Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 04-01-2013, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But, back to the text, it makes the recognition that he was a demon to be the cause of them stoning him properly, ie being a demon was the cause of the serious job of stoning, indicating that being a demon in this case was sufficient to cause what happened, ie he deserved to be stoned and was thus bad. Being a demon here is bad.

The cause of the stoning was Apollonius who first identifies the "daimon".

Let's return to this after looking at:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG

Vit. Ap., IV, 10, 147 f (but see too,

Vit. Ap., III, 38, 138;

IV, 20, 157 f.

where he depicts Apollonius healing many who are said to be sick because they are possessed by "demons"

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 04-01-2013, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG

Vit. Ap., III, 38, 138;

Book 3, CHAPTER XXXVIII

Quote:

THIS discussion was interrupted by the appearance among the sages of the messenger bringing in certain Indians who were in want of succor. And he brought forward a poor woman who interceded in behalf of her child, who was, she said, a boy of sixteen years of age, but had been for two years possessed by a devil.

Now the character of the devil was that of a mocker and a liar. Here one of the sages asked, why she said this, and she replied: "

This child of mine is extremely good-looking, and therefore the devil is amorous of him and will not allow him to retain his reason, nor will he permit him to go to school, or to learn archery, nor even to remain at home, but drives him out into desert places.

And the boy does not even retain his own voice, but speaks in a deep hollow tone, as men do; and he looks at you with other eyes rather than with his own. As for myself I weep over all this and I tear my cheeks, and I rebuke my son so far as I well may; but he does not know me. And I made my mind to repair hither, indeed I planned to do so a year ago; only the demon discovered himself using my child as a mask, and what he told me was this, that he was the ghost of man, who fell long ago in battle, but that at death he was passionately attached to his wife.

Now he had been dead for only three days when his wife insulted their union by marrying another man, and the consequence was that he had come to detest the love of women, and had transferred himself wholly into this boy. But he promised, if I would only not denounce him to yourselves, to endow the child with many noble blessings. As for myself, I was influenced by these promises; but he has put me off and off for such a long time now, that he has got sole control of my household, yet has no honest or true intentions."

Here the sage asked afresh, if the boy was at hand; and she said not, for, although she had done all she could to get him to come with her, the demon had threatened her with steep places and precipices and declared that he would kill her son, "in case," she added, "I haled him hither for trial."

"Take courage," said the sage, "for he will not slay him when he has read this." And so saying he drew a letter out of his bosom and gave it to the woman; and the letter, it appears, was addressed to the ghost and contained threats of an alarming kind.

Where is "daimon" used in the above text?

I have highlighted what looks to be the instances (devil, demon, ghost).

Which of these translates from δαίμων in the Greek text?

Additionally, compare the bolded bit The "daimon" drives him out into desert places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luk 8:29

(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.
For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters;
and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

How much similarity is there in the Greek construction of these two bits?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 04-01-2013, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG

IV, 20, 157 f.

where he depicts Apollonius healing many who are said to be sick because they are possessed by "demons"

Book 4, CHAPTER XX

Quote:

Now while he was discussing the question of libations, there chanced to be present in his audience a young dandy who bore so evil a reputation for licentiousness that his conduct had long been the subject of coarse street-corner songs. His home was Corcyra, and he traced his pedigree to Alcinous the Phaeacian who entertained Odysseus. Apollonius then was talking about libations, and was urging them not to drink out of a particular cup, but to reserve it for the gods, without ever touching it or drinking out of it. But when he also urged them to have handles on the cup, and to pour the libation over the handle, because that is the part at which men are least likely to drink, the youth burst out into loud and coarse laughter, and quite drowned his voice.

Then Apollonius looked up and said: "It is not yourself that perpetrates this insult, but the demon, who drives you without your knowing it." And in fact the youth was, without knowing it, possessed by a devil; for he would laugh at things that no one else laughed at, and then would fall to weeping for no reason at all, and he would talk and sing to himself. Now most people thought that it was boisterous humor of youth which led him into excesses; but he was really the mouthpiece of a devil, though it only seemed a drunken frolic in which on that occasion he was indulging.

