Toto

The new rule in the forum is that you should, as a matter of courtesy, provide English translations.. If not for Pete, for the lurkers.

mountainman

I have been begging (the question) to know, not claiming to know. When I openly admit to not being able to read Greek I can hardly claim to know. And I have not been instructing you as such, but begging (the question) for the purpose of instruction.

Only two of these twelve citations, which I am assuming represent instances where the word "daimon" is used in the context of an "evil daimon" appear to be from the epoch BCE. Perhaps you would consider providing the English for Hippocrates?

I can probably try and track them down.

TDNT says Josephus prefers "daimonion".

The Philostratus reference is as follows in its full context:


This is translated from the Greek to English by F.C. Conybeare. I am assuming the original Greek word translated as "demon" was "daimon". But how do we know that Philostratus, if he had been standing by Conybeare and had known English, would have translated "daimon" as "demon" and not for example a "spirit" or a "semi-divine being inferior to the Gods". Do you understand my point with this question?


ADDENDUM: See the controversy over the (Coptic to English) translation of "daimon"
(initially to "spirit", and then via Deconick's suggestion to "demon") recently with the gJudas. (Post #34)


εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Von Bek

Thank you. I know that I am not the only lurker reading many of these posts. I studied Japanese in college, not exactly a language suited to understanding the origins of Christianity. I enjoy reading the back and forth discussions and appreciate translations of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew passages cited. I am too ignorant to directly comment on the issues raised but I try to follow along as well as I can. :blush:

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.



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.

Toto

This may also be of interest, in spite of some typos and weird formatting

http://www.preteristviewpoint.com/id181.html

tanya

Oops.

Did Jeffrey just misquote me, by accident, or with intention?

Here's what I wrote:

Not in the verses for which I provided a link.

The notion that the Hebrew word, pe si le ha, (better written, i.e. more readily understood, as Latin "sculptilia", following Jerome's Vulgate, based on the Hebrew of Lucian), identifies the object as INANIMATE, not a supernatural being, and not anthropomorphic, but rather, something CARVED.

Your references, and citations, Jeffrey, are TOO MODERN, TOO CONTEMPORARY, for my taste. I need something much more authentic, much closer to DSS.

Of course, the contemporary Christians will argue that "Demons" or "Devils" is the correct translation of sculptilia--> or its Hebrew equivalent. That's what we find in most English translations of Psalms, and as noted earlier, in Justin Martyr, and in Matthew, BUT NOT IN our two oldest, extant copies of MARK, codices sinaiticus and vaticanus. Why not Jeffrey?

You point to a recent vintage, "scholarly" treatment of this word, and this Psalm 96:5, while ignoring my points addressing your claims (erroneous in my view), that Douay Rheims accurately translates the Vulgate. I again invite you to retract your false assertion that Douay Rheims represents an accurate translation of Vulgate.

Your view, in harmony with Douay Rheims, is WRONG. You cannot persuade me to the contrary by invoking 20th century (or 19th century) critical analysis. Show me the ANCIENT Hebrew text that supports your belief that "pe si le ha", (aka "sculptilia" in Latin) from either Psalm 96:5, or Micah 1:7
corresponds NOT to an idol, or "graven image", but to a sentient, evil, supernatural creature.

I have furnished links to sources which confirm the rationale for Mark failing to invoke "daimon", in the AUTHENTIC, original version of Mark 5:2. Demons appear in Mark, only AFTER the debut of the fifth century, not before.

Justin Martyr simply ignored Mark, and based his text on Matthew, instead. Psalm 96:5 was clearly important to Justin Martyr, and his translation of it, accords with Jeffrey's.

That translation, from Matthew, from Justin Martyr, and from Jeffrey Gibson, is incorrect.

One need only examine the second of the fifteen commandments (sorry, the old maxim about moses dropping five of the tablets on his way down the mountain)
You shall not make for yourself a carved image

There's nothing there (Exodus 20:4) about "sorcerers", or "demons", or "devils". The prohibition is against CARVING an image to resemble a deity.

CARVED IMAGE.

That's what this thread is about.

Someone changed the meaning of "daimon", to represent EVIL god, and, (much earlier?), someone changed the meaning of the LXX version of Psalms 96:5, thus we have today two very different views of the "correct" version of that famous Hebrew poem.

I claim, the original version mentions NOTHING about animate, evil, supernatural deities, instead, describing the (evidently common) practice of CARVING stone or wood, to resemble some notion of an inanimate, god-like figurine.

Jeffrey has argued that the contemporary "scholarly" analyses concur in disputing the notion to which I adhere, and contrarily refute my position as wrong headed, clumsy, stupid, and uneducated.

I am sticking with my position. Let those with proficiency in DSS argue the point, if there is one visible to them. To me, there is an extraordinarily sharp, well defined and delimited demarcation between Jeffrey's view, and my own. It should be a trivial matter for one of the forum's cognoscenti, fluent in Hebrew, with knowledge of DSS, to support Jeffrey's contention.

The point of this forum, in my view, is to challenge the status quo, and if in the process, one learns something, so much the better. Jeffrey has not offended me, in any way, though I concur that his text may give someone the wrong impression. He is not as unkind, Stephan, as it may seem, from casual reading of his work. He is trying to help me, and I am grateful for his explanations, and his advice, and his help.

His criticisms are often, well, at least those directed to me, right on target. I do need to consume an ever larger dose of humble pie, and his rejoinders do tend to give one pause.

His writing is a welcome addition to the forum, and offers all of us, an opportunity to learn. I know that I learned something, reading his posts.

I also acknowledge Stephan, that you are not completely incorrect, and that you are also a little embarrassed by my audacity, challenging a master like Jeffrey, or you, or spin, or whomever.

This is not quantum physics, Stephan, it is simple, easy to understand ENGLISH, nearly impossible to understand Hebrew, and moderately difficult Greek, Latin, German, Spanish, et al, .

Whether or not an amateur can convincingly concoct novelty from something as timeworn as biblical textual critical analysis, is itself an interesting question, but not one that I am prepared to focus upon.

Clivedurdle

Is not the other vector to this discussion the people who meet and sup with the demons? There might be assumptions that need challenging there as well!

Witchcraft: A History (Dark Histories) (or via: amazon.co.uk)

Jeffrey Gibson

No. It's not -- even if I understood what you meant by "vector" -- especially when the source you and the material within it quote has nothing to do with the historical period in question. At best, all that source or any source like it could do would be to tells us how demons were regarded and what they thought they could do. But it would hardly have any bearing on the linguistic issue at hand.

Jeffrey

Sabine Grant

:blank:

Jeffrey Gibson

I wonder if you will introduce a similar rule that says that no one may attempt exegesis of a Greek or Hebrew or a Latin text on the basis of an English translation of it and/or no one who does not read an ancient language should tell us what texts written in that language mean.

Jeffrey