Atheos

.

Please continue this discussion (as you have for several days since that time) without bringing moderator activities into the topic.

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, you have. But the only reason you have for doing so is to exclude data that counts against your subversion thesis. If you don't take this position (quite counter to everything you've been about the date of the origin of Christianty and Christian writings) , then you have to admit that your thesis is wrong since there is pre 4th century evidence from "pagan writers" which shows that they used δαίμων to mean "evil spirit". It's an example of having your cake and eating it too.

And do you not recognize that it commits you to saying that all post 1st century writers who used δαίμων to mean evil spirit, like Philostratus and Pausanius ( Graeciae descriptio Book 6, chapter 6, section 11) knew and read the NT. Where else did they get the idea that δαίμων meant evil spirit if not from there? Are you willing to agree to that as well?




And misread.

Made or described for what it was known to be? In any case, it's testimony that non/pre Christian Greeks knew that a δαίμων could be (and was) an evil Spirit. And that is what is at issue.




So what? So is Matthew. Are you saying that Josephus read Matthew? Did his readers? If not, and if Josephus knew (how could he?), as he must if δαίμων was something that only Christians knew to mean "evil spirit", that his readers would not comprehend or know what he was saying or thinking a δαίμων was in this passage, why would he have used δαίμων and not some other word?

Why? Are you saying that Alexander has read Christian literature or knows of the way Christians used δαίμων? And if he was unaware that δαίμων was used with a meaning other than what he thought it meant, wouldn't what was said in Matthew have been incomprehensible to him?

We have seen no such thing. In fact just the opposite. And in any case, the issue is what Aretaeus thinks.


Leaving aside the fact that these are not all instances to be adduced, all we need is one to show that your claim is bogus.

OK. I'm done with this. I refuse to deal any longer with someone who not only shifts his claims about the date of the origin of Christian literature in order to exclude data that would show other claims he makes about Christianity are not true, but who continues to misread and misrepresent the evidence presented to him against these claims.

In any case, it's tine for you to put up or shut up, Pete. Write up your claim about the meaning of δαίμων in pre Christian literature and how it was "subverted" by Christians and send it to the Classics List to see what those who read Greek and who know the literature think of your claim, not to mention your exclusion of the use of cognates of δαίμων and adjectivised uses of the term as illegitimate for determining what non/pre Christian writers thought δαίμων meant.


Here's the address: CLASSICS-L@LSV.UKY.EDU

Or if that's too much for you at the moment, write up an argument that δαίμων does not mean evil spirit in Philostratus Life 4, and send that in for review

Jeffrey

stephan huller

yes the "for the sake of the OP" argument is a complete cop out Pete. You add all the other evidence you evade for your 4th century conspiracy theory and it comes to either

1. conceding this debate Jeffrey or
2. giving up on your whole conspiracy theory

Since I know you will never admit to 2 let's have you concede and move on. You can't use this line of argument any more

mountainman

Just a minute. On at least one, and possibly a few occasions in this thread, I have stated that I am not excluding the data from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centiuries, but relegating the examination of that data to a second phase study.



But is there such evidence as you assert? You have furnished a good number of instances which turned out to be instances of "daimonion" and not "daimon" and thus not relevant to the specific nature of the OP. In other instances, I have responded that the translator of the Greek could just as easily have rendered the term "daimon" by the term "spirit" rather than "demon".


But is there such evidence as you assert?

I would like to see this evidence and evaluate it independently.

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


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

Pausanius refers to this "ghost" but also describes it as the "Hero". 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. The oracle commands them to propitiate the Hero but as they are engaged in this, along comes the boxer Euthymus in shining armour and wins the day against the "ghost".

The ghost is not made explicit as an "evil demon". It was supposed to be the ghost of a Hero who sailed with Odysseus, who was stoned to death and somehow started to take revenge. The Pythian priestess 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. Is the Pythian priestess therefore "evil" because of these commands involving "the fairest maidens" in town each year?

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".











I reject your notion that I am excluding data.

I have followed up most of the citations you have provided, one by one, only to find that they are not as unambiguous as you would have me believe. The Pausanius "ghost" instance above is a typical example.


I have already responded to this in another thread as follows:


This is translated from the Greek to English by F.C. Conybeare. I am assuming the original Greek word translated as "demon" was "daimon". But how do we know that Philostratus, if he had been standing by Conybeare and had known English, would have translated "daimon" as "demon" and not for example a "spirit" or a "semi-divine being inferior to the Gods". Do you understand my point with this question?

It was Coneybeare who rendered this equivalence, and not necessarily Philostratus.

You have not made any substantive response to this argument.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

The OP is not necessarily about the dating of Matthew. It is about another issue. Namely whether Matthew has in fact subverted the meaning of the Greek "daimon" [δαίμων] in his Gospel, and who followed suit in the Gospels of Mark and Luke - perhaps in the 5th century, or at least somewhere between Matthew's authorship date (whenever that may have been) and the assembly of the Greek Textus Receptus.



The real argument in the OP in case you have not surmised it, is the investigation and examination of all instances of use for the Greek term "daimon" [δαίμων]. I stated a number of times I would deal with the BCE instances first, and then move on to the CE instances, which I am now proceeding to do.

See the above post for Pausanius and Philostratus.

If you disagree with my assessments of the textual evidence feel free to speak up.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin

This correction is understandable by you, because of your commitments.

:realitycheck:

But it was the recognition that he was a demon that caused the Ephesians to stone him. The implication is clear that the use of demon is intended here. It wasn't just a (neutral) spirit, but something perceived to be a malevolent being, thus deserving to be stoned. We usually use demon. That's what the text signifies.

:tombstone:

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. Apollonius had to literally coerce the Ephesians to commence the stoning. At this stage the storyline is that the "daimon" gave them all a sudden glance and his eyes were full of fire.

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




We do now. The question is when did this (usual) practice commence.

So far it looks like a traditionally dated Matthew.



Before this implication is accepted, it is necessary and useful to see how Philostratus uses the term elsewhere in the same work, a fact mentioned above somewhere.






εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin

Going back to what I posted earlier and adding in the useless clarification that you've just been through.

(After Apollonius's insistence) it was the recognition that he was a demon that caused the Ephesians to stone him properly. 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.

Christ, given that you've posted it at least twice, you should actually read it. You've vaguely noted the immediate prior sentence:

And as soon as some of them began to take shots and hit him with their stones, the beggar who had seemed to blink and be blind, gave them all a sudden glance and his eyes were full of fire.

That's what caused them to see that he was a demon. When the Ephesians saw the sudden glance and eyes full of fire from the blind man they knew he was something worthy of being stoned. That recognition of being a demon caused him to do a serious job of stoning him. Until that recognition, they were half-hearted, needing coercing. The text cannot be plainer.

The only problem you have here with this being seriously stoned is that you've been bogarting that joint.

Your attempt to assert the falsity of my comment was a failure.

mountainman

So next time I see someone giving me a sudden glance with eyes full of fire I will be absolutely sure that I am in the presence, not of a spirit, but a demon. I see. Did you gain such confidence in classifying spirits and spooks and demons in the field? Perhaps some work experience with Ghostbusters?


What of the other references?





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin

So the next time you see someone who you had believed to be blind giving you a sudden glance with eyes full of fire, you might act like an ignorant Ephesian.

But, back to the text, it makes the recognition that he was a demon to be the cause of them stoning him properly, ie being a demon was the cause of the serious job of stoning, indicating that being a demon in this case was sufficient to cause what happened, ie he deserved to be stoned and was thus bad. Being a demon here is bad.