Now, when Apollonius gazed on him, the ghost in him began to utter cries of fear and rage, such as one hears from people who are being branded or racked; and the ghost swore that he would leave the you man alone and never take possession of any man again. But Apollonius addressed him with anger, as a master might a shifty, rascally, and shameless slave and so on, and he ordered him to quit the young man and show by a visible sign that he had done so.

"I will throw down yonder statue," said the devil, and pointed to one of the images which were there in the king's portico, for there it was that the scene took place. But when the statue began by moving gently, and then fell down, it would defy anyone to describe the hubbub which arose thereat and the way they clapped their hand with wonder.

But the young man rubbed his eyes as if he had just woke up, and he looked towards the rays of the sun, and assumed a modest aspect, as all had their attention concentrated on him; for he no longer showed himself licentious, nor did he stare madly about, but he had returned to his own self, as thoroughly as if he had been treated with drugs; and he gave up his dainty dress and summery garments and the rest of his sybaritic way of life, and he fell in love with the austerity of philosophers, and donned their cloak, and stripping off his old self modeled his life and future upon that of Apollonius

I have highlighted again the contending terms (demon, devil, ghost) in blue.

Which of these translates from δαίμων in the Greek text?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin · 04-01-2013, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

But, back to the text, it makes the recognition that he was a demon to be the cause of them stoning him properly, ie being a demon was the cause of the serious job of stoning, indicating that being a demon in this case was sufficient to cause what happened, ie he deserved to be stoned and was thus bad. Being a demon here is bad.

The cause of the stoning was Apollonius who first identifies the "daimon".

You can ignore the fact that, when the Ephesians recognized that they were dealing with a demon, they did a good job with their stoning.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Let's return to this after looking at:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG

Vit. Ap., IV, 10, 147 f (but see too,

Vit. Ap., III, 38, 138;

IV, 20, 157 f.

where he depicts Apollonius healing many who are said to be sick because they are possessed by "demons"

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman · 04-01-2013, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You can ignore the fact that, when the Ephesians recognized that they were dealing with a demon, they did a good job with their stoning.

No. You (and Jeffrey) win the point here. I think I am going to have to agree with your (and Jeffrey's) assessment about Philostratus.

After digging out the other two instances in VA, although I am confused which term or terms from (demon, ghost, devil)
have been translated in two separate instances from the Greek "daimon", it looks like I may have to admit the first match
that Philostratus in "VA" unambiguously uses the term in the same way as Matthew.

There also appears to be in the "VA" extract above some similarity to Luke about the "daimon sending him into the desert".
I don't think it matters that this "daimon" was in India and not Judea.

What does concern me though is the two sets of (demon, ghost, devil) assemblies.
Can you advise which term or terms in the originals above has been translated from δαίμων ?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin · 04-01-2013, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG

Vit. Ap., III, 38, 138;

Book 3, CHAPTER XXXVIII

Quote:

THIS discussion was interrupted by the appearance among the sages of the messenger bringing in certain Indians who were in want of succor. And he brought forward a poor woman who interceded in behalf of her child, who was, she said, a boy of sixteen years of age, but had been for two years possessed by a devil.

Now the character of the devil was that of a mocker and a liar. Here one of the sages asked, why she said this, and she replied: "

This child of mine is extremely good-looking, and therefore the devil is amorous of him and will not allow him to retain his reason, nor will he permit him to go to school, or to learn archery, nor even to remain at home, but drives him out into desert places.

And the boy does not even retain his own voice, but speaks in a deep hollow tone, as men do; and he looks at you with other eyes rather than with his own. As for myself I weep over all this and I tear my cheeks, and I rebuke my son so far as I well may; but he does not know me. And I made my mind to repair hither, indeed I planned to do so a year ago; only the demon discovered himself using my child as a mask, and what he told me was this, that he was the ghost of man, who fell long ago in battle, but that at death he was passionately attached to his wife.

Now he had been dead for only three days when his wife insulted their union by marrying another man, and the consequence was that he had come to detest the love of women, and had transferred himself wholly into this boy. But he promised, if I would only not denounce him to yourselves, to endow the child with many noble blessings. As for myself, I was influenced by these promises; but he has put me off and off for such a long time now, that he has got sole control of my household, yet has no honest or true intentions."

