mountainman

Implicit in the OP is the original Greek usage of δαίμων as ..... a god, a goddess or an inferior deity, whether good or bad.



It appears that Christian editors of the earliest Greek texts used the word δαίμων in a very specific way which was not the way the rest of the non Christian Greek editors used the word.

As you say

The Christian use of daimon and the Greek use of daimon require specific disambiguation and are significantly different.

The original Greek word daimon does not carry the negative connotation initially understood by implementation of the Koine δαιμόνιον (daimonion), and later ascribed to any cognate words sharing the root.

Well if you don't like 'subversion' and don't think that the change was just a random mistake by a bunch of Hebrew fishermen using Greek, what would you call this systematic negative connotation usage by the Christians whenever they used the original greek word δαίμων ?

Since you provided the citations, do you think the Gospel authors (and Josephus) simply used the LXX as a precedent in this systematic negative connotation of δαίμων? That's an easy fall back position for you.

In fact that appears to be the "official story".

spin

You can assert whatever nonsense your heart desires, but you know in the end you are just bullshitting.

We've already been through this. It is not christian per se. The christians inherited the use from Greek speaking Jews.

The use of "demon" in contrast to "daimon" is merely another sign of your polemic. You have no scholarly interest here. Neither Jewish writers nor christians wrote the word any differently.

Merely more polemic. I think you are at a point now where the polemic is so ingrained that you cannot help yourself.

Knowing the word "cohort" and its significance within a Roman legion, would you be surprised to know that educationalists have appropriated the word to describe a group of people usually with the same year of birth who move through an education system? The word you might use is "appropriate" rather than "subvert" there is no justifiable reason for the bias you place in the choice of the Greek speaking Judeo-christian tradition to use δαίμων for a malevolent spirit, just as the Persians used daeva. Words are frequently appropriated for new uses without loading the act with the polemic you seek to employ.

:hitsthefan:

mountainman

From WIKI on "demon".

Is this all bullshit?

spin

What is bullshit is the polemic you spread over your threads, such as the crap about "subversion" here.

(Wikipedia is not a source for this forum, just as Barron Notes are not a source for your education, but you may find something helpful in it for personal use.)

Duvduv

And how, pray tell, do you KNOW that the Jews got the idea from the Persians??
This approach is rather funny. In the case of Christianity it can be claimed that it got ideas from Judaism because the religion itself and its advocates refers to Jewish teachings, themes and ideas. But to speculate that Judaism got its ideas from the Persians with no internal or explicit corroborative evidence at all as a statement of empirical fact way is too much.

spin

I don't expect to pray tell you anything that contravenes your religious beliefs. But I will respond.

The Persians had control over Yehud for over 200 years to around 330 BCE. While the religion of the Hebrews tended to resist any external influences, the Persians obviously had a visible effect. The word "paradise" (פרדס) used in Song of Sol. 4:13 is Persian. The form of reference to god in the texts given Persian contexts (Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, part of 2 Chron.) is the Persian form, "god of heaven", twice put into the mouth of Cyrus ("Yahweh, god of heaven"). This is also seen in a letter from Jews in Elephantine to the Persian governor of Yehud (AP 31/32). The 360-day Persian calendar is that assumed in the earliest calendar form found in 1 Enoch. After Judaism came into contact with the Persians, the notion of resurrection, prevalent in the Persian religion, found its way into Judaism, as evinced for example in Dan 12. This provides us with a context for other Persian ideas, including for the complex net of good and bad spirits in Zoroastrianism. Later Judaism, as for example seen in 1 Enoch: Watchers, reflects such a complex array of good and bad spirits. Judaism may have developed an early notion of angels as messengers, but the contrast with evil spirits is something that came after Persian contact.

andrewcriddle

However IIUC there is a distinction between δαίμων and δαιμόνιον with δαιμόνιον being the most usual form in the LXX and NT.

Andrew Criddle

Duvduv

You are still reiterating your claims. But what are the causal relationships and empirical evidence?

mountainman

According to the "official story" the Early Christians got their inspiration from and specifically preserved the Greek LXX and not the Hebrew manuscripts.

This fact does cast some doubts over the claim that the Christian origins are necessarily Judaic, because the source manuscripts are found only to be in Greek.

Thanks Iskander.

mountainman

It can often provide a useful starting point for discussion.



Here is such a starting point for the causal relationships and empirical evidence:

It seems that spin does not wish to address the history of the acquirement of negative connotations of the term,
which seems to have been commenced in the Greek LXX and from here flowed through to the gospel writers of the new testament.

As a related issue, the Greek LXX appearing in Vaticanus is presumed AFAIK
to have originated from the translation made by Origen in the 3rd century.