Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Iskander · 03-23-2013, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What purpose would the Gospel authors have had for subverting the original Greek meaning of the term "daimon"?

Hi Pete, great question. There is a strongly gnostic dimension in the idea of daimon as guardian angel, with the gnostic theology of ascent appearing in the idea that the guardian angel enables knowledge of the divine. This relates to the following analysis of daimon in Heidegger and Heraclitus from my MA thesis.

Heidegger sought to recapture the original Greek meaning of daimon as “the open region for the presencing of God”. It is not hard to see why such a meaning would have been anathema to Christians, since the presence of God for them is not open but closed - restricted to the special revelation of Christ canonised in the Bible and interpreted exclusively by the priesthood. 'Daimon' allows a free gnostic spirituality, not the hierarchical control of the church. Daimon became demon as part of the suppression of free thought by the Christian church .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert Tulip MA Honours Thesis

The way ethics can be ‘grounded’ in the phenomenon of ethos, and the sense in which ethos can be phenomenal, become clearer if we consider Heidegger's analysis of Heraclitus' saying, "ethos anthropoi daimon", usually translated as "a man's character is his guardian angel", or more succinctly, "character is fate". The traditional lesson drawn from this aphorism is that a person’s character determines his or her destiny: if you are good you will succeed but if you are bad you will fail. This interpretation brings out the ambivalence in the word ‘ethos’, for if 'ethos' is understood to mean character, or even the moral climate or cultural atmosphere of the place we live in, we may speak just as easily of an ethos which is noble and fair as of one which is violent and greedy. Ethos will then come to mean whatever norms or rules prevail in a particular situation.

However "ethos anthropoi daimon" should not be interpreted as such a straightforward moral observation, but as an admonition to live according to an ethos which truly befits human existence. Heidegger takes ethos to mean more than character, as it signifies "abode, dwelling place . . . the open region in which man dwells". The translation of ethos as 'dwelling place', which Heidegger calls the 'primordial element' of existence, introduces a positive ethical content to the saying, which remains hidden when the usual definition of ethos as character is accepted. Similarly, the word 'daimon' cannot be simply defined as ‘fate’. Daimon is translated by Heidegger as ‘nearness to God’, to suggest the possibility that there may be some purpose acting as the driving force in human destiny, perhaps imparting some grace as a part of our essential nature. Daimon is more universal than individual destiny, as its meaning here signifies that humanity has a spiritual relation with Being as a whole.

One of the most famous instances of the ‘daimon’, Socrates’ guiding light in the Apology and the Phaedrus, can easily be understood in accordance with Heidegger’s interpretation. For Plato, Socrates’ ‘divine element’ is ‘the sign of the god’. It is not a force at his disposal or the blind hand of his fate, but an external call determining his mission. It therefore appears that daimon is somewhat akin to conscience, a suggestion we will return to when we come to discuss Heidegger’s treatment of that topic. For example in the Phaedrus, after Socrates has spoken slightingly of love, the daimon insists Socrates must make amends to the God of love by making a speech doing justice to the truth of this divinity.

If ethos and daimon truly impart a normative sense to the meaning of anthropoi, the usual translation of "ethos anthropoi daimon", which is merely descriptive, will not express the full meaning. Heidegger translates the saying as: "man dwells, insofar as he is man, in the nearness of God", from which he concludes that the final meaning is that "the familiar abode (ethos) is for man (anthropoi) the open region for the presencing of God (daimon)". He thus makes an essential point that reinforces the ethical dimension in his thought: if ‘ethos anthropoi’, the dwelling place of humanity, is bound up with the authentic spirit of truth (daimon), it must be seen as wrong to permit conduct which arises from an inhuman spirit simply to be observed without censure. Such conduct can only occur in situations where the true essence of humanity pointed to in Heraclitus’ saying is unknown or denied.

Such an understanding of the ethos of humanity prevents the acceptance of inauthentic values; for example Heidegger says curiosity, which together with alienation and idle chatter make up the principal inauthentic modes of existence, gives popular beliefs the quality of rootlessness, a "never-dwelling-anywhere". From this we may infer that the curious and the ambiguous arise from modes of ‘anthropoi’ which deny its ethos and so prevent Dasein from hearing the voice of its ‘daimon’. Heidegger argues that the overcoming of the aimless stumbling of homelessness, and the associated task of reversing the abandonment of Being by beings, can only become possible when we recognise the syndrome of never-dwelling-anywhere as symptomatic of the problem of alienation and its oblivion of Being. The main feature of this alienation is that man observes and handles only beings and thinks that is all there is to life, instead of seeking to dwell in the truth of Being.

Nice post, Robert.

It is a joy to read your posts

Robert Tulip · 03-23-2013, 05:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

What does the first line mean? What does he mean by Hole and Corner Buffery?
I suspect he means get rid of prejudice but I am only guessing.

Best wishes

Hole and corner, clandestine, underhand. [Colloq.] ``The wretched trickery of hole and corner buffery.' --Dickens.

http://www.wordaz.com/orner.html

tanya · 03-23-2013, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman, in response to Toto's claim of his error

I have not yet found an English translation of these.
Therefore on what basis do you make the claim that I am clearly wrong?

Hey, Pete!!!

You are NOT wrong, here, Pal, keep at it.

Let's investigate together, shall we? I wish to expose the corruption and dishonesty of these supposed "scholars".

This was written in the preface to "Oeuvres Completes, Volume 1 of Hippocrates, by Emile Littre, published in 1839.

Quote:

Mon but a ete de mettre les oeuvres hippocratiques completement a la portee des medecins de notre temps, et j'ai voulu qu'elles pussent etre lues et comprises comme un livre contemporain.

Here's my translation, for those unfamiliar with our mother tongue:

Quote:

"My goal has been to make available to the physicians of our time, the complete works of Hippocrates, and I hope that these texts would be read and understood as if written yesterday."

Significance:

a. how do we know that this version accurately represents the texts of Hippocrates?

b. If this chap, a couple hundred years ago, Littre, sought to ensure that everyone could understand Hippocrates, by presenting the texts in a manner that would ensure comprehension by "modern day" readers, then, why wouldn't someone else have done precisely the same thing, when copying the original texts onto papyrus, over, and over, again and again, 2500 years ago?

c. Is no one else on this forum, other than me, bothered by the fact that Jeffrey Gibson's reference to the works of Hippocrates, employs a Latin title, (not Greek) De Morbo Sacro, coming from an edition edited by the 19th century Frenchman, Littre? Here's the English translation by Charles Darwin Adams, circa 1905. Where's the Greek edition from 2500 years ago?

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...perseus-eng1:1
Here's a tiny, relevant portion of the English translation of Hippocrates "De Morbo Sacro" (This is not the text cited by Jeffrey Gibson, more to come, hang on Pete!)

Quote:

For when a person draws in air by the mouth and nostrils, the breath (pneuma)goes first to the brain, then the greater part of it to the internal cavity, and part to the lungs, and part to the veins, and from them it is distributed to the other parts of the body along the veins; and whatever passes to the stomach cools, and does nothing more; and so also with regard to the lungs. But the air which enters the veins is of use (to the body) by entering the brain and its ventricles, and thus it imparts sensibility and motion to all the members, so that when the veins are excluded from the air by the phlegm and do not receive it, the man loses his speech and intellect,....

Good stuff.

Rather close to the mark, physiologically.

I quoted this, to demonstrate two things:

a. Jeffrey Gibson is wrong to cite Hippocrates as an example of ancient Greek practice identifying πνεύμα with spirit. Hippocrates makes clear, that his use of pneuma, is precisely the same as our own: Pneumatology is the French word for Respiratory Medicine. πνεύμα ALSO means "spirit", but primarily means "breath", for Hippocrates. That text, above, with "(pneuma)" embedded represents Charles Darwin Adams' writing, not my own. Adams wanted his readers to be certain to comprehend, that Hippocrates was using the Greek word pneuma to represent AIR, not "evil spirit". So, I am not able to understand why Jeffrey Gibson cited Hippocrates as someone who equated pneuma with demon? Where in this text, cited by Jeffrey, do we find either pneuma or demon?

Hippocrates De Morbo Sacro, 1 (VI, p. 362, Littré): The Sacred Disease

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson, refusing to provide the link, above, lest someone demonstrate his error

Ὁκόσα δὲ δείματα νυκτὸς παρίσταται καὶ φόβοι καὶ παράνοιαι καὶ ἀναπηδήσιες ἐκ τῆς κλίνης καὶ φόβητρα καὶ φεύξιες ἔξω, Ἑκάτης φασὶν εἶναι ἐπιβολὰς καὶ ἡρώων ἐφόδους.

