Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-01-2013, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Let's look at the Pausanius instance, since I have already made a response to the Philostratus instance in another thread.

Yes, one that was based upon a wholesale and tendentious misreading of the text, as you now admit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pausanius ( Graeciae descriptio Book 6, chapter 6, section 11)

[6.6.7] On his return to Italy Euthymus fought against the Hero, the story about whom is as follows. Odysseus, so they say, in his wanderings after the capture of Troy was carried down by gales to various cities of Italy and Sicily, and among them he came with his ships to Temesa. Here one of his sailors got drunk and violated a maiden, for which offence he was stoned to death by the natives.

[6.6.8] Now Odysseus, it is said, cared nothing about his loss and sailed away. But the ghost of the stoned man never ceased killing without distinction the people of Temesa, attacking both old and young, until, when the inhabitants had resolved to flee from Italy for good, the Pythian priestess forbad them to leave Temesa, and ordered them to propitiate the Hero, setting him a sanctuary apart and building a temple, and to give him every year as wife the fairest maiden in Temesa.

[6.6.9] So they performed the commands of the god and suffered no more terrors from the ghost. But Euthymus happened to come to Temesa just at the time when the ghost was being propitiated in the usual way; learning what was going on he had a strong desire to enter the temple, and not only to enter it but also to look at the maiden. When he saw her he first felt pity and afterwards love for her. The girl swore to marry him if he saved her, and so Euthymus with his armour on awaited the onslaught of the ghost.

[6.6.10] He won the fight, and the Hero was driven out of the land and disappeared, sinking into the depth of the sea. Euthymus had a distinguished wedding, and the inhabitants were freed from the ghost for ever. I heard another story also about Euthymus, how that he reached extreme old age, and escaping again from death departed from among men in another way. Temesa is still inhabited, as I heard from a man who sailed there as a merchant.

[6.6.11] This I heard, and I also saw by chance a picture dealing with the subject. It was a copy of an ancient picture. There were a stripling, Sybaris, a river, Calabrus, and a spring, Lyca. Besides, there were a hero-shrine and the city of Temesa, and in the midst was the ghost that Euthymus cast out. Horribly black in color, and exceedingly dreadful in all his appearance, he had a wolf's skin thrown round him as a garment. The letters on the picture gave his name as Lycas.

The translator here has opted for "ghost" and not "evil demon".

Yes, and one wonders whether, if Pausanius was standing over the translator's shoulder, he would have agreed that "ghost" was what he meant and was the best word to translate his δαίμων. You may wish to note that the translator of the Penguin Classics edition of Pausanius' Guide to Greece, Peter Levi, translates the word as "daemonic spirit".

Quote:

Pausanius refers to this "ghost" but also describes it as the "Hero".

So what? All that means is that he was a man who lived in the Heroic age and or was formerly a warrior. Are you saying that the ghosts of these men (in this case, the shade of Polites-- cf. Kalimachos Aitia fr. 98-99) cannot become a terror, let alone were never known to be, especially if they had violated the commands of the gods or engaged in rape (especially on holy ground)?

Quote:

The story is that one of Odysseus' sailor's violated a maiden and was stoned to death by the locals. The Hero's ghost as a result in this story, gets stuck into the locals.

Get's what??

Quote:

The oracle commands them to propitiate the Hero

By doing what? Is what she recommends to placate (ἱλάσκεσθαι) the δαίμων mentioned here the things one did to placate harmless spirit beings?

Quote:

but as they are engaged in this, along comes the boxer Euthymus in shining armour and wins the day against the "ghost".

Yes, by doing what?

You once said that while you had no facility in Greek, you were good at reading English. But here's proof that you are not. Just as with the Philostratus passage, you are showing yourself reading via agenda.

Quote:

The ghost is not made explicit as an "evil demon".

It isn't??? Was it not something that according to Pausanius, was not only "Horribly black in color, and exceedingly dreadful in all his appearance, [with a] wolf's skin thrown round him as a garment", but was before his expulsion, engaged in ceaseless "killing without distinction the people of Temesa", and the cause of "terrors"? And have you forgotten what's in the TDNT entry on how in popular Greek religion, which is what Pausanius is detailing here, demons were thought to be the shades of the dead?

