Iskander

http://www.newadvent.org/bible/gen001.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

Chili

Yes they did. The hellish demon is the anti-christ who became know when Luke provided the efficient cause to get to heaven that John later proved in the final cause, and it is when he went to heaven that hell came crashing down with it, i.e. identified as two realities in a pair of opposites.

These are presented in John 6:66 as opposite to John 6:56 wherein only the anti-christ is named 666 after presenting its manners and ways in the second beast (Rev.13:11-) that came from the old earth (sin nature), and most unlike the first beast that came from the celestial sea as designed in heaven.

Notice that first beast has the stigmata that the second beast is pointing at, and claims for its own victory and they are the Jesus-worshipers that we know today . . . and is it not true that they want everybody to be 'saved' like them, and have no rest by day or by night to get this done so they will receive their own reward that they proclaim in the promise that they make.

Toto

I'm not defending, I'm attacking.

Pete came up with the idea that Christians had subverted a Greek word to mean something other than what it really and truly meant. He floated this idea without giving it enough thought.

He has not taken into account the common Jewish uses of the term or the Persians contribution to demonology.

Why are you defending him?

Iskander

Why then are you attacking shadows?

Judaism has no hell and no hellish-demon.
Zoroastrians have a hell and a dedicated evil spirit.

Was the Judeo-Christian religion infected with a diabolical virus Zoroastrian strain? That is an interesting and likely possibility

Chili

Yes but you cannot go by Knox:
Show me the essence of time wherein it has 'being' with a beginning now.

The word 'still' does not belong as if there was impatience already prior to patience.

And darkness does not hang but covers a void that is not the deep before a high is known.

And the wind is not the breath of God, but the mighty wind describes the vacuum of the void = give cause to be the negative stande of mother earth, receptive now to receive the mythmakers tale for us, and effectively he says: welcome to my world and here it is.

Then God said: . . .

Jeffrey Gibson

It's a fair translation of the text that Tanya adduces. But it is not the text in Hippocractes that I was referring to;

This is:

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.

I'll let Tanya provide translation for this..

But note, too, that it appears that what Tanya adduces (section 1 line 90-93) is a description of what the demon mentioned in Section 1, line 65 (a form of Hecate, it appears) accounts for.

You might also note that as far as I can recall, I did not "cite Hippocrates as an example of ancient Greek practice identifying πνεύμα with spirit." even if that sentece makes any sense.

And as to Tanya's question of whether anyone here is bothered by my use of Latin titles for the works of Greek authors, the answer is only those who are unaware, as she apparently is, that such a manner of citation has been, and continues to be, the standard practice of scholars and others who are familiar with the literature (and of Wiki, for that matter) to do so ever since Stephanus and is set out in the house style instructions of professional journals and publishers whose focus is the Classics (as well as of journals in Biblical and Near Eastern studies) as what one should do in citing Greek works.

And now, Pete, what about the pre-Christian and post 1st century and non Christian uses of κακοδαιμον not to mention τὰ κακὰ πνεύματα and πνεύμα πονηρόν. Will you please tell me what these expression were used to signify?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

We don't? What does Philo say? What does the pre-Christian Letter of Aristeas (accepted as authentic in its statements about who translated the Torah by Josephus [see AJ 12] and Philo) say? What do Philo and Josephus themselves say? Do they accept it as scripture? Would they have done so if it were a Christian product. And didn't they live well before the 4th century CE when there were no Christians?

How about what the grandson of Ben Sirach, who lived before the Christian era even if this begins in the first cent CE and whose work was preserved by Jews, says about LXX books?? How about the author of the Jewish preserved Aboth of Rabi Nathan, and the tractates Sopherim and Sefer Torah and Exodus Raba and the Midras hagodal to Deut 4:19 and the gaonic additions to the Megilat Ta'anit in which 1st second and 3rd century Jews give witness to the Jewish origin of the LXX. What do Theodotion, Symmachus, and Aquila reveal about its origins? And how does the discovery of LXX texts at Qumran at Nahal Hever (you don't know about this, do you?) figure in your claim?

Which only shows the depths of your ignorance in this matter.

I would suggest, Pete, that before you show yourself any more foolish and ill informed about the nature and history of the LXX than you already are, that you make no more claims about the LXX until you read Henry Swete's An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek or especially Natalio Fernández Marcos's The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible (or via: amazon.co.uk) ( and Martin Hengel's The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: It's Pre-History and the Problem of its Canon (or via: amazon.co.uk)

More supposition (not to mention petitio principii in your suppositions hidden supposition that only Christians preserved the LXX). But where's your proof? Is there any actual evidence at all for this when we compare the "christian" witnesses to the text of the LXX to the Jewish ones (of whose existence you seem to be woefully unaware).


The problem here, of course, is that you haven't shown that any change to the text of mark was done by someone in power, let alone that the addition of δαιμονες to the text of Mk 12 was done for any other reason than to help make clear what the subject of παρακαλέω -- which is left unclear in our earliest witnesses to Mk. 5:12
So if your premise is faulty and unsound, not to mention, wholly without evidence, anything that you base upon it is likely to be extremely dubious.

Sorry, Pete, but once again (how many times is this recently?) you have no idea what you are taking abou.

andrewcriddle

This post originally queried an earlier post which has now been corrected.

Andrew Criddle

Jeffrey Gibson

Yes, you are quite right. I don't know how I missed that.

It appears that our earliest witness to the reading παντες οι δαιμονες is A (5th cent). D (also 5th century) gives a variant of it

The problem with any idea that a mighty power was involved in inserting what appears to be simply a scribal clarification of who is beseeching Jesus is that the Sinaticus and Vaticanus readings persist in any number of MSS witnesses contemporary with and later than A & D (both 5th century) e.g, CLΔΠmg unc7 al pler c go syrp coppetr

Anyone who wants to argue that this was a forced insertion into the text not only has to explain credibly why this is so, but will have to prove that the scribes of A and D do not have any tendencies to clarify other texts where, as in the Siniaticus and Vaticanus texts of Mk. 5:12, the subject of a governing verb is not explicitly stated.

Jeffrey

Iskander

Adela Yarbro Collins,
Mark. A commentary
Hermeneia
Fortress Press, ISBN 978 0800660789


In note g to Mark 5:12

Professor Collins says that the earliest recoverable reading does not mention daimones and translates as “they entreated him, saying”. The other variants may be explained as resulting from attempts to clarify that the subject is the demons (and not the pigs mentioned in the previous verse).


My comment:
It seems that someone made what ought to have been an explanatory footnote a part of the sacred text inspired by god and hence the eternal truth