Quote:

Originally Posted by English

But terrors which happen during the night, and fevers, and delirium, and jumpings out of bed, and frightful apparitions, and fleeing away,-all these they hold to be the plots of Hecate, and the invasions the and use purifications and incantations, and, as appears to me, make the divinity to be most wicked and most impious.

How does this passage relate, IN ANY WAY, to the OP?
What utter horseshit, to quote, my favorite author, Sheshbazzar.

Questions:
1. Can a person carve a spirit? More to the point of this thread, did the ancient Hebrews believe that a person could carve a spirit?

2. Does Exodus 20:4 refer to "spirits"?

3. Does Latin have no word, corresponding to "spirit", (how about "spiritus", or "animus"). Then, why would those writing in Latin, i.e. Jerome, Vulgate, not employ either of these two words, but instead write "sculptilis", which means, CARVE?

4. Does the Hebrew word corresponding to "spirit" ALSO mean, "carved"?

5. Is a "spirit" anthropomorphic? Can one carve something without a defined shape?

6. When archaeologists uncover small figurines from the "holy land", carved three millenia ago, do they refer to these objects as "idols", or as "spirits"?

7. Is a "demon" anthropomorphic? Can humans create "demons"? Do "demons" exhibit movement? Can "demons" express themselves in conversation? What about blocks of stone or wood?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Pete posed the question in the OP, and the evidence has come in against his position. If you want to make progress, you have to drop the ideas that don't pan out and move on.

Which idea would that be? How about the idea that I was misquoted by Jeffrey Gibson. Did that not "pan out"?

What about Gibson's FALSE notion that "sculptilis" means "sorcerer"? Did that pan out?

Pan out--> looking for gold nuggets in the stream, flowing down the mountain.

How about Pan in? What about the question of why Mark 5:2 FAILS to mention "demons", until the debut of the fifth century?

Let's Pan in, on both Psalm 96:5, and Exodus 20:4, shall we?

The answers are there, if one is willing to make the effort, to search for those nuggets.

Toto · 03-23-2013, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Or google is your friend:

Plutarch Quaest.Rom., 51 (II

Or is the truth rather, as some Romans affirm, that, just as the philosophic school of Chrysippus114 think that evil spirits stalk about 277whom the gods use as executioners and avengers upon unholy and unjust men, even so the Lares are spirits of punishment like the Furies and supervisors of men's lives and houses? Wherefore they are clothed in the skins of dogs and have a dog as their attendant, in the belief that they are skilful in tracking down and following up evil-doers.

Thanks Toto, but again who was the translator who translated the word "daimones" as "evil spirits" rather than "spirits, both good and evil". I have made the same comment above regarding the Philostratus citation.

Read the text - does it describe an evil spirit or not? Spirits of punishment and avengers?

Quote:

Corp. Herm., XVI, 10 f.

For there are many choirs of daimons round Him, like unto hosts of very various kinds; who though they dwell with mortals, yet are not far from the immortals; but having as their lot from here unto the spaces of the Gods, 2 they watch o’er the affairs of men, and work out things appointed by the Gods—by means of storms, whirlwinds and hurricanes, by transmutations wrought by fire and shakings of the earth, 3 with famines also and with wars requiting [man’s] impiety,—for this is in man’s case the greatest ill against the Gods.

Again these "choirs of daimons" represents what appears to me to be the original usage, namely that the daimons are not explicitly evil, but within the original meaning of "both good and evil".
...

"storms, whirlwinds and hurricanes, by transmutations wrought by fire and shakings of the earth, with famines also and with wars requiting [man’s] impiety" - this doesn't sound like a benign or friendly spirit.

Toto · 03-23-2013, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Tanya/avi -

In our modern world, these idols are just carved pieces of wood. In the ancient world, they represented gods and were worshiped. The Hebrews considered them powerful and important enough to forbid their possession. One of the original ten commandments or utterances of god forbids graven images.

Are we assuming that seventy Hebrew scribes were ordered by the King of Egypt to translate the Hebrew Bible to Greek? This is a fantasy land legend based on a letter found in Josephus. It's probably completely bullshit just like the "TF".

In reality the LXX used by Christians was heavily Christianised with all sorts of nomina sacra (more than a dozen) whereas the Hebrews used only one AFAIK.

The possibility that the Christians edited their Greek version to introduce the demonization of the spiritual landscape is intriguing and should be investigated as a further issue to what they did within the NT.