Quote:

Therefore I don't see how this instance in Pausanius may be classified into the same category as Matthew's instance, where no such background data or story is provided for the "daimon".

Wow. No background data in Matthew??? What do you make of this?

Quote:

και ελθοντι αυτω εις το περαν εις την χωραν των γεργεσηνων υπηντησαν αυτω δυο δαιμονιζομενοι εκ των μνημειων εξερχομενοι χαλεποι λιαν ωστε μη ισχυειν τινα παρελθειν δια της οδου εκεινης

"And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way

In any case, didn't you tell me that the reason that we knew that Matthew was using un-adjectivised δαίμων with the meaning of "evil spirit" was explicitly because Matthew speaks of his δαίμων as one who needs to be, and who was, "cast out"?

How nice of you then to ignore the fact that this same thing is said of the murderous "ghost" here.

καὶ δαίμων ὅντινα ἐξέβαλεν ὁ Εὔθυμος,

cp. Matt. 8:31 οι δε δαιμονες παρεκαλουν αυτον λεγοντες ει εκβαλλεις ημας

Are you trying to have it both ways again, Pete?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-01-2013, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This is false. To the Ephesians at first he appeared to be harmless. The storyline is that only Apollonius recognised the "daimon" as such. It is to be assumed that Apollonius (as a master physician) had identified this "daimon" as the cause of the sickness in the city.

According to Philostratus, was Apollodorus right or was he wrong in his recognition of what the old man really was and what fate he deserved?

Quote:

It was only at this point that the Ephesians recognised him to be a "daimon". Before that they didn't have a clue.

So what? The issue isn't what caused a recognition on their part, or when they came to it, but what it was that was recognized however reluctantly.

Quote:

The recognition that he was a demon caused them not to throw a few stones, as they had before they recognized the demon, but to turn him into a cairn, through pelting him with so many stones.

Where on earth in the text does Philostratus say that they Ephesians turned the demon into a pile of stones?

I echo Spin's "Christ". Do you actually read the texts you make claims about.

And what do you make of the Ephesians' feeling the necessity of using an apotropaic image to insure that the demon -- whom they discover after taking the stones that they piled on top of him away is the old man's to have really been a repulsive dog -- doesn't return?

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 04-01-2013, 09:54 AM

Pete doesn't read texts. He sifts through them for sentences and phrases (in English) that he can take out of context to further his ultimate goal - the stupid fourth century conspiracy theory.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-01-2013, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

. You (and Jeffrey) win the point here. I think I am going to have to agree with your (and Jeffrey's) assessment about Philostratus.

If you do, you'll also have to admit, given your contention that Matthew was written in the 4th century, that your claim that Christians "subverted" a reputedly non Christian use of the word δαίμων is falsified and has no validity. Quite obviously non Christians used it before the 4th century with the meaning of "evil spirit" AND, notably, assumed that that the readers/hearers of the works in which they employed the term would have little to no difficulty understanding what they were speaking of when they used it.

But if you wish to say that Matthew precedes Philostratus' Life, you'll not only have to admit that δαίμων came to mean "evil spirit" among non Christian Greeks (how, one wonders? did they learn it from Christians? if they were anti Christian, why would they use Christain meanings of words when they knew these words nmeant something else?) but give up as false your contention that Christianity was a 4th century invention.

You can't have it both ways.

Which is it, Pete?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-01-2013, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG

Vit. Ap., III, 38, 138;

Quote:

Book 3, CHAPTER XXXVIII

Quote:

THIS discussion was interrupted by the appearance among the sages of the messenger bringing in certain Indians who were in want of succor. And he brought forward a poor woman who interceded in behalf of her child, who was, she said, a boy of sixteen years of age, but had been for two years possessed by a devil.

Now the character of the devil was that of a mocker and a liar. Here one of the sages asked, why she said this, and she replied: "

This child of mine is extremely good-looking, and therefore the devil is amorous of him and will not allow him to retain his reason, nor will he permit him to go to school, or to learn archery, nor even to remain at home, but drives him out into desert places.

