stephan huller

oh i see. you were just on the verge of getting through to him. i should have waited until the 800th post before throwing in the towel. again my apologies

Sheshbazzar

Tertullian was apparently acquainted with Justin, and uses material found in Justin in his Adversus Valentinianos and also relates that Justin was a philosopher, a martyr, ( a 'martyr', ie already dead when Tertullian wrote) and the earliest antagonist of heretics.

Clement was dead long before the time of Justin's writings, so no, Clement would not have known of, or made any mention Justin in his writings.

Many ancient writings that are mentioned in various ancient sources no longer exist. There are literally hundreds of early Greek and Roman writers of whose books there are no remaining texts.
That we do not have many texts from the earliest of church writers is not surprising, and is not any indication that these individuals did not exist. No more than for any other ancient writer or text of note that no longer exists.

The early church had the gospel's, and spreading 'the Gospel of 'Jesus' Christ was their focus.
What men like Justin were writing down about the contemporary church only became of any significant import at a latter date, when men wished to claim authority over the church and needed a 'church history' to support their claims.

First question last According to the account given, from Justin's encounter with the Christian religion, and his familiarity with the OT, the 'Memoirs of The Apostles' and John's Revelations.

This is ALL that is documented. Any allegations that Justin's writings are latter forgeries are nothing more than speculation.
No solid evidence or argument supporting this allegation has ever been produced.
There are no early writings from any source that dispute either Justin's existence or his writings.
When closely examined, the argument will be found to fail on many fronts.

Given that Christian texts have been recovered that are dated to the early 2nd century, as well as the Dura Europos house church, outside of the promotion of some personal theory or agenda, there is very little reason to doubt that Justin was an authentic 2nd century writer, the more so, when his works when examined, discredit many of the claims of the latter church.
They would not have forged those texts, as they are an adverse witness to 3rd and 4th century Orthodox doctrinal claims.





.

Jeffrey Gibson

You should have acted like an adult.

Jeffrey

mountainman

The lineage of Platonists (and Stoics) through to Porphyry seem to have used the notion of δαίμων as an integral concept in their metaphysical / philosophical system.

Moreover I have above presented evidence (see post #405) as yet not discussed that Augustine openly subverts the meaning of δαίμων as used in a letter from Porphyry to Iamblichus. This instance of subversion seems quite clear and is representative of the claim made in the OP.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

I do give a fuck about this business. If you have nothing to say about the OP please refrain from posting in this thread.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

This exclusivity is integral to understanding the OP.


Irrelevant. The OP is focussed on δαίμων


Before Christianity the term δαίμων did not exclusively mean "evil spirit", and was in fact used by the Platonic and Stoic philosophers as an integral part of their metaphysical / philosophical system.



We are not dealing with any language change here, but rather the change of the usage of language found in the holy writ of the NT which was used to convert and rule the pagan Roman empire.

The entire point is that language use changes introduced in such a momentous HOLY FUCKING WRIT are going to be obviously extremely influential in the political context of the epoch.

Any pagan Platonist or Stoic asking the Christian Bishops what harm there would be in contemplating the nature of the "guardian spirit" would be told in no uncertain terms that such a concept was EVIL EVIL EVIL. We can see that Epiphanius classifies the Platonists and Stoics as heretics.

Earlier I cited references to the notion of a universal individual "daimon" and it seems to me that this pagan concept is essentially the forerunner to the Christian concept of the "Holy Spirit".





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

avi

Thank you Jeffrey, a well written, informative, educational rejoinder, much appreciated.

I am impressed.

If I have failed to address your questions, it ought not be assumed that the reason for absence of reply, is based on disinterest in the subject matter, or that I deem Dr. Gibson's comments irrelevant.

Au contraire, this was a lucid, challenging, outstanding response, worthy of your lofty stature on the forum. Thank you. I will be working on a reply, though, It may take some time, to investigate the answers. I do not dispute your suggestion that I am ill informed.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion, still, that, mountainman is to be congratulated for introducing a worthy topic for discussion. I remain convinced, albeit without quotes to offer, (faith is a marvelous tonic!) that in ancient times, δαίμων was NOT associated EXCLUSIVELY with evil as we associate the word today. Your request for a quote is not unworthy, but I am insufficiently adept, and cannot offer, at this point in time, the evidence you rightfully request.

Thank you very much, for these comments, Shesh, always appreciated.

My fault for not specifying Clement of Alexandria. You were thinking of Clement of Rome, about whom I know nothing, and I suspect, neither does anyone else.

Origen, it seems to me, ought to be the key, here. he was the Sheshbazzar of his era. He taught himself, (I imagine, maybe not true) Hebrew, not unlike you, right?

His Hexapla is a great resource, even today, as it was in the time of Jerome.

Did Origen quote Philo of Alexandria? Did Justin Martyr cite Philo? Both of these scholars knew the torah, intimately. They could quote individual passages. They could integrate the "memoirs of the apostles", or the gospels as they were known by the time of Origen, but, did they know of Philo? How did Philo treat the concept of δαίμων. Did Matthew derive his hostility to δαίμων, based exclusively on reading the Torah, or was he influenced in any way by Philo?

Somewhere along the line, δαίμων changed. Jeffrey and spin argue that this change preceded the rise of Christianity. OK, that's fine. But, then, WHEN?

and HOW, and WHY?

Why should a pagan Greek care a whit about δαίμων, if they were defined as exclusively evil, anthropomorphic, sentient beings?

Sheshbazzar

Plenty of questions. Have fun finding the answers.

mountainman

I think most people could agree with this. There does not appear to be any agreement on the cause of the change in meaning. For example we have seen that according to the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible


I don't buy this explanation.

It seems likely to me that the Christians promoted the "Holy Spirit" and demoted the "Guardian Spirit".





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

I have had another look at the Josephus instance. I was wondwering who it was that Josephus describes as the avatar against the "demons". Josephus is referring to Solomon. The expanded citation:

Now the sagacity and wisdom which God had bestowed on Solomon was so great, that he exceeded the ancients; insomuch that he was no way inferior to the Egyptians, who are said to have been beyond all men in understanding; nay, indeed, it is evident that their sagacity was very much inferior to that of the king's. He also excelled and distinguished himself in wisdom above those who were most eminent among the Hebrews at that time for shrewdness; those I mean were Ethan, and Heman, and Chalcol, and Darda, the sons of Mahol. He also composed books of odes and songs a thousand and five, of parables and similitudes three thousand; for he spake a parable upon every sort of tree, from the hyssop to the cedar; and in like manner also about beasts, about all sorts of living creatures, whether upon the earth, or in the seas, or in the air; for he was not unacquainted with any of their natures, nor omitted inquiries about them, but described them all like a philosopher, and demonstrated his exquisite knowledge of their several properties.

God also enabled him to learn that skill which expels demons, (4) which is a science useful and sanative to men. He composed such incantations also by which distempers are alleviated. And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day; for I have seen a certain man of my own country, whose name was Eleazar, releasing people that were demoniacal in the presence of Vespasian, and his sons, and his captains, and the whole multitude of his soldiers.

I find the bolded statement very interesting.

And he left behind him the manner of using exorcisms, by which they drive away demons, so that they never return; and this method of cure is of great force unto this day.

This sounds like Josephus is describing the talismans of Apollonius of Tyana


Does anyone else find this coincidental?




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia