Iskander

Who infected early greek thought with eternal hellfire and dedicate busy demon was the question and still is.

Such hellfire and such fanatic torturing fulltime demons are not to be found in the torah, or in early Greek literature

stephan huller

no I am very aware you were here before in the golden age of the forum. i was and am quite happy to see you back

Jeffrey Gibson

Who said they were? In any case, you have to yet to show -- through the citation of primary texts -- that anyone "infected {??] early greek [sic] thought with eternal hellfire and dedicate busy demon [sic]."

Are you going to do so or not?

Jeffrey

tanya

Thank you, Jeffrey, for your time, and your appropriate questions.

The issue raised, relating to the OP suggestion that δαίμων acquired a novel definition under the control of the Christians, (changing the meaning from supernatural entity of neutral connotation, to one exclusively evil), is whether or not the text, claimed to have been originally composed by mid second century CE author Justin Martyr, could be introduced as evidence for forgery, (incorrectly identified by me as "interpolation")? Text identified as that of Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho states:This last sentence is a modification of the text of Psalm 96:5

(Justin Martyr):
For all the gods of the nations are demons but the Lord made the heavens.

LXX:
ὅτι πάντες οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνια ὁ δὲ κύριος τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἐποίησεν

(World English Version)
For all the gods of the peoples are idols, but Yahweh made the heavens.

Hebrew text:
96:5 KY KL-'aLHY H'yMYM 'aLYLYM VYHVH ShMYM 'yShH.

Latin translation:
96:5 omnes enim dii populorum sculptilia Dominus autem caelos fecit

Douay Rheims Bible:
96:5 For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils : but the Lord made the heavens.

Codex Sinaiticus
οτι παντεϲ οι θεοι των εθνων δαιμονια ο δε κϲ τουϲ ουρανουϲ εποιηϲεν

Interpretation:
1. The word "Lord", i.e. hebrew adonai, greek kurios, latin dominus, appears in LXX, but not in the Masoretic text, suggesting to me, at least, that in copying documents, the Christians manipulated LXX to conform to New Testament writings. The Hebrew text states YHWH, not adonai. Codex Sinaiticus uses the abbreviation ks, no need to write it out, since everyone knew the meaning by the fourth century.

2, The LXX inserts δαιμόνια, as a false translation of "idols" (Latin "sculptilia"), unless I am wrong, and "idol" had been synonymous with "demon", two thousand years ago.

3. Justin Martyr or the scribe who copied his text a thousand years later, faithfully maintained the forgery, if that is what it had been.

Jeffrey Gibson

But as we've seen, not only is the idea that the word δαίμων was not used before Christianity and by pre/non-Christian Greek speakers with the meaning of "evil spirit", let alone that the word ever had "neutral connotations" (what does that mean??), is absolute horseshit, there's also the fact that the early Church Fathers (who Pete now seems to be claiming in order to make his case were not post Constantinian Eusebian inventions!) used the word with sense other than "evil spirit" (see Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon pp. 327-328 -- something you can bet that Pete never consulted, even if, as is doubtful, he is aware of it).

Do you have any idea what the word "forgery" means or what the act of forgery entails? Would the use of the word "demons" as the translation of a word that did not mean/connote "demons" actually be "forgery"?


How is this evidence of forgery? -- and even if it is, what relevance does this have in proving the false claim that it was Christians who gave the word δαίμων the meaning of "evil spirit". Was there no pre Christian Jewish tradition of regarding idols as demons?


And thus we illustrate the dangers of using an English translation of a Greek text as the basis of exegesis of, and comments upon, and judgements about, that text.

Here's the Greek text of the your Justin quote.

ὅτι πάντες οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνια, ὁ δὲ κύριος τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἐποίησεν

How -- and in what way -- is Justin's ὅτι πάντες οἱ θεοὶ τῶν ἐθνῶν δαιμόνια, ὁ δὲ κύριος τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἐποίησεν a modification of the Greek text of Ps. 96:5?

Please note that in order for your assumption to be true, you have to demonstrate that the use of Kurios as the translation equivalent of וַֽ֝יהוָ֗ה
was something that only Christians ever did. Do you know for a fact that this is the case? Is there no LXX MS evidence that shows pre Christian (and post Christian) Jewish tendency to do so? What's the evidence in Symmachus? In Aquila? In Philo, in the Pseudepigrapha? In the DSS?

Inserts or uses? It would be in your interest if you wish to have the reputation of a disinterested exegete/scholar/expert/informed lay person (let alone one who's claims should be taken seriously) to stop using loaded and misleading language when you describe what translators do.

Hebrew אֱלִילִ֑ים

Yes, you are wrong -- and woefully uninformed as well. Have a look at the section on "The OT and Later Jewish View of Demons" in the TDNT article δαίμων, δαιμόνιον, δαιμονίζομαι, δαιμονιώδης, δεισιδαίμων, δεισιδαιμονία and the entry on δαιμόνιον, -ου in Lust, Eynikel, Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint : Revised Edition.

It's not. And, again, even if it is, it would hardly prove Pete's claim.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, they have. And if you would ever look at the what is known as the critical apparatus in the critical editions of the NT, and the textual commentary sections of critical commentaries on the Gospels, or such basic text critical resources as Metzger's Commentary on the Greek Text of the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk), you'd see them.

How someone like you who not only lays claim to knowledge of matters NT, but who poses as someone to whom we should listen when you make assertions about the NT and early Christianity, can not be aware of these things (not to mention steeped in them) is beyond me.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Could you provide me with your textual evidence for this claim please? Is this what we find in attested in Lewis & Short or in Lampe?



Really? What is your evidence for this claim? Which political climate was this? Give me dates, please. And where exactly did this occur? Was it a universal phenomenon?

Would you please provide me with primary evidence that shows that "church authorities" (which ones? can you name names?) did what you claim they did? Where are these events mentioned and documented in ancient sources?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Where and when exactly, Pete, does the notion that δαίμων meant "heavenly twin" appear as a central concept in Greek philosophy?

Dated primary sources, please!


Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps it might be understood as a matter of perspective.
From the Torah and Jewish perspective all of the invisible elohim (the אלילים elee'leem 'null-gods') were shadd (devils or demons) in the understood negative connotations.

But from the perspective of any other non-Jewish peoples, their invisible elohim or shadd would have been considered at least the equivalent of, if not even superior to that elohim and shad worshiped by the Jews.

The names were different, and whom was the favored nation, but not necessarily the basic concepts of where the Deity resided or of what the Deity controlled.

(It is necessary to emphasize invisible elohim as the Semitic term 'elohim' is also used in reference to powerful men, even those who were not necessarily conceived of as being actual deities.)

These non-Hebrew peoples certainly would not have regarded their own nations invisable Elohim (Deities) as being merely 'idols', 'devils', or 'demons'.
The negative and perjorative connotations expressed within the Hebrew (and translated Greek) texts are a result of being viewed from an adversive and very exclusionary Israeli national perspective.
That being that Israel was the most favored nation, and its Elohim YHWH reigned supreme over all other elohim.
And being politically and religiously exclusionary, there was no access by non-Israeli outsiders to YHWH's favor except by way of submitting to Israeli authority and rule, or through conversion and into total absorbtion into the nation of Israel.
One had to either be accepted by, enslaved by, or become a Jew to be regarded as other than outside of 'The Chosen' and The Promises'.

A perspective that the peoples of other nations and governments were none to eager to accept.

The NT form of religious system was an attempt to rework and remove that Israeli/Jewish restrictiveness.
Now (allegedly) anyone at all could become a member of the nation of Israel, an Israelite 'by faith' without need to do what The Torah or the nation of Israel's religious leaders had required.

The result of that is the subsequent rise of 40,000 differing luanatic religious cult denominations all doing their own thing, while claiming to be the 'true Israel', and vying for which among them can be the biggest liars in town.

tanya

Thank you, Jeffrey, your input here, as with your numerous posts available for scanning in the archives, is genuinely invaluable. Very much appreciated.

Yes, you are correct, I have quite possibly used the word "forgery" without an adequate understanding of its essence.

This is my understanding of "forgery":

synonyms: counterfeit - fake - falsification - imitation

In my mind, if not in reality, I picture a scribe, in the middle ages, 11th century, say, or 14th century, working in a monastery in Italy, in possession of an actual manuscript, or copy thereof, CHANGING the text of Justin Martyr, so as to ensure conformance to the current doctrine of the church. To me, that is forgery.

I lack proof, of course, since I have no authentic version of Justin Martyr, to employ for comparison, therefore, my allegation is without merit.

YES. ABSOLUTELY. To my way of thinking, that is the brilliance of Pete's OP. This is a sensational topic, not only because we can investigate the historical evolution of the meaning of the word, but also because of the very significance associated with the notion of "demon", which we all agree upon, in today's world.

In our own lifetimes, Jeffrey, think of how the word "gay" has changed in meaning.

In the 40's, a gay person was someone having a jolly good time, maybe with men, maybe with women, maybe involving sex, maybe not. A child could have been described as "gay", while riding on a merry go round at the local circus or entertainment park. Today, "gay" is a quasi-pejorative term, depending on the proclivities of the recipient audience.

Demon is a word which has a UNIVERSAL meaning, quite distinct from the ancient Greek meaning.
If you have a citation, I will be glad to examine it. Otherwise, your question is answered in the negative. Demons were not intrinsically "Jewish". They were intrinsically Persian/Hindu, not found in the Hebrew tradition. The Christians absorbed the Persian notions, and altered the ANCIENT GREEK usage of Daimon, to incorporate these Persian ideas. Thus did "demons" become, by the time of Justin Martyr, EVIL spirits, a connotation not found in ancient Jewish manuscripts. The LXX DOES use the word Daimon, in the same sense as the Christians, but in my opinion, (regardless of what Metzger et al write, or believe), the LXX has been altered from the original Hebrew text. Sheshbazzar has illustrated, to my satisfaction, if no one else's, that El Shaddi is NOT a "demon". Of course, "idol" may ALSO be an erroneous translation. That is why I prefer Mark 5:2, as found in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, rather than Psalm 96:5. I believe, doesn't make it fact, that Christians modified our oldest extant copy of LXX, i.e. that found in Sinaiticus.

That's not the question Jeffrey. The question is how does LXX, codex sinaiticus, version of Psalm 96:5 subvert, or, if you dislike that English word, "alter", the ORIGINAL text, found in the Masoretic text, or DSS?

1. Substitution of Kurios for YHWH;
2. Substitution of "daimon" for the Hebrew "shadd".

The LXX is corrupt, in my view. If you wish to convince me to the contrary, it is simple:
The ball is in your court, Jeffrey. All you have to do, to prove me wrong, is provide a single illustration from DSS, showing that the folks living in Qumran, in 50 CE, (writing in Hebrew, or, alternatively, storing documents, written elsewhere, in the caves nearby), DID alter the text from the one which we call today, Masoretic. I claim that Psalm 96:5, in the original Hebrew, made no reference to "demons", and therefore, insertion of the word, demons, in the text of LXX, constitutes forgery. I do not claim that Justin Martyr's manuscript (his only one), presents a forgery of the text of LXX Psalm 96:5. No, I think that scribe copied the text exactly as he had been instructed to do, regardless of what Justin Martyr himself had written.