And the boy does not even retain his own voice, but speaks in a deep hollow tone, as men do; and he looks at you with other eyes rather than with his own. As for myself I weep over all this and I tear my cheeks, and I rebuke my son so far as I well may; but he does not know me. And I made my mind to repair hither, indeed I planned to do so a year ago; only the demon discovered himself using my child as a mask, and what he told me was this, that he was the ghost of man, who fell long ago in battle, but that at death he was passionately attached to his wife.

Now he had been dead for only three days when his wife insulted their union by marrying another man, and the consequence was that he had come to detest the love of women, and had transferred himself wholly into this boy. But he promised, if I would only not denounce him to yourselves, to endow the child with many noble blessings. As for myself, I was influenced by these promises; but he has put me off and off for such a long time now, that he has got sole control of my household, yet has no honest or true intentions."

Here the sage asked afresh, if the boy was at hand; and she said not, for, although she had done all she could to get him to come with her, the demon had threatened her with steep places and precipices and declared that he would kill her son, "in case," she added, "I haled him hither for trial."

"Take courage," said the sage, "for he will not slay him when he has read this." And so saying he drew a letter out of his bosom and gave it to the woman; and the letter, it appears, was addressed to the ghost and contained threats of an alarming kind./quote]

Where is "daimon" used in the above text?

Time to learn Greek, Pete.

μεταξὺ δὲ τῶν λόγων τούτων ἐφίσταται τοῖς σοφοῖς ὁ ἄγγελος Ἰνδοὺς ἄγων σωτηρίας δεομένους. καὶ παρῆγε γύναιον ἱκετεῦον ὑπὲρ παιδός, ὃν ἔφασκε μὲν ἑκκαίδεκα ἔτη γεγονέναι, δαιμονᾶν δὲ δύο ἔτη, τὸ δὲ ἦθος τοῦ δαίμονος εἴρωνα εἶναι καὶ ψεύστην. ἐρομένου δέ τινος τῶν σοφῶν, ὁπόθεν λέγοι ταῦτα, ‘τοῦ παιδὸς τούτου’ ἔφη ‘τὴν ὄψιν εὐπρεπεστέρου ὄντος ὁ δαίμων ἐρᾷ καὶ οὐ ξυγχωρεῖ αὐτῷ νοῦν ἔχειν, οὐδὲ ἐς διδασκάλου βαδίσαι ἐᾷ ἢ τοξότου, οὐδὲ οἴκοι εἶναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐς τὰ ἔρημα τῶν χωρίων ἐκτρέπει, καὶ οὐδὲ τὴν φωνὴν ὁ παῖς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἔχει, ἀλλὰ βαρὺ φθέγγεται καὶ κοῖλον, ὥσπερ οἱ ἄνδρες, βλέπει δὲ ἑτέροις ὀφθαλμοῖς μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ. κἀγὼ μὲν ἐπὶ τούτοις κλάω τε καὶ ἐμαυτὴν δρύπτω καὶ νουθετῶ τὸν υἱόν, ὁπόσα εἰκός, ὁ δὲ οὐκ οἶδέ με. διανοουμένης δέ μου τὴν ἐνταῦθα ὁδόν, τουτὶ δὲ πέρυσι διενοήθην, ἐξηγόρευσεν ὁ δαίμων ἑαυτὸν ὑποκριτῇ χρώμενος τῷ παιδί, καὶ δῆτα ἔλεγεν εἶναι μὲν εἴδωλον ἀνδρός, ὃς πολέμῳ ποτὲ ἀπέθανεν, ἀποθανεῖν δὲ ἐρῶν τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναικός, ἐπεὶ δὲ ἡ γυνὴ περὶ τὴν εὐνὴν ὕβρισε τριταίου κειμένου γαμηθεῖσα ἑτέρῳ, μισῆσαι μὲν ἐκ τούτου τὸ γυναικῶν ἐρᾶν, μεταρρυῆναι δὲ ἐς τὸν παῖδα τοῦτον. ὑπισχνεῖτο δέ, εἰ μὴ διαβάλλοιμι αὐτὸν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, δώσειν τῷ παιδὶ πολλὰ ἐσθλὰ καὶ ἀγαθά. ἐγὼ μὲν δὴ [p. 115] ἔπαθόν τι πρὸς ταῦτα, ὁ δὲ διάγει με πολὺν ἤδη χρόνον καὶ τὸν ἐμὸν οἶκον ἔχει μόνος οὐδὲν μέτριον οὐδὲ ἀληθὲς φρονῶν.’ ἤρετο οὖν ὁ σοφὸς πάλιν, εἰ πλησίον εἴη ὁ παῖς, ἡ δὲ οὐκ ἔφη, πολλὰ μὲν γὰρ ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἀφικέσθαι αὐτὸν πρᾶξαι ‘ὁ δ᾽ ἀπειλεῖ κρημνοὺς καὶ βάραθρα καὶ ἀποκτενεῖν μοι τὸν υἱόν, εἰ δικαζοίμην αὐτῷ δεῦρο.’ ‘θάρσει,’ ἔφη ὁ σοφός ‘οὐ γὰρ ἀποκτενεῖ αὐτὸν ἀναγνοὺς ταῦτα’ καί τινα ἐπιστολὴν ἀνασπάσας τοῦ κόλπου ἔδωκε τῇ γυναικί, ἐπέσταλτο δὲ ἄρα ἡ ἐπιστολὴ πρὸς τὸ εἴδωλον ξὺν ἀπειλῇ καὶ ἐκπλήξει.

Quote:

I have highlighted what looks to be the instances (devil, demon, ghost).

Which of these translates from δαίμων in the Greek text?

See above. As far as I can make out through a very cursory reading, all but the one your translation renders as "ghost".

Quote:

Additionally, compare the bolded bit The "daimon" drives him out into desert places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luk 8:29

(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.
For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters;
and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

How much similarity is there in the Greek construction of these two bits?

Philostratus
ἀλλ᾽ ἐς τὰ ἔρημα τῶν χωρίων ἐκτρέπει

Luke

ἠλαύνετο ἀπὸ τοῦ δαιμονίου εἰς τὰς ἐρήμους.

Two totally different verbs.

ἐκτρέπω
1.to turn out of the course, to turn aside, c. acc., Hdt., attic:—Pass. and Mid., c. gen. to turn aside from, Soph.: absol. to turn aside, Hdt., Xen.
2.to turn a person off the road, order him out of the way, Soph.:—Pass. and Mid., ἐκτρέπεσθαί τινα to get out of one's way, avoid him, Dem.

ἐλαύνω
I.Radic. sense : to drive, drive on, set in motion, of driving flocks, Hom.; so aor. mid. ἠλασάμην Il.: often of chariots, to drive, id=Il., Hdt.; also, ἐλ. ἵππον to ride it, id=Hdt.; ἐλ. νῆα to row it, Od.:—in this sense the acc. was omitted, and the Verb became intr., to go in a chariot, to drive, μάστιξεν δ᾽ ἐλάαν (sc. ἵππους) he whipped them on, Il.; βῆ δ᾽ ἐλάαν ἐπὶ κύματα he drove on over the waves, id=Il.; διὰ νύκτα ἐλάαν to travel the night through, Od.; — to ride, Hdt., etc.; to march, id=Hdt.; to row, Od.
b.in this intr. sense, it sometimes took an acc. loci, γαλήνην ἐλαύνειν to sail the calm sea, i. e. over it, id=Hdt.; ἐλαύνειν δρόμον to run a course, Ar.
2.to drive away, like ἀπελαύνω, of stolen cattle, Hom., Xen.: —so in Mid., Hom.
3.to drive away, expel, Il., Trag.
4.to drive to extremities, ἄδην ἐλόωσι πολέμοιο will harass him till he has had enough of war, Il.; ἄδην ἐλάαν κακότητος shall persecute him till he has had enough, Od.:—then in attic to persecute, attack, harass, Soph., etc.
5.intr. in expressions like ἐς τοσοῦτον ἤλασαν, they drove it so far (where πρᾶγμα must be supplied), Hdt.:—hence, to push on, go on, Eur., Plat.
II.to strike, ἐλάτηισιν πόντον ἐλαύνοντες, cf. Lat. remis impellere, Il.
2.to strike with a weapon, but never with a missile, id=Il.:— c. dupl. acc., τὸν μὲν ἔλασ᾽ ὦμον him he struck on the shoulder, id=Il.; χθόνα ἤλασε μετώπωι struck earth with his forehead, Od.
3.to drive or thrust through, δόρυ διὰ στήθεσφιν ἔλασσε Il.; and in Pass. to go through, id=Il.
III.in metaph. senses:
1.to beat with a hammer, Lat. ducere, to beat out metal, Il.; περὶ δ᾽ ἕρκος ἔλασσε κασσιτέρου around he made a fence of beaten tin, id=Il.
2.to draw a line of wall or a trench, Lat. ducere murum, Hom., etc.; τεῖχος ἐς τὸν ποταμὸν τοὺς ἀγκῶνας ἐλήλαται the wall has its angles carried down to the river, Hdt.; ὄγμον ἐλαύνειν to work one's way down a ridge or swathe in reaping or mowing, Il.; ὄρχον ἀμπελίδος ἐλ. to draw a line of vines, i. e. plant them in line, Ar.
3.κολωιὸν ἐλαύνειν to prolong the brawl, Il.

Time to learn Greek, Pete.

