mountainman

The point here is that it also always had the possible meaning of being a good spirit. With the Christian usage it was no longer acceptable to have a good meaning. I see this as a subversion of the possibility of the "Good daimon".






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Josephus was preserved exclusively by so-called Christian operatives.









εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

avi

I am not disputing you, on this point, well expressed, thanks.

No, my argument is too verbose. I hope you can reduce it to its essence:

Prior to Christianity, as noted by Mountainman, above, δαίμων did NOT refer EXCLUSIVELY to a sentient, anthropomorphic, supernatural power, capable of inhuman feats, entirely focused on promoting and creating EVIL.

You have explained, as has Jeffrey, that this notion of δαίμων as an evil spirit, (not a helpful, benign figure), is not unique to Christianity, that is, to write, that ancient Greek literature DOES contain references to δαίμων with precisely that frame of reference--an instigator of evil. I am not disputing that point. I claim, ostensibly in harmony with the OP, the notion that, prior to Christianity, this idea of δαίμων as a PURELY EVIL concoction, akin to, perhaps even a relative of, SATAN, himself, WITHOUT any notion that δαίμων COULD represent a positive force, of great potential beneficence, is simply non-existent. It was, in my view, the CHRISTIANS, not the pagan Greeks, who enforced, literally by force, the notion that δαίμων were EXCLUSIVELY evil, bereft of any utility to mankind. It is to prove that aspect, contrary to the sentiment expressed in the OP, for which I am soliciting reference from the ancient Greek literature.

I cited Justin, because his texts, extant today in but a single manuscript, which I believe represents simple forgery elaborated by the monastery in Italy during the Inquisition, clearly establishes the prevailing notion that δαίμων are 100% evil.

Shall I rephrase my earlier question, then? Which patristic author (excluding "Irenaeus", another phantom) cites the work of Justin?

Sabine Grant

:blank:

Jeffrey Gibson

You might wish to note not only how "relatives" of Satan, like Mastema and Belial/Beliar are depicted in the DSS and the Pseudepigrapha, but that in the NT the Satan is also depicted as he is in Job as a servant of God. He is hardly, or even typically, purely evil, let alone an independent agent.

I suggest you have a look at the discussion of Satan not only in George Caird's Principalities and Powers but in Walter Wink's Naming the Powers and in Henry Ansgar Kelly's Satan: A Biography (or via: amazon.co.uk) Your view of who and what Satan is in early Christianity is woefully un informed.

You are also somewhat ignorant of the usage of δαίμων in the Patristic witness. Have a look at Lampe where you'll find your claim falsified.

I'd be interested in knowing where in Greek literature δαίμων represents a positive force, of great potential beneficence. In what texts can this notion be found?

And BTW, the OP speaks nothing of Satan, nor does the (4th century) Christian text (Matthew) that Pete appeals to as evidence of his claim.

Jeffrey

stephan huller

I just saw that Wink requested info on Morton Smith back in the day under the Freedom of Information Act to see if they had an FBI file on him I presume.

stephan huller

His name always struck me as being great for a Bond villain

Jeffrey Gibson

Um .. pardon my bluntness, but who cares? How does this move the discussion forward?

Jeffrey

stephan huller

it doesn't. i apologize for distracting from the serious business of pretending Pete gives a fuck about any of this

Jeffrey Gibson

It would have been far more responsible and adult of you if you had just said "it doesn't. I apologize." than to have engaged in this self serving and petulant "shift the blame for my actions to Pete" response.

Cue the ad hominem.

Jeffrey