This is not about the word "demon." This is about the Ten Commandments, which forbid "graven images." Are you claiming that Christians inserted this into the Hebrew scriptures?

I only brought this up because tanya went off on a tangent about idols

Toto · 03-23-2013, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

...

Questions:
1. Can a person carve a spirit? More to the point of this thread, did the ancient Hebrews believe that a person could carve a spirit?

They do seem to have believed that a person could carve a idol that would embody a spirit or god.

Quote:

2. Does Exodus 20:4 refer to "spirits"?

It refers to idols. See above.

Quote:

3. Does Latin have no word, corresponding to "spirit", (how about "spiritus", or "animus"). Then, why would those writing in Latin, i.e. Jerome, Vulgate, not employ either of these two words, but instead write "sculptilis", which means, CARVE?

The prohibition was not against spirits, but against pagan gods which were embodied in idols carved from wood.

Quote:

4. Does the Hebrew word corresponding to "spirit" ALSO mean, "carved"?

See above.

Quote:

5. Is a "spirit" anthropomorphic? Can one carve something without a defined shape?

Pagan gods were definitely anthropomorphic.

Quote:

6. When archaeologists uncover small figurines from the "holy land", carved three millenia ago, do they refer to these objects as "idols", or as "spirits"?

What do you think?

Quote:

7. Is a "demon" anthropomorphic? Can humans create "demons"? Do "demons" exhibit movement? Can "demons" express themselves in conversation? What about blocks of stone or wood?

Demons are definitely anthropomorphic. They move about, conduct conversations with people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Pete posed the question in the OP, and the evidence has come in against his position. If you want to make progress, you have to drop the ideas that don't pan out and move on.

Which idea would that be?

Even before Jeffrey joined the thread, it was established that the earlier meaning of demon/daimon included both friendly and unfriendly spirits. Pete's idea that Christians invented the unfavorable meaning is clearly off the wall. He has tried to backtrack by claiming that the predominant meaning of daimon was positive, but he has not been able to show this.

Quote:

How about the idea that I was misquoted by Jeffrey Gibson. Did that not "pan out"?

You'll have to take that up with Jeffrey. I don't remember what this is about and I don't have the time to search the thread.

Quote:

What about Gibson's FALSE notion that "sculptilis" means "sorcerer"? Did that pan out?

I don't know where he made that claim. The word clearly refers to idols.

Quote:

...

How about Pan in? What about the question of why Mark 5:2 FAILS to mention "demons", until the debut of the fifth century?

Feel free to discuss that, and what you think that proves.

tanya · 03-23-2013, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The prohibition was not against spirits, but against pagan gods which were embodied in idols carved from wood.

Let's look at the text of Exodus 20:4
Hebrew

Quote:

20:4 L'a Th'yShH-LK PhSL VKL-ThMVNH 'aShUr BShMYM MM'yL V'aShUr B'aUrTSh MThChTh V'aShUr BMYM MThChTh L'aUrTSh.

Pesel = Strong's 6459, "an idol".
LXX

Quote:

οὐ ποιήσεις σεαυτῷ εἴδωλον οὐδὲ παντὸς ὁμοίωμα ὅσα ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ἄνω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τῇ γῇ κάτω καὶ ὅσα ἐν τοῖς ὕδασιν ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς

Latin 20:4

Quote:

non facies tibi sculptile neque omnem similitudinem quae est in caelo desuper et quae in terra deorsum nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra

English:

Quote:

You shall not make for yourselves an idol, nor any image of anything that is in the heavens above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth

This is the crux of the argument, so far as I am concerned.
What does the Latin word "sculptilis" mean? Is it reasonable to substitute δαιμονιοις (English "Demons") for it?

spin, in post 21 provided (thanks) three examples, which, in his opinion, demonstrated ancient Greek custom of writing "δαιμονιοις" , English= "Demons". Sheshbazzar, post 61, explained, to us, (in his customary, exemplary fashion, with details and links (Thank you so much, outstanding Shesh!) how the Hebrew equivalent for these three passages corresponded to the OP.

In my opinion, Toto, the prohibition is very clear: Jews were forbidden to CARVE images, that represented, NOT SPIRITS, but GODS. Spirits are, by definition, vague, ill-defined, shapeless, and CANNOT BE CARVED. Sculptilis could not be used with precision to represent "spirits", but it could be employed to represent the action of creating an image of a false deity. Archaeologists today, find dozens of such "idols" throughout the middle east, some of them clearly representing images of non-Jewish deities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Demons are definitely anthropomorphic. They move about, conduct conversations with people.