In any case, there is no doubt -- unless you read the text through agenda glasses -- that the δαίμων in this Philostratus piece is a demon, an "evil spirit".

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-01-2013, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG

IV, 20, 157 f.

where he depicts Apollonius healing many who are said to be sick because they are possessed by "demons"

Book 4, CHAPTER XX

Quote:

Now while he was discussing the question of libations, there chanced to be present in his audience a young dandy who bore so evil a reputation for licentiousness that his conduct had long been the subject of coarse street-corner songs. His home was Corcyra, and he traced his pedigree to Alcinous the Phaeacian who entertained Odysseus. Apollonius then was talking about libations, and was urging them not to drink out of a particular cup, but to reserve it for the gods, without ever touching it or drinking out of it. But when he also urged them to have handles on the cup, and to pour the libation over the handle, because that is the part at which men are least likely to drink, the youth burst out into loud and coarse laughter, and quite drowned his voice.

Then Apollonius looked up and said: "It is not yourself that perpetrates this insult, but the demon, who drives you without your knowing it." And in fact the youth was, without knowing it, possessed by a devil; for he would laugh at things that no one else laughed at, and then would fall to weeping for no reason at all, and he would talk and sing to himself. Now most people thought that it was boisterous humor of youth which led him into excesses; but he was really the mouthpiece of a devil, though it only seemed a drunken frolic in which on that occasion he was indulging.

Now, when Apollonius gazed on him, the ghost in him began to utter cries of fear and rage, such as one hears from people who are being branded or racked; and the ghost swore that he would leave the you man alone and never take possession of any man again. But Apollonius addressed him with anger, as a master might a shifty, rascally, and shameless slave and so on, and he ordered him to quit the young man and show by a visible sign that he had done so.

"I will throw down yonder statue," said the devil, and pointed to one of the images which were there in the king's portico, for there it was that the scene took place. But when the statue began by moving gently, and then fell down, it would defy anyone to describe the hubbub which arose thereat and the way they clapped their hand with wonder.

But the young man rubbed his eyes as if he had just woke up, and he looked towards the rays of the sun, and assumed a modest aspect, as all had their attention concentrated on him; for he no longer showed himself licentious, nor did he stare madly about, but he had returned to his own self, as thoroughly as if he had been treated with drugs; and he gave up his dainty dress and summery garments and the rest of his sybaritic way of life, and he fell in love with the austerity of philosophers, and donned their cloak, and stripping off his old self modeled his life and future upon that of Apollonius

I have highlighted again the contending terms (demon, devil, ghost) in blue.

