Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-26-2013, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

So what? Your thesis -- that you are trying to defend with your claims about who gave δαίμων a "negative" sense -- is that Christianity did not arise until the 4th century. So -- unless you are prepared to deny the validity of this claim -- any texts up to at least the mid 300s CE must be taken into account.

For the purposes of this thread and discussion of the OP I am prepared to deny the validity of this claim.

How nice of you.

Quote:

We may assume Matthew wrote in the 1st century. I am quite capable of examining evidence within the traditional framework.

Really? Have you not admitted that since you don't know Greek, you are not capable of examining Greek evidence in any framework?

In any case, you do recognize, don't you, that if Christianity is a 4th century invention, that Greek writings from before this time may be used as evidence in the matter at hand?

If not, why not?

Jeffrey

stephan huller · 03-26-2013, 04:33 PM

wow. it's like the sky has fallen. next cats will be mating with dogs.

Quote:

What were we doing when we*unchained*this earth from its*sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving?

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-26-2013, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

RE: κακοδαιμον

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

The author of this Wiki entry is obviously no expert in Greek. He certainly isn't familiar with Greek literature, let alone LSJ or the TDNT or BDAG.

"Bad" + "Daimon" = "Bad Daimon". So what?

You have (intentionally?) missed the point I was making -- which was not anything about the statemnt made by the author of your sourced Wiki article that kakos + daimon means "bad daimion" (or as he put it, evil spirit or (in the modern sense of the word) a demon.

It was about the legitimacy on linguistic and other grounds of his claims that since daimon with the prefex kakos meant bad demon, it was ("whereas") the case that daimon without the prefx kakos (always) meant "a neutral spirit", that there was a Greek word Tychodaimon, that the opposite of kakodaimon was agathodaimon or eudaimon, and that eudaimon meant a good spirit or angel -- all of which is (as I demonstrated) the purest horseshit.

Nice of you to do another read herring, though. You are really getting good at that!

Quote:

The OP is quite specific. It's about "Daimon".

Yes. But you are the one who cited the Wiki entry as good evidence to back up your claims about daimon. So exposing that what that article says about daimon as a piece of crap (and that you don't know just how much of a piece of crap it is) is hardly off point. It shows that it is not good evidence, that what is said there does not support your case, and, perhaps most importantly, that you have no ability to know what is good evidence and what is bad.

Your citation of the text of AM below [here snipped] as somehow on point (when, as I have demonstrated it isn't), is a good example of this.

But it is fun to watch you show it.

Thanks!

Jeffrey

mountainman · 03-26-2013, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

There is no citation of daemon in the AM text, let alone in his quote of Menander. What you adduce is the word that the English translator of AM used for the Menander's δαίμων. So you are once again misrepresenting what ancient texts say.

The exercise is to gather together the instances of what all ancient writers (Greek and Latin) wrote about the term δαίμων in order to understand what they meant by this term. So once again you are misrepresenting what this exercise is about.

Quote:

And if all you wanted to show us was that Menander used the word δαίμων and that Latin authors knew of Greek texts which contained [SIZE=2]δαίμων, why did you give us the [SIZE=2]all the other material from AM that you did and bold passages within that material. What did you think that these passages demonstrated?

Context is critical to this exercise.

Clearly AM provides a benevolent context for his understanding of what the term δαίμων means.

Clearly, to AM, the term δαίμων does not represent this Christian aberration of "evil spirit".

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-26-2013, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

So what? Your thesis -- that you are trying to defend with your claims about who gave δαίμων a "negative" sense -- is that Christianity did not arise until the 4th century. So -- unless you are prepared to deny the validity of this claim -- any texts up to at least the mid 300s CE must be taken into account.

For the purposes of this thread and discussion of the OP I am prepared to deny the validity of this claim.

How nice of you.

Thank you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM

[For the purposes of the OP] ..... We may assume Matthew wrote in the 1st century. I am quite capable of examining evidence within the traditional framework.