AGREE.

THAT IS PRECISELY why Jeffrey Gibson is WRONG. That is why Justin Martyr, and all the others who depended on the FALSE translation of LXX, Psalm 96:5 erred.

To avoid wasting bandwidth, you can read the argument in post 135.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

You'll have to take that up with Jeffrey. I don't remember what this is about and I don't have the time to search the thread.

You are obliged neither to remember, nor to search. The offensive comment was addressed in post 206, yesterday, at 15:24.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I don't know where he made that claim. The word clearly refers to idols.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson, post 163

Leaving aside the fact which you seem to be unaware of that the Vulgate uses "sculptilis" to render כְשָׁפִ֖ים "sorceries", so what? All that means is that Jerome was giving the literal Latin equivalent of what he (or Lucian) found in the Hebrew text of Ps. 96. It has no bearing on whether אֱלִילִ֑ים (or for that matter "sculptillis") was thought to mean, or connoted, "evil spirits" -- a point that you have yet to deal with, and, notably, keep avoiding.

stephan huller · 03-23-2013, 03:10 PM

Isn't it worth mentioning that there is a tradition that the earliest strata of the gospel narrative has Jesus declare οὔκ εἰμι δαιμόνιον ἀσώματον:

Quote:

For I know that after His resurrection also He was still possessed of flesh, and I believe that He is so now. When, for instance, He came to those who were with Peter, He said to them, Lay hold, handle Me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit (= δαιμόνιον). And immediately they touched Him, and believed, being convinced both by His flesh and spirit. For this cause also they despised death, and were found its conquerors. And after his resurrection He ate and drank with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father. (Smyrna 3.1 - 2)

Of course it can be argued that Jesus is saying that he is 'not' a daimon. But clearly the earliest Christians could have at least conceived that the disciples having spent all their time with Jesus (= a year or more) would have imagined that he was a daimon.

Jerome tells us that this narrative comes from the Gospel according to the Hebrews. But it is worth noting that the Epistula Apostolorum emphasizes that the apostles 'touched' Jesus. As Vinzent notes, this gospel seems to have gone out of its way to negate the ambiguous reference in Luke (= the gospel of Marcion) where Jesus says they can touch him but they don't end up doing so:

Quote:

Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a spirit (= πνεῦμα) does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.

But clearly then in the earliest period of Christianity - or at least, the Jewish Christian community that produced both this gospel and the epistle of Ignatius - daimon and pneuma were interchangeable. This discussion might be useful too http://books.google.com/books?id=Vs9...mon%22&f=false

Chili · 03-23-2013, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

[This is not about the word "demon." This is about the Ten Commandments, which forbid "graven images." Are you claiming that Christians inserted this into the Hebrew scriptures?

I only brought this up because tanya went off on a tangent about idols

The Ten Commandments are carved upon the mind of man (TOL) as if in stone from where it must the convict the outer [human] mind (TOK) of sin.

To make this possible no graven images may be carved upon the human mind . . . such as I am a Christian and still s sinner yet, wherein the paradox is carved in the contradiciton and on this ideal he will stand until he dies. . . . and it will be those Christians who are ionoclasts, and so the argument will never be over and here we are again.

Toto · 03-23-2013, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanya

...

In my opinion, Toto, the prohibition is very clear: Jews were forbidden to CARVE images, that represented, NOT SPIRITS, but GODS.

At this, point, I think you are just arguing to argue. The difference between spirits, archons, demons, lesser gods, pagan gods, false gods - is - what?

Quote:

...

What about Gibson's FALSE notion that "sculptilis" means "sorcerer"? Did that pan out?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson, post 163

Leaving aside the fact which you seem to be unaware of that the Vulgate uses "sculptilis" to render כְשָׁפִ֖ים "sorceries", so what? All that means is that Jerome was giving the literal Latin equivalent of what he (or Lucian) found in the Hebrew text of Ps. 96. It has no bearing on whether אֱלִילִ֑ים (or for that matter "sculptillis") was thought to mean, or connoted, "evil spirits" -- a point that you have yet to deal with, and, notably, keep avoiding.

Jeffrey Gibson did not say that sculptilis means sorcerer. He said that the Vulgate used sculptilis to translate the Hebrew word for sorceries. This is an issue of translation that seems a bit far from the issue of the meaning of demon.

What was supposed to pan out here?

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.