1
Cercidas Iamb. 001: 2
Chrysippus Phil. 001: 1
Chrysippus Phil. 002: 1
Hieronymus Phil. 001: 2
[Onatas] Phil. 001: 1
[Pempelus] Phil. 001: 1
Timaeus Phil. 001: 1
Choliambica Adespota (ALG) 001: 1
Moschus Bucol. 004: 1
Posidonius Phil. 001: 3
Oracula Sibyllina 001: 1
Philo Judaeus Phil. 027: 1
Diodorus Siculus Hist. 003: 1
Dionysius Halicarnassensis 001: 9
Dionysius Halicarnassensis 006: 4
Isidorus Scriptor Hymnorum 001: 1
Nicolaus Hist. 003: 1
Tryphon I Gramm. 002: 1
[Demetrius] Rhet. 001: 1
Aristonicus Gramm. 001: 2
Aristonicus Gramm. 002: 2
Dorotheus Astrol. 001: 1
Philoxenus Gramm. 001: 2


Philoxenus Gramm. 001: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 002: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 005: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 007: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 010: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 011: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 019: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 033: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 036: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 039: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 042: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 045: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 048: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 050: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 051: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 054: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 058: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 060: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 061: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 070: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 076: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 079: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 084: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 086: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 087: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 089: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 092: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 094: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 096: 3
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 107: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 113: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 133: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 137: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 141: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 145: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 146: 2
Flavius Arrianus Hist. et 001: 1
Flavius Josephus Hist. 001: 2
Flavius Josephus Hist. 004: 2
Appianus Hist. 009: 1
Appianus Hist. 011: 1
Appianus Hist. 017: 2
Epictetus Phil. 001: 1
Dio Chrysostomus Soph. 001: 10
Lucius Annaeus Cornutus Ph 002: 1
Dioscorides Pedanius Med. 003: 1
Dioscorides Pedanius Med. 004: 1
Apion Gramm. 003: 6
Apollonius Soph. 001: 3
[Cebes] Phil. 001: 1
Harpocration Gramm. 001: 1
Cyranides 001: 6
Teucer Astrol. 001: 1


Search for: daimwn
Century: CE. 2
Athenaeus Soph.: 14
Oppianus Epic.: 3
Pseudo-Lucianus Soph.: 6
Lucianus Soph.: 8
Apollonius Dyscolus Gramm.: 4
Dionysius Perieg.: 3
Aelius Herodianus et Pseud: 20
Pseudo-Plutarchus: 1
Diogenianus Gramm.: 3
Zenobius Sophista [Paroem: 4
Aelius Aristides Rhet.: 11
Acta Joannis: 2
Claudius Ptolemaeus Math.: 1
Cassius Dio Hist.: 7
Pausanias Perieg.: 22
Achilles Tatius Scr. Erot.: 6
Sextus Empiricus Phil.: 4
Claudius Aelianus Soph.: 2
Chariton Scr. Erot.: 9
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus : 4
Maximus Soph.: 6
Valerius Babrius Scr. Fab.: 2
Flavius Philostratus Soph.: 6
Alciphron Rhet. et Soph.: 4
Xenophon Scr. Erot.: 2
Antoninus Liberalis Myth.: 1
Alexander Phil.: 5
Athenagoras Apol.: 2
Celsus Phil.: 4
Corpus Hermeticum: 11
Numenius Phil.: 1
Pausanias Attic.: 3
Philostratus Major Soph.: 3
Phrynichus Attic.: 3
Sententiae Sexti: 2
Sententiae Pythagoreorum: 1
Vettius Valens Astrol.: 33
Antenor Hist.: 1
Sextus Julius Africanus Hi: 2

Search for: daimones
Century 3BCE-1CE
Apollonius Rhodius Epic. 001: 3
Cercidas Iamb. 001: 1
Chrysippus Phil. 001: 1
Silenus Hist. 003: 1
Dionysius Halicarnassensis 001: 7
Dionysius Halicarnassensis 006: 1
Strabo Geogr. 001: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 001: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 084: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 090: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 092: 4
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 096: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 108: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 109: 4
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 110: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 120: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 126: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 145: 1
Novum Testamentum 001: 1
Flavius Josephus Hist. 004: 3
Appianus Hist. 009: 1
Epictetus Phil. 001: 1
Aelius Theon Rhet. 001: 1
Dio Chrysostomus Soph. 001: 1
Apollonius Phil. 001: 3
Apollonius Phil. 002: 3
Apion Gramm. 004: 2
Apocalypsis Adam 001: 3
Apollonius Soph. 001: 1
-----------------------------------------