Really? Have you not admitted that since you don't know Greek, you are not capable of examining Greek evidence in any framework?

No I have not since it is a fact that there are other Greek to English translators on planet Earth other than your good self.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-26-2013, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

None of the sources you gave supports your assertion here Jeffrey. Have you found any pre-christian text where a daimon is assumed [better, presented] to be evil without some adjectival qualifier indicating that?

Yes, and I've listed them.

NO, you have listed the Greek without corresponding English translations.

A number of moderators have pointed this out.

For most people in this forum you might just as well have listed them in Chinese.

This failure (on your part) is beginning to look like an exercise in academic hubris.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-26-2013, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

There is no citation of daemon in the AM text, let alone in his quote of Menander. What you adduce is the word that the English translator of AM used for the Menander's δαίμων. So you are once again misrepresenting what ancient texts say.

The exercise is to gather together the instances of what all ancient writers (Greek and Latin) wrote about the term δαίμων in order to understand what they meant by this term. So once again you are misrepresenting what this exercise is about.

Am I? Where in the OP did you mention gathering all the instances of the use of δαίμων in Greek and Latin literature to see what the term meant. What you did there was to state what you already "knew" it meant and how much thyat meaning differed from what you knew it meant in Christian usage.

Quote:

And if all you wanted to show us was that Menander used the word δαίμων and that Latin authors knew of Greek texts which contained [SIZE=2]δαίμων, why did you give us the [SIZE=2]all the other material from AM that you did and bold passages within that material. What did you think that these passages demonstrated?

Context is critical to this exercise.

O come on Pete. You originally thought that the word daemon could be found in the Latin of the texts you bolded. Fess up.

In any case, are you now admitting that it's not just whether δαίμων has an adjective attached to it that determines what an author understood the term to mean? Things like the fact that a known exorcist comes to deal with it? Things like reports that people who see it are afraid of it and wished it banished or destroyed, and used talismans to keep it from coming back to where they live?

Things like a report in the sories in which it is used of how it threatened people that it inhabited or the relatives of those folks with death and misfortune?

Quote:

Clearly AM provides a benevolent context for his understanding of what the term δαίμων means.

provides a what?

Quote:

Clearly, to AM, the term δαίμων does not represent this Christian aberration of "evil spirit".

Agreed. But so what? And it also clearly is an instance that shows the term was not "neutral.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-26-2013, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

None of the sources you gave supports your assertion here Jeffrey. Have you found any pre-christian text where a daimon is assumed [better, presented] to be evil without some adjectival qualifier indicating that?

Yes, and I've listed them.

NO, you have listed the Greek without corresponding English translations.

So what? As the text you quote shows, the issue was whether I gave cited examples, not whether I translated them.

Quote:

A number of moderators have pointed this out.

Whether or not this is what they've done, what is clear is that a moderators have told you and others like you is that you should not be attempting, as you so often do, to do exegesis of ancient texts on the basis of English translations of them or to make the sorts of claims that you do about ancient texts say texts since without some actual knowledge of, and proficiency in, the language in which they are written or to think, as you do, that tools like Strongs is a good source for your claims about Greek and Hebrew words and will allow you to speak authoritatively about the things you use Strongs for.

Quote:

For most people in this forum you might just as well have listed them in Chinese.

For you, anyway. In any case I am not responsible for forum members lack of knowledge of Greek or Hebrew or Latin or any other ancient language. They are. And if they wish to be taken seriously when they speak of what an ancient text says, or what a Greek or Hebrew etc. word means, it's up to them, not me, to do their home work.

Quote:

This failure (on your part) is beginning to look like an exercise in academic hubris.

What shows hubris is your claiming to know what ancient texts say when you have declared that you have no proficiency in the langages in whicch they were written and to tell those who do have this proficiency that they don't know what they are talking about when they speak from a knowledge they have but you don't.

For Pete's sake, Pete. Give it up.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 03-27-2013, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The OP is quite specific. It's about "Daimon".