Here the sage asked afresh, if the boy was at hand; and she said not, for, although she had done all she could to get him to come with her, the demon had threatened her with steep places and precipices and declared that he would kill her son, "in case," she added, "I haled him hither for trial."

"Take courage," said the sage, "for he will not slay him when he has read this." And so saying he drew a letter out of his bosom and gave it to the woman; and the letter, it appears, was addressed to the ghost and contained threats of an alarming kind.

Where is "daimon" used in the above text?

I have highlighted what looks to be the instances (devil, demon, ghost).

Which of these translates from δαίμων in the Greek text?

While we are here, is there any other way I can hold your hand? Perhaps, I can console you for not knowing what you were talking about when you started the thread, because you just hadn't done the research. It's ok, mountainman: I absolve this time for neglecting to do what you should have done in the first place and checked for examples to contradict your initial assertion. Next time, someone else won't be so considerate.

The first four are the word in consideration. The next is a pronoun and the last is a word meaning "phantom".

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Additionally, compare the bolded bit The "daimon" drives him out into desert places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luk 8:29

(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.
For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters;
and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

How much similarity is there in the Greek construction of these two bits?

The expression in Lk 8:29 is translated literally, "unclean spirit", not the word we are looking at.

mountainman · 04-01-2013, 05:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The first four are the word in consideration. The next is a pronoun and the last is a word meaning "phantom".

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Additionally, compare the bolded bit The "daimon" drives him out into desert places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luk 8:29

(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.
For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters;
and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

How much similarity is there in the Greek construction of these two bits?

The expression in Lk 8:29 is translated literally, "unclean spirit", not the word we are looking at.

I thought the "daimon" instance here in the Greek TR was the word devil, at the end of the verse.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin · 04-01-2013, 06:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The expression in Lk 8:29 is translated literally, "unclean spirit", not the word we are looking at.

I thought the "daimon" instance here in the Greek TR was the word devil, at the end of the verse.

Right, it is. "Unclean spirit" in the first part refers to the same thing as "demon" in the second part.

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-01-2013, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

The first four are the word in consideration. The next is a pronoun and the last is a word meaning "phantom".

Thanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Additionally, compare the bolded bit The "daimon" drives him out into desert places.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luk 8:29

(For he had commanded the unclean spirit to come out of the man.
For oftentimes it had caught him: and he was kept bound with chains and in fetters;
and he brake the bands, and was driven of the devil into the wilderness.)

How much similarity is there in the Greek construction of these two bits?

The expression in Lk 8:29 is translated literally, "unclean spirit", not the word we are looking at.

I thought the "daimon" instance here in the Greek TR was the word devil, at the end of the verse.

The word in the Greek TR is not "devil" . How could it be?. The Greek TR is Greek text, not an English one. If you mean to say that the word at "the end of 8:29" is "devil" in the KJV translation of the TR, fine. But you also need to recognize that the KJV translators thought "devil" meant "evil spirit" (see the entry on "devil" in the OED).

Here's the TR text of Luke's version of the story of the Gerasene Demoniac.

Quote:

