spin

The text doesn't support your conjecture. Crito merely takes on Socrates' obligation.

Do you think those in charge of an Asklepieion would allow Crito to perform such a deed in their temple? (And there can be no doubt that such temples existed at the time as Aristophanes has his character Plutus put in a temple of Asklepius.)

The existence of temples to Asklepius in Athens and Epidaurus amongst others should caution you against the personal performance of sacrifices. They also point to a well established cultus to Asklepius, which would imply the control of sacrifices to the deity. Crito performing the sacrifice is not an option. That's why the text doesn't deal with sacrifices at all, but of repayment (from the verb ofeilw).

The existence of temples at the time means there were priests and an organized cultus.


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

It's both Socrates' and Crito's obligation -- Socrates says "We owe (ὀφείλομεν)" to Crito and notes that it is Crito's responsibility to give to Askeplius what is his (̀ἀπόδοτε καὶ μὴ ἀμελήσητε).

Why would a thank offering have to be done in a temple? A householder was a priest in his own house and could perform sacrifices at any time to his patron gods.

Here is the text of passage in Plutus that you refer to

410
μὰ Δί' ἀλλ' ὅπερ πάλαι παρεσκευαζόμην
ἐγώ, κατακλίνειν αὐτὸν εἰς ̓Ασκληπιου̂
κράτιστόν ἐστι.

I see no reference to a Temple of Asclepius there. Am I missing something?

Are you actually saying that were no, let alone that there could never be, thank offerings to patron gods made outside of the temples of those gods?

Jeffrey

Toto

Just to follow up on why I suspect that Jeffrey will not email Robert Baird, the Gardner referred to is Laurence Gardner Be sure to read the Amazon review of Gardner's book entitled "A first class ticket to Woo-Woo Land."

Yes, I think we have located a certified crank. But one well worth reading for entertainment value.

Jeffrey Gibson

And the Baigent and Leigh whom Baird also regards as reliable authorities on Pythagoras and therapeute (not to mention the DSS) are the authors (along with Lincoln) of that masterpiece of scholarship Holy Blood and Holy Grail.

Yep. Pete sure can pick em'!

Jeffrey



See

spin

As I said, the text doesn't support your conjecture. There is no suggestion that Crito would do the sacrifice himself.

Asklepius is not one of the traditional gods. Why would you want to consider him as one of a person's "patron gods"?

Had we but world enough and time,
This coyness, lady, were no crime.
- Marvell

Umm, perhaps you might consider the function of εἰς ̓Ασκληπιου̂ in relation to the specific verb and why ̓Ασκληπιου̂ is in the genitive, when εἰς almost invariably takes the accusative.

You haven't established Asklepius as one of the those "patron gods". During the times that the Homeric literature refer to Asklepius wasn't even a god. You cannot, as I understand it, assume that Asklepius was ever treated in the same manner as the more traditional Greek gods.

The existence of a temple centered religion as shown in Plutus suggests the performance of the sacrifice in such a temple.


spin

Jeffrey Gibson

There's no suggestion that he wouldn't.


Even assuming you are correct, are patron gods always traditional gods?


Perhaps you might consider the following data when eis is used with verbs of transport.

metaph., of a person, εἰς τοὺς ἐκείνων μετακεκομίσθαι νόμους J.AJ20.2.3

In addition, if it was to a temple of that Plutus was being sent, then Aristophanes would have written ̓Ασκληπιει̂ου

Really? Then why does he have therapeutae?

You are neglecting the data in 405 that says there are no physicians in Athens.

Quote:

Βλεψίδημος οὔκουν ἰατρὸν εἰσάγειν ἐχρη̂ν τινά; Χρεμύλος τίς δη̂τ' ἰατρός ἐστι νυ̂ν ἐν τῃ̂ πόλει; οὔτε γὰρ ὁ μισθὸς οὐδὲν ἔστ' οὔθ' ἡ τέχνη. Βλεψίδημος σκοπω̂μεν. Χρεμύλος ἀλλ' οὐκ ἔστιν. Βλεψίδημος οὐδ ἐμοὶ δοκει̂.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I should add that in Aristophanes' Wasps 122, when Philokleon seeks his cure, he goes to Asclepius' sanctuary on Aegina.

But whatever the case regarding the existence in Athens of sactuaries of Asclepius may be, Phaedo 118 is not evidence for them.

Jeffrey

spin

The existence of a temple suggests he wouldn't.

The religion you allude to with patron gods seems to be traditional. If this is not the case, why would you consider with a new temple related cultus to adhere to a more traditional approach to sacrifice?

Sorry, I don't understand: τοὺς νόμους is accusative as expected.

No, it's simple ellipsis, eg eis [ton oikon] asklhpiou.

How exactly does your question relate to my earlier statement?

I don't follow your comment. I talked of the existence of a temple centered religion (as evinced by Plutus being laid in [the house] of Asklepius). This existence suggests the performance of sacrifices at the temple. Temples were run as businesses of sorts. Asklepius was a new god on the block, accompanied by temples and there was the opportunity to control a believer's obligations through the temple, just as the priests of Yahweh did in Jerusalem.

Patron gods, as I understand the notion, were based on worship of traditional gods, and you could argue that every father could follow the religious requirements at home. What makes you think that this would be the case with a newly arrived deity, whose temple needed to survive? Sacrifices bring control to temples. I wouldn't expect Socrates to have contemplated Crito himself making the sacrifice.


spin

aa5874

After going through "Against Celsus" by Origen and "Dialogue with Trypho" by Justin Martyr I am more re-inforced in my position that the name "Paul", Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were fabricated as authors after Justin Martyr's writings.

Both "Dialogue with Trypho", claimed to be written around the middle of the 2nd century and "Against Celsus", written around the early 3rd century deal with the same theme, the authenticity or history of Jesus from prophecy to the ascension. Both authors make references to passages that appear to come from the present day NT, but there is a very an obvious alarming difference, Justin Martyr does not mention any of the authors of the Gospels by name, nor does he mention any epistles or the name Paul.

AGAINST CELSUS DIALOGUE WITH TRYPHO
Matthew -------------
Mark -------------
Luke -------------
John -------------
Acts of the Apostles ---------------
Epistle to Romans ---------------
Epistle to 1 Corinthians --------------
Epistle to 2 Corinthians --------------
Epistle to Galations --------------
Epistle to Ephesians -------------
Epistle to Philippians -------------
Epistle to Colossians -------------
Epistle to Thessalonians -------------
Epistle to Timothy -------------
Epistle to Barnabas ------------

PAUL ------------

PETER PETER

Jesus Jesus
John the Baptust John the Baptist
Herod Herod


And it is even augmented to a greater magnitude that Justin Martyr, up to the midlle of the 2nd century, was not aware of these authors when one considers that in all of his extant writings, the words "Paul" or "Epistles to the Churches" cannot be found anywhere in them.

mountainman

Prohibition of sacrifices removes control from temples. That evil SNAKE Asclepius needed to be destroyed by the one true bullshit HJ. And it was so. We have it on the best authority.



Best wishes


Pete Brown