Which of these translates from δαίμων in the Greek text?

διαλεγομένου δὲ αὐτοῦ περὶ τοῦ σπένδειν παρέτυχε μὲν τῷ λόγῳ μειράκιον τῶν ἁβρῶν οὕτως ἀσελγὲς νομιζόμενον, ὡς γενέσθαι ποτὲ καὶ ἁμαξῶν ᾆσμα, πατρὶς δὲ αὐτῷ Κέρκυρα ἦν καὶ ἐς Ἀλκίνουν ἀνέφερε τὸν ξένον τοῦ Ὀδυσσέως τὸν Φαίακα, καὶ διῄει μὲν ὁ Ἀπολλώνιος περὶ τοῦ σπένδειν, ἐκέλευε δὲ μὴ πίνειν τοῦ ποτηρίου τούτου, φυλάττειν δὲ αὐτὸ τοῖς θεοῖς ἄχραντόν τε καὶ ἄποτον. ἐπεὶ δὲ καὶ ὦτα ἐκέλευσε τῷ ποτηρίῳ ποιεῖσθαι καὶ σπένδειν κατὰ τὸ οὖς, ἀφ᾽ οὗ μέρους ἥκιστα πίνουσιν ἄνθρωποι, τὸ μειράκιον κατεσκέδασε τοῦ λόγου πλατύν τε καὶ ἀσελγῆ γέλωτα:

ὁ δὲ ἀναβλέψας ἐς αὐτὸ ‘οὐ σὺ’ ἔφη ‘ταῦτα ὑβρίζεις, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ δαίμων, ὃς ἐλαύνει σε οὐκ εἰδότα.’ ἐλελήθει δὲ ἄρα δαιμονῶν τὸ μειράκιον: ἐγέλα τε γὰρ ἐφ᾽ οἷς οὐδεὶς ἕτερος καὶ μετέβαλλεν ἐς τὸ κλάειν αἰτίαν οὐκ ἔχον, διελέγετό τε πρὸς ἑαυτὸν καὶ ᾖδε. καὶ οἱ μὲν πολλοὶ τὴν νεότητα σκιρτῶσαν ᾤοντο ἐκφέρειν αὐτὸ ἐς ταῦτα, ὁ δ᾽ ὑπεκρίνετο ἄρα τῷ δαίμονι καὶ ἐδόκει παροινεῖν, ἃ ἐπαρῴνει τότε, ὁρῶντός τε ἐς αὐτὸ τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου, δεδοικότως τε καὶ ὀργίλως φωνὰς ἠφίει τὸ εἴδωλον, ὁπόσαι καομένων τε καὶ στρεβλουμένων εἰσίν, ἀφεξεσθαί τε τοῦ μειρακίου ὤμνυ καὶ μηδενὶ ἀνθρώπων [p. 140] ἐμπεσεῖσθαι. τοῦ δὲ οἷον δεσπότου πρὸς ἀνδράποδον ποικίλον πανοῦργόν τε καὶ ἀναιδὲς καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα ξὺν ὀργῇ λέγοντος καὶ κελεύοντος αὐτῷ ξὺν τεκμηρίῳ ἀπαλλάττεσθαι ‘τὸν δεῖνα’ ἔφη ‘καταβαλῶ ἀνδριάντα’ δείξας τινὰ τῶν περὶ τὴν Βασίλειον στοάν, πρὸς ᾗ ταῦτα ἐπράττετο: ἐπεὶ δὲ ὁ ἀνδριὰς ὑπεκινήθη πρῶτον, εἶτα ἔπεσε, τὸν μὲν θόρυβον τὸν ἐπὶ τούτῳ καὶ ὡς ἐκρότησαν ὑπὸ θαύματος τί ἄν τις γράφοι; τὸ δὲ μειράκιον, ὥσπερ ἀφυπνίσαν τούς τε ὀφθαλμοὺς ἔτριψε καὶ πρὸς τὰς αὐγὰς τοῦ ἡλίου εἶδεν αἰδῶ τε ἐπεσπάσατο πάντων ἐς αὐτὸ ἐστραμμένων ἀσελγές τε οὐκέτι ἐφαίνετο, οὐδὲ ἄτακτον βλέπον, ἀλλ᾽ ἐπανῆλθεν ἐς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ φύσιν μεῖον οὐδὲν ἢ εἰ φαρμακοποσίᾳ ἐκέχρητο, μεταβαλόν τε τῶν χλανιδίων καὶ λῃδίων καὶ τῆς ἄλλης συβάριδος ἐς ἔρωτα ἦλθεν αὐχμοῦ καὶ τρίβωνος καὶ ἐς τὰ τοῦ Ἀπολλωνίου ἤθη ἀπεδύσατο.