Yes. But you are the one who cited the Wiki entry as good evidence to back up your claims about daimon.

The OP made reference to both WIKI and to the following Greek-English Lexicon, in which I have highlighted in blue the bulk of the entries, and in red a small minority of entries, commencing with Matthew.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

DAIMON

δαίμων , ονος, voc.

A. “δαίμων” S.OC1480 (lyr.), “δαῖμον” Theoc.2.11, ὁ, ἡ, god, goddess, of individual gods or goddesses, Il.1.222, 3.420, etc.; “δαίμονι ἶσος” 5.438; ἐμίσγετο δαίμονι δαίμων, of Φιλίη and Νεῖκος, Emp. 59.1 :—but more freq. of the Divine power (while θεός denotes a God in person), the Deity, cf. Od.3.27; πρὸς δαίμονα against the Divine power, Il.17.98; σὺν δαίμονι by its grace, 11.792; κατὰ δαίμονα, almost, = τύχῃ, by chance, Hdt.1.111; “τύχᾳ δαίμονος” Pi.O.8.67; ἄμαχος δ., i. e. Destiny, B.15.23: in pl., ὅτι δαίμονες θέλωσιν, what the Gods ordain, Id.16.117; “ταῦτα δ᾽ ἐν τῷ δ.” S. OC1443; “ἡ τύχη καὶ ὁ δ.” Lys. 13.63, cf.Aeschin.3.111; “κατὰ δαίμονα καὶ συντυχίαν” Ar.Av.544.

2. the power controlling the destiny of individuals: hence, one's lot or forlune, “δτυγερὸς δέ οἱ ἔχραε δ.” Od.5.396, cf. 10.64; “δαίμονος αἶσα κακή” 11.61; δαίμονα δώσω I will deal thee fate, i.e. kill thee, I1.8.166; freq. in Trag. of good or ill fortune, “ὅταν ὁ δ. εὐροῇ” A.Pers.601; “δ. ἀσινής” Id.Ag.1342 (lyr.); “κοινός” Id.Th.812; “γενναῖος πλὴν τοῦ δαίμονος” S.OC76; “δαίμονος σκληρότης” Antipho 3.3.4; “τὸν οἴακα στρέφει δ. ἑκάστψ” Anaxandr.4.6; personified as the good or evil genius of a family or person, “δ. τῷπλεισθενιδῶν” A.Ag.1569, cf. S.OT1194 (lyr.); “ὁ ἑκάστου δ.” Pl.Phd.107d, cf. PMag.Lond.121.505, Iamb.Myst.9.1; “ὁ δ. ὁ τὴν ἡμετέραν μοῖραν λελογχώς” Lys.2.78; “ἅπαντι δ. ἀνδρι συμπαρίσταται εὐθὺς γενομένῳ μυσταγωγὸς τοῦ βίου” Men.16.2 D.; “δ. ἀλάστορες” Id.8D.; “ὁ μέγας [τοῦ Καίσαρος] δ.” Plu.Caes.69; ὁ σὸς δ. κακός ibid.; “ὁ βασιλέως δ.” Id.Art.15; “ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δ.” Heraclit.119; “Ξενοκράτης φησὶ τὴν ψυχὴν ἑκάστου εἶναι δ.” Arist.Top.112a37.

II. δαίμονες, οἱ, souls of men of the golden age, acting as tutelary deities, Hes.Op. 122, Thgn.1348, Phoc.15, Emp.115.5, etc.; “θεῶν, δ., ἡρώων, τῶν ἐν Ἅιδου” Pl.R.392a: less freq. in sg., “δαίμονι δ᾽ οἷος ἔησθα τὸ ἐργάζεσθαι ἄμεινον” Hes.Op.314; τὸν τὲ δ. Δαρεῖον ἀγκαλεῖσθε, of the deified Darius, A.Pers.620; νῦν δ᾽ ἐστὶ μάκαιρα δ., of Alcestis, E.Alc.1003 (lyr.), cf.IG12(5).305.5 (Paros): later, of departed souls, Luc.Luct.24; δαίμοσιν εὐσεβέσιν, = Dis Manibus, IG14.1683; so θεοὶ δ., ib.938, al.: also, ghost, Paus.6.6.8.

