mountainman

Dear GakuseiDon,

Ammianus Marcellinus offers us another alternative as a follows:

So we see that there is an equivalence of some form between this "daemon" and what we might term "one's own guardian angel".

When Christ replaced the Logos personal guardian angels were no longer required. We are dealing with an official state religious doctrine.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Here's the text of Menander in context:


So tell me, Pete. Is "an equivalence of some form between this "daemon" and what we might term "one's own guardian angel"" what we really see in this text?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

That's all Greek to me mate, and as far as I am aware Ammianus wrote in Latin. What is Ammianus trying to tell us Jeffrey? Please be our instructor in this matter.

I honestly dont know, however I am prepared to learn. Are you prepared to share your knowledge on this specific issue? The translation of Ammianus from the Latin uses the word, and it is discussed in context of "men" plural.


Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, and you became aware of this only after I told you! See here.

But as you should know, being the expert in, and intensive investigator of, ancient history that you claim to be, Menander (whom even you note Ammianus quotes) didn't.


Is it? Remember the last time you screwed up royally about what Ammianus said (re ghosts) by relying on an English translation instead of looking at the Latin?

Care to tell us what the Latin of this text is, Pete?

And how does the Ammianus' use of any Latin word confirm your claim that Ammianus, let alone Menander, is making "an equivalence of some form between this "daemon" " he speaks about in quoting Menander "and what we might term "one's own guardian angel""?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

This was a comment exploring the equivalence of the word "daemon" which the translator of Ammianus uses in Ammianus' quote of Menander as follows:
Thanks for posting the greek context. Can you post an english translation of the original Menander whom Ammianus was quoting, or the fragment/text of Menander being cited?

The translator of Ammianus however immediately continues:
The term guardian spirits appears to be explicit in the above, as if to reinforce the quote of Menander.

Just to backtrack, I was exploring this comment made earlier .....
The exploration was about number 2. The way 2 is stated to offer an interpretive meaning of how pagans (for want of a better word) viewed this "ministering class of beings". I would substitute this item 2 with the description provided by Ammianus, which to me seems to suggest that the pagans may have viewed the existence of a one-to-one "guardian spirit" doing the mediation.

The OP was exploring the use - by citation - of such (Hellenic) concepts in Acts.


Best wishes,

Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

If you'd actually read the source you quote, it tells you what the Menander fragment is.

Well, here's the text in context. Perhaps you can tell me where the term "guardian spirits" appears.


Unless you can come up with more examples which actually use the terms you think are being used, all you can say is how a pagan, namely AM, viewed things, and this assumes that you have understood him correctly.

Again, what makes you think that AM was representative of the way that "pagans" viewed anything?

The term is Hellenistic, not Hellenic. And why should a 4th century writer -- even presuming you've read him correctly -- be used to illuminate the background of a first or early second century text?

If you really want to gain some understanding of this, have a look at Magic and Paganism in Early Christianity: The World of the Acts of the Apostles (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Hans Josef Klauck and Brian McNeil.

Jeffrey

Toto

It seems that the translation cited translated "genios familiaris" as guardian spirits. Is this a good translation? Are we reading too much pop culture ideas of guardian angels into this?

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Let me be clear in saying that I do not assume to understand him, but that I am interested in the attempt in understanding him. I am certain that you can provide information concerning the way Ammianus may have used the phrase, and how it was originally used by Menander, and how the meaning may have changed in the interim period of time.

AM may not have been representative of "ipagans", we dont know that. We know he was a greek in the roman army and had a way with words, but that the first part of his histories (covering the obituary to Constantine) were not preserved. We also know he appears to have made mention of Apollonius. AM is considered a reliable witness.


Thank you.


Thanks again. I will.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Funny. You seemed to be claiming just the opposite when you asserted that AM spoke of the "son of a ghost".

No, you are not. Otherwise you'd make some attempt to learn the language that he wrote in.

Which phrase are we talking about, Pete?

Does Menander use the same phrase that AM does?

I probably could. But it's not my job to do your homework for you. You should have done all you request me to do before you made your claims -- and they were claims, not explorations -- about what AM and Menander said.

And you certainly should stop making any claims, let alone the apodictic ones you do, about what a text says until you have first checked out whether the original actually says what you say it does, especially given your track record of putting your foot in it vis a vis what texts say and what can be deduced or inferred from them. That is, after all, the proper methodology that actual historians employ. Why don't you, especially you claim to be not only an historian, but one who is superior in his knowledge of the Constantinian era, the Arian and Origenist controversies, and the history and origin NT apocrypha, than all "mainstream scholars" are, including Lane-Fox.

And please don't excuse yourself by saying you don't read Greek or Latin. In doing so, you only admit that you have no expertise, are incapable of doing the grunt work that real historians engage in, are not worth listening to when you make claims about what Greek and Latin texts say, and that all of your excoriations of "mainstream scholars" who do are worthless.

You want to be taken seriously as an historian? Go and learn Greek and Latin. And until you have some under your belt, stop telling us what ancient texts say.

A reliable witness to what? And how is his being a reliable witness in any way relevant to the issue at hand -- which is whether you've misunderstood, misread, eisegeted, and made uninformed and unsupportable claims about what he said, let alone what others have said about him.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

Can you provide us with some references, please? Where specifically does Eusebius call Philostratus' work a "history". What is the Greek term that underlies these references?

Jeffrey