A quick glance at this shows that the first "demon" in this older (1912) translation of the text and the first 2 "devils" do.

The first "Ghost" translates τὸ εἴδωλον (shape, phantom, Il. 5.449, Od. 4.796; esp. pl., of the shades in the nether world, βροτῶν εἴδωλα καμόντων, Od. 11.476.). The second is not a translation of anything, but is Conybeare's inference from the text. As is the last use of "devil" . It is the implied subject of καταβαλῶ.

Time to learn some Greek, Pete, especially if you think that δαίμων is not being used here with the sense of "demon" evil spirit.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 04-01-2013, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quite obviously non Christians used it before the 4th century with the meaning of "evil spirit" AND, notably, assumed that that the readers/hearers of the works in which they employed the term would have little to no difficulty understanding what they were speaking of when they used it.

So far you have demonstrated use of "daimon" with the meaning of "evil spirit" in Philostratus c.220 CE, but I will now also concede that Pausanius c.170 CE used this meaning as well.

Quote:

But if you wish to say that Matthew precedes Philostratus' Life,

Well that's what most people are saying about Matthew.

Quote:

... you'll not only have to admit that δαίμων came to mean "evil spirit" among non Christian Greeks (how, one wonders? did they learn it from Christians? if they were anti Christian, why would they use Christain meanings of words when they knew these words nmeant something else?)...

I agree that it would be highly unlikely that the Christians of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries could influence the meaning and use of this term "daimon" in Philostratus and Pausanius, who never once refer to the Christians.

Quote:

... but give up as false your contention that Christianity was a 4th century invention.

You can't have it both ways.

Which is it, Pete?

I would have to give up the notion that Matthew's use influenced Philostratus and Pausanius.

If I truly had to defend the notion that Matthew wrote in the 1st (or even early 2nd century) I would have to explain why Matthew has one of the earliest (if not the earliest) instances of this use among the Greek literature. I would find this to be a problem.

How would people answer it?

a) Matthew was not the earliest exemplar of use (refer to earlier citation)

b) Matthew was earliest, but it is a coincidence that Philostratus follows.

c) Other explanation?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-01-2013, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quite obviously non Christians used it before the 4th century with the meaning of "evil spirit" AND, notably, assumed that that the readers/hearers of the works in which they employed the term would have little to no difficulty understanding what they were speaking of when they used it.

So far you have demonstrated use of "daimon" with the meaning of "evil spirit" in Philostratus c.220 CE, but I will now also concede that Pausanius c.170 CE used this meaning as well.

I've also demonstrated that it has that meaning in Odyssey 10.64 as well. And in Areteas too.

Quote:

But if you wish to say that Matthew precedes Philostratus' Life,

Well that's what most people are saying about Matthew.

But are you saying that this is true. Yes or no.

Quote:

... you'll not only have to admit that δαίμων came to mean "evil spirit" among non Christian Greeks (how, one wonders? did they learn it from Christians? if they were anti Christian, why would they use Christain meanings of words when they knew these words nmeant something else?)...

I agree that it would be highly unlikely that the Christians of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries could influence the meaning and use of this term "daimon" in Philostratus and Pausanius, who never once refer to the Christians.

Quote:

... but give up as false your contention that Christianity was a 4th century invention.

You can't have it both ways.

Which is it, Pete?

I would have to give up the notion that Matthew's use influenced Philostratus and Pausanius.