2. generally, spiritual or semi-divine being inferior to the Gods, Plu.2.415a, al., Sallust.12, Dam.Pr.183, etc.; esp. evil spirit, demon, Ev.Matt.8.31, J.AJ8.2.5; “φαῦλοι δ.” Alex.Aphr.Pr.2.46; δαίμονος ἔσοδος εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, Aret.SD1.4; “πρᾶξις ἐκβάλλουσα δαίμονας” PMag.Par.1227.

3. ἀγαθὸς δ. the Good Genius to whom a toast was drunk after dinner, Ar.V.525, Nicostr.Com.20, D.S.4.3, Plu.2.655e, Philonid. ap. Ath.15.675b, Paus.9.39.5, IG12(3).436 (Thera), etc.; of Nero, “ἀ. δ. τῆς οἰκουμένης” OGI666.3; of the Nile, ἀ. δ. ποταμός ib.672.7 (i A.D.); of the tutelary genius of individuals (supr. 1), “ἀ. δ. Ποσειδωνίου” SIG1044.9 (Halic.): pl., δαίμονες ἀ., = Lat. Di Manes, SIG1246 (Mylasa): Astrol., ἀγαθός, κακός δ., names of celestial κλῆροι, Paul.Al.N.4, O.1, etc. (Less correctly written Ἀγαθοδαίμων, q.v.).

B. = δαήμων, knowing, δ. μάχης skilled in fight, Archil.3.4. (Pl. Cra.398b, suggests this as the orig. sense; while others would write δαήμονες in Archil., and get rid of this sense altogether; cf. however αἵμων. More probably the Root of δαίμων (deity) is δαίω to distribute destinies;; cf. Alcm.48.)

So here are the small number of negative exceptions which commence with Ev.Matt.8.31.... (5)

esp. evil spirit, demon,
Ev.Matt.8.31,
Josephus.AJ8.2.5;
“φαῦλοι δ.” Alex.Aphr.Pr.2.46;
δαίμονος ἔσοδος εἰς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, Aret.SD1.4;
“πρᾶξις ἐκβάλλουσα δαίμονας” PMag.Par.1227.

The rest of the usage (blue) denotes what may be termed for the purpose of this discussion as either positive use or ambivalence use (a sprit, whether good or bad).

Until you can provide a counter-example with an English translation in which everyone can see and agree denotes a specifically negative use of the term "daimon", then it is clear from the above that it is only at the point in history when the Christian accounts come into circulation, that the term takes on a specifically negative meaning.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 03-27-2013, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

In any case I am not responsible for forum members lack of knowledge of Greek or Hebrew or Latin or any other ancient language. They are. And if they wish to be taken seriously when they speak of what an ancient text says, or what a Greek or Hebrew etc. word means, it's up to them, not me, to do their home work.

/////

Hippocrates et Corpus Hippocraticum Med., De morbo sacro (TLG text 0627: 027)
“Oeuvres complètes d'Hippocrate, vol. 6”, Ed. Littré, É.
Paris: Baillière, 1849, Repr. 1962.
Section 1, line 65

Τοιαῦτα λέγοντες καὶ μηχανεύμενοι προςποιέονται πλέον τι εἰδέναι, καὶ ἀνθρώπους ἐξαπατέουσι προστιθέμενοι τούτοισιν ἁγνείας τε καὶ καθαρότητας, ὅ τε πουλὺς αὐτοῖσι τοῦ λόγου ἐς τὸ θεῖον ἀφήκει καὶ τὸ δαιμόνιον.

OK Jeffrey. Stand by while I obtain an English translation from someone else other than your self, for your claimed exception.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.