και κατεπλευσαν εις την χωραν των γαδαρηνων ητις εστιν αντιπεραν της γαλιλαιας 27 εξελθοντι δε αυτω επι την γην υπηντησεν αυτω ανηρ τις εκ της πολεως ος ειχεν δαιμονια εκ χρονων ικανων και ιματιον ουκ ενεδιδυσκετο και εν οικια ουκ εμενεν αλλ εν τοις μνημασιν 28 ιδων δε τον ιησουν και ανακραξας προσεπεσεν αυτω και φωνη μεγαλη ειπεν τι εμοι και σοι ιησου υιε του θεου του υψιστου δεομαι σου μη με βασανισης 29 παρηγγελλεν γαρ τω πνευματι τω ακαθαρτω εξελθειν απο του ανθρωπου πολλοις γαρ χρονοις συνηρπακει αυτον και εδεσμειτο αλυσεσιν και πεδαις φυλασσομενος και διαρρησσων τα δεσμα ηλαυνετο υπο του δαιμονος εις τας ερημους 30 επηρωτησεν δε αυτον ο ιησους λεγων τι σοι εστιν ονομα ο δε ειπεν λεγεων οτι δαιμονια πολλα εισηλθεν εις αυτον 31 και παρεκαλει αυτον ινα μη επιταξη αυτοις εις την αβυσσον απελθειν 32 ην δε εκει αγελη χοιρων ικανων βοσκομενων εν τω ορει και παρεκαλουν αυτον ινα επιτρεψη αυτοις εις εκεινους εισελθειν και επετρεψεν αυτοις 33 εξελθοντα δε τα δαιμονια απο του ανθρωπου εισηλθεν εις τους χοιρους και ωρμησεν η αγελη κατα του κρημνου εις την λιμνην και απεπνιγη 34 ιδοντες δε οι βοσκοντες το γεγενημενον εφυγον και απελθοντες απηγγειλαν εις την πολιν και εις τους αγρους 35 εξηλθον δε ιδειν το γεγονος και ηλθον προς τον ιησουν και ευρον καθημενον τον ανθρωπον αφ ου τα δαιμονια εξεληλυθει ιματισμενον και σωφρονουντα παρα τους ποδας του ιησου και εφοβηθησαν 36 απηγγειλαν δε αυτοις και οι ιδοντες πως εσωθη ο δαιμονισθεις 37 και ηρωτησαν αυτον απαν το πληθος της περιχωρου των γαδαρηνων απελθειν απ αυτων οτι φοβω μεγαλω συνειχοντο αυτος δε εμβας εις το πλοιον υπεστρεψεν 38 εδεετο δε αυτου ο ανηρ αφ ου εξεληλυθει τα δαιμονια ειναι συν αυτω απελυσεν δε αυτον ο ιησους λεγων 39 υποστρεφε εις τον οικον σου και διηγου οσα εποιησεν σοι ο θεος και απηλθεν καθ ολην την πολιν κηρυσσων οσα εποιησεν αυτω ο ιησους .

Now there's an interesting fact you haven't taken in to consideration. Luke was written to and for Gentiles. If, then, Gentiles had no idea that δαιμον meant "evil spirit, let alone, that δαιμονισθεις meant "being possessed by evil spirits", they'd be wholly unable to understand this passage. Are you willing to commit yourself to this -- as you are obligated to do given your claim that non Christian Greeks did not use these word with those senses that sense? Or is the assumption on the part of Luke -- who knows Greek culture -- that they already knew what these terms meant?

You might also want to consider, in evaluating your claim, the conjunctive use of "daimon, pneuma, and akatharos" in

Scholia In Demosthenem, (fort. auctore Ulpiano) (5017: 001)
“Scholia Demosthenica, 2 vols.”, Ed. Dilts, M.R. Leipzig: Teubner, 1:1983; 2:1986.
Oration 4, section 1b, line 19

Quote:

ἐκέχρητο δὲ ὁ περιστίαρχος χοίρῳ καὶ τοῖς τοιούτοις ἀκαθάρτοις, διὰ τούτων τοὺς ἀκαθάρτους δαίμονας καὶ τὰ πνεύματα πολλάκις ἐνοχλοῦντα ταῖς διανοίαις τῶν ἀνθρώπων, ὥστε πολλάκις ἄλλως βουλεύεσθαι, ἕλκων πρὸς τὰ θύματα καὶ ὥσπερ ἀποχωρίζων τῆς ἐκκλησίας,

which seems to show that Greeks would have been quite familiar with the meaning of the terminology that Luke uses.

Again, Pete, You do not know what you are talking about when your pontificate on matters Greek.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 04-01-2013, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Pete,

You can't just switch your dating of the gospel 'for the sake of the OP.' What kind of nonsense is this?

The OP is not necessarily about the dating of Matthew.

Of course it is. If Matthew was not written until the 4th century, then all pre 4th century instances of the use δαίμων must be taken into account before we can see whether or not your claim that it was the author of Matthew (Eusebius?) who "subverted the use of δαίμων has any validity.

Jeffrey

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.