If you maintained your claim that Christianity was a 4th century invention, yes.

Quote:

If I truly had to defend the notion that Matthew wrote in the 1st (or even early 2nd century) I would have to explain why Matthew has one of the earliest (if not the earliest) instances of this use among the Greek literature. I would find this to be a problem.

But you haven't shown that he has one of the earliest uses.

Quote:

How would people answer it?

Answer what?

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.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 04-02-2013, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

So far you have demonstrated use of "daimon" with the meaning of "evil spirit" in Philostratus c.220 CE, but I will now also concede that Pausanius c.170 CE used this meaning as well.

I've also demonstrated that it has that meaning in Odyssey 10.64 as well.

From Hom. Od. 10.64 at perseus

Quote:

πῶς ἦλθες, Ὀδυσεῦ; τίς τοι κακὸς ἔχραε δαίμων;

I am guessing this is a translation of the above:

http://classics.mit.edu/Homer/odyssey.10.x.html

Quote:

'Ulysses, what brings you here? What god has been ill-treating you?

http://poetryintranslation.com/PITBR.../Odyssey10.htm

Quote:

“Odysseus, how do you come to be here? What cruel god opposed you?

In any event does not κακὸς qualify δαίμων as bad or evil or cruel?

Quote:

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.

There were a number of reasons for choosing to investigate the Greek word for "daimon" in isolation, without bringing in the whole host of derivatives. The first reason was perhaps just curiousity. As you know I have high regard for the account of Ammianus. (I would love to read his obituary to Constantine). In his obituary to Constantius we have seen he quotes from the poet Menander:

"A daemon is assigned to every man
At birth, to be the leader of his life".

I became curious about what the pagan Greeks like Ammianus thought this "daimon" to be, and have been looking at as many references as time permits as this thread attests.

Ammianus lists certain figures from antiquity in whom this "daimon" (as the individual god or goddess) was exemplified. They include Pythagoras, Socrates, Hermes Trismegistus, Apollonius of Tyana, and Plotinus. These figures of antiquity interest me. Ammianus then says about Plotinus:

Quote:

[he] ventured to discourse on this mystic theme, and to present a profound discussion on the question by what elements these spirits are linked with men's souls.

IMO Ammianus is taking the opportunity to do some theological PR for the pagan version of the "Holy Spirit", by revisiting the Greek concept of the "daimon".

Translations of the stoics like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius also provide instances of the positive aspect to the "daimon".

It's a real pity we don't have any of the books written by Apollonius of Tyana.

All this has been instructional.

I don't need a linguistic reason to be precise.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Robert Tulip · 04-02-2013, 06:18 AM

Reading this thread is an amazingly frustrating experience. All the comments about capacity to read Greek are irrelevant to the topic.

The shift in meaning of daimon from BC to AD was political. Christians wanted to portray all Greek religion as evil. Therefore this venerable term, applied to the conscience of Socrates regarding love in the Symposium, was dragged into the mud as exclusively evil, while good was reserved for the non-daimonic, ie the angelic host of Christian belief. The shift was a central trope of the spiritual warfare against paganism. Context was required to understand pre-Christian moral standing of daimon. But for Christians, daimon became universally evil. Very simple.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-01-2013, 09:54 AM	#353
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Pete doesn't read texts. He sifts through them for sentences and phrases (in English) that he can take out of context to further his ultimate goal - the stupid fourth century conspiracy theory.

04-02-2013, 06:18 AM	#360
Robert Tulip Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Canberra, Australia Posts: 635	Reading this thread is an amazingly frustrating experience. All the comments about capacity to read Greek are irrelevant to the topic. The shift in meaning of daimon from BC to AD was political. Christians wanted to portray all Greek religion as evil. Therefore this venerable term, applied to the conscience of Socrates regarding love in the Symposium, was dragged into the mud as exclusively evil, while good was reserved for the non-daimonic, ie the angelic host of Christian belief. The shift was a central trope of the spiritual warfare against paganism. Context was required to understand pre-Christian moral standing of daimon. But for Christians, daimon became universally evil. Very simple.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.