Search for: daimones
-----------------------------------------
Century: CE. 2
Athenaeus Soph.: 2
Oppianus Epic.: 5
Oppianus Epic.: 1
Galenus Med.: 1
Pseudo-Lucianus Soph.: 1
Lucianus Soph.: 1
Aelius Herodianus et Pseud: 5
Aelius Aristides Rhet.: 4
Nicomachus Math.: 1
Cassius Dio Hist.: 1
Achilles Tatius Scr. Erot.: 1
Julius Pollux Gramm.: 2
Sextus Empiricus Phil.: 1
Claudius Aelianus Soph.: 1
Artemidorus Onir.: 3
Clemens Alexandrinus Theol: 17
Maximus Soph.: 1
Hermogenes Rhet.: 1
Flavius Philostratus Soph.: 2
Alciphron Rhet. et Soph.: 3
Albinus Phil.: 1
Alexander Phil.: 1
Apocalypsis Joannis: 1
Athenagoras Apol.: 5
Celsus Phil.: 2
Corpus Hermeticum: 5
Aelius Dionysius Attic.: 1
Hephaestion Gramm.: 2
Oracula Chaldaica: 1
Pausanias Attic.: 1
Philostratus Major Soph.: 1
Seniores Alexandrini Scr. : 1
Sententiae Sexti: 3
Theophilus Apol.: 1


Search for: daimonion

Century 3BCE-1CE
-----------------------------------------
Euphorion Epic. 002: 1
Polybius Hist. 001: 2
Bion Phil. 001: 1
Chrysippus Phil. 001: 1
[Onatas] Phil. 001: 2
[Phintys] Phil. 001: 1
Quintus Fabius Pictor Hist 003: 1
Promathion Hist. 002: 1
Posidonius Phil. 001: 8
Posidonius Phil. 003: 4
Diogenes Phil. 001: 1
Diodorus Siculus Hist. 001: 14
Diodorus Siculus Hist. 003: 10
Dionysius Halicarnassensis 001: 24
Dionysius Halicarnassensis 006: 1
Dionysius Halicarnassensis 012: 1
Nicolaus Hist. 003: 2
Philodemus Phil. 107: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 001: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 002: 3
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 004: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 005: 4
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 008: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 012: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 013: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 016: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 018: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 019: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 030: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 031: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 033: 4
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 037: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 038: 4
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 041: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 042: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 044: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 047: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 048: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 055: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 060: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 065: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 080: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 082: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 083: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 092: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 107: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 108: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 109: 22
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 110: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 113: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 118: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 123: 1
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 133: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 139: 2
Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. 145: 1
Flavius Arrianus Hist. et 001: 2
Flavius Josephus Hist. 001: 5
Flavius Josephus Hist. 003: 1
Flavius Josephus Hist. 004: 10
Flavius Josephus Hist. 004: 10
Appianus Hist. 007: 1
Appianus Hist. 009: 2
Appianus Hist. 011: 1
Appianus Hist. 013: 3
Appianus Hist. 017: 7
Epictetus Phil. 001: 1
[Longinus] Rhet. 001: 1
Dio Chrysostomus Soph. 001: 17
Apollonius Phil. 003: 1
Onasander Tact. 001: 1
Thessalus Astrol. et Med. 004: 1
[Cebes] Phil. 001: 5
Evangelium Secundum Hebraeo 001: 1
Heraclitus Phil. 001: 1: 1
Cyranides 001: 1
Pseudo-Phocylides Gnom. 001: 1
Thrasyllus Hist. 002: 1


Search for: daimonion
Search authors in the first century they wrote
Allowable interval between words: Exact phrase
-----------------------------------------
Century: A.D. 2
Athenaeus Soph.: 11
Phalaridis Epistulae: 1
Pseudo-Lucianus Soph.: 2
Lucianus Soph.: 1
Aelius Herodianus et Pseud: 1
Pseudo-Plutarchus: 1
Diogenianus Gramm.: 3
Zenobius Sophista [Paroem: 2
Aelius Aristides Rhet.: 4
Cassius Dio Hist.: 43
Pausanias Perieg.: 2
Julius Pollux Gramm.: 2
Sextus Empiricus Phil.: 1
Claudius Aelianus Soph.: 3
Artemidorus Onir.: 1
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus : 1
Maximus Soph.: 17
Hermogenes Rhet.: 2
Aspasius Phil.: 1
Flavius Philostratus Soph.: 5
Justinus Martyr Apol.: 1
Alexander Phil.: 1
Anonymi Commentarius In Pla: 2
Celsus Phil.: 1
Hierocles Phil.: 1
Vettius Valens Astrol.: 2
-----------------------------------------

Jeffrey Gibson

That doesn't mean it has taken on, let alone is being given, a meaning it never had before time X -- which is what I take "changed its meaning" to mean.

What you are speaking of is that speakers come to use an a particular already established meaning of a word more frequently than they do other particular already established meanings of that word.

There is also a hidden claim in RTs messages that in Christianity the the other meanings that daimon already possessed before the first (or is it the 4th century) CE were ignored and never ever used. But is that true?


Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Tell me, Pete. When you say "that's a bad apple" are you making the apple something it wasn't (bad) before you applied the adjective to it or are you are telling someone (and, unless you are lying, accurately describing) what you already know (or have come to know) the apple in itself is? Why apply the adjective "bad" to apple if it is not fitting to do so?

Jeffrey