Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] allusions...

Expand Messages
  • Leon Albert
    ... From: Jim West To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:34 PM Subject: [XTalk] allusions... What the devil was the allusion about
    Message 1 of 30 , Feb 28, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Jim West
      To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:34 PM
      Subject: [XTalk] allusions...


      What the devil was the allusion about when the devil was carrying a hairy
      backed baby around?

      Thanks

      Jim
      The devil also seems to have been playing the role of "stalker" at practically every event as well. I'm reminded of Burton Mack's observation that only the demons appear to know the true identity of Jesus.

      Leon Albert
      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scienceevolutionandreligion


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Jack Kilmon
      ... From: Jim West To: Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:34 PM Subject: [XTalk] allusions... ... It was a
      Message 2 of 30 , Feb 28, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Jim West" <jwest@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:34 PM
        Subject: [XTalk] allusions...


        > What the devil was the allusion about when the devil was carrying a hairy
        > backed baby around?
        >
        > Thanks
        >
        > Jim


        It was a graphic of John 8:44:

        Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
        He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because
        there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
        for he is a liar, and the father of it.

        The child, I believe, represented (As 4G states), the Jews.


        Jack
      • Jan Sammer
        Jack is evidently right on the source of the allusion, however, if the passage is read in the context of Pauline writings, in particular Galatians, it is not
        Message 3 of 30 , Feb 29, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Jack is evidently right on the source of the allusion, however, if the
          passage is read in the context of Pauline writings, in particular Galatians,
          it is not as anti-Jewish as it might at first sight appear. In John 8:31ff
          the Jews are told that if they follow the truth of Jesus' teaching they
          would become free. They counter that they are already free by virtue of
          being the descendants of Abraham. He counters their claim by telling them
          that they are the children TOU DIABOLOU -- an expression which did not have
          the same shock value in the original Greek as it does in present-day
          English; literally it means that they are living a lie and hence are not
          truly free. I suspect that the expression hUMEIS EK TOU PATROS TOU DIABOLOU
          ESTE has an Aramaic equivalent meaning something like "living a lie"--but
          the intricacies of Aramaic are beyond my ken.

          This entire argument is closely mirrored in Galatians, where Paul explains
          to those that follow Jesus that they are the true heirs of Abraham's promise
          and therefore free (Gal. 4:21-5:1), similarly in Romans (4:13ff). That such
          typically Pauline argumentation as freedom from the law in Christ is
          inserted into Jesus' mouth in GJohn suggests to me once more that the core
          of this gospel (not necessarily its latest redaction) was composed at the
          time of Paul's trial to bolster his defense before the Court of Caesar. In
          5G this relationship is noted, but its implication is merely related to "a
          period of early Christian self-definition." The fact is that this issue is
          typical of Pauline Christianity and was the core issue in his trial, in
          which the court was to determine whether Paul was propagating the true form
          of Judaism, a religio licita, as he claimed, his converts being the true
          heirs of Abraham's promise, or a superstitio as was argued by Annanias, the
          High Priest, represented by the lawyer Tertullus.

          Seen in the light of Pauline Christology, the statement simply means that
          the Jews who did not accept Jesus' message were not justified in claiming
          Abraham as their father; they were the slaves to a lie and in terms of
          Galatians, the descendants of Hagar, the slave woman.

          The hairy baby is an unforgivably literal interpretation of the KJ version
          and should have been thrown out along with its bathwater--or rather left on
          the cutting room floor (my judgment may change after I see the movie, but I
          don't expect so).

          Jan Sammer

          > > What the devil was the allusion about when the devil was carrying a
          hairy
          > > backed baby around?
          > >
          > > Thanks
          > >
          > > Jim
          >
          >
          > It was a graphic of John 8:44:
          >
          > Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will
          do.
          > He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because
          > there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
          > for he is a liar, and the father of it.
          >
          > The child, I believe, represented (As 4G states), the Jews.
          >
          >
          > Jack
          >
        • Leon Albert
          ... From: Jack Kilmon To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] allusions... ... From: Jim West
          Message 4 of 30 , Feb 29, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Jack Kilmon
            To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 11:02 PM
            Subject: Re: [XTalk] allusions...



            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Jim West" <jwest@...>
            To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:34 PM
            Subject: [XTalk] allusions...


            > What the devil was the allusion about when the devil was carrying a hairy
            > backed baby around?
            >
            > Thanks
            >
            > Jim


            It was a graphic of John 8:44:

            Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
            He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because
            there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
            for he is a liar, and the father of it.

            The child, I believe, represented (As 4G states), the Jews.


            Jack

            A neat exegesis, Jack. Perhaps you can explain the scene with the obsession
            of the two Mary's with cleaning up the post-flagellation blood? Since there
            is no such concern in either the biblical or the traditional "accounts,"
            perhaps this is Gibson's way of apologizing for his Catholic obsession with
            blood? Come to think of it, the resulting blood ON Mary is a literal
            manifestation of "his blood be upon us," a line that I understand is still
            spoken in the film, but deleted from the subtitle translations due to
            Gibson's concerns over the complaints of anti-Semitism. Literally putting
            the blood on his own mother certianly reinforces the idea of the guilt for
            his death going far beyond just the Jewish agents, as does the fact that the
            Roman torturers are also liberally splattered with his blood.

            Leon Albert
            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scienceevolutionandreligion
          • Dr. Rikk E. Watts (Cantab)
            Dear Jack, What¹s the source of your interpretation? I¹m intrigued because I asked someone who attended a pre-screening about this element and his account
            Message 5 of 30 , Feb 29, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Jack,

              What¹s the source of your interpretation? I¹m intrigued because I asked
              someone who attended a pre-screening about this element and his account of
              the official explanation is somewhat different. He said this was one image
              that a number of people didn¹t understand and which came up early in the
              question time. The official respondent explained it as a demonic/satanic
              parody of Mary who is watching all this and into whose face an androgynous
              Satan is gazing. Here is her son suffering for the world over against which
              stands Satan and his demonic faceless inhuman offspring ‹ represented by the
              malformed baby on his back and incarnate in the sadistic viciousness of the
              Roman soldiers. Take your choice of incarnation. From my perspective (as a
              film buff of 30 years and amateur art historian) I must confess this latter
              version makes a great deal more sense.

              For what its worth my 23 year old son who plays drums in a rock band that
              recently won an award in Vancouver for best alternative band of the year,
              and who is a first-rate student in fourth year humanities and English lit at
              Simon Fraser University went to see it with some of his musician/art friends
              last night, Christian and non. He is an avid film buff especially of the art
              and alternative genres. He said this was the most amazing film he/they had
              ever seen, beautifully crafted and stunningly acted, they couldn¹t speak for
              at least 20 mins after ‹ he said he¹d never had this experience before. But
              he emphasized that one needs to watch it as Œpoetry¹ / Œlyric¹ and
              interpretive icon/image within the Catholic tradition and in the context of
              a world where human beings really do inflict unspeakable cruelties upon each
              other. He felt that if people were determined to find anti-semitism they
              would but he didn¹t think that was a fair reading of the movie, since there
              are numbers of Jews at all levels who want to resist what is happening and
              who show concern for Jesus. He also noted that Pilate¹s personal brutality
              and needless shedding of blood is mentioned, twice in fact. But he
              suggested that just like lots of people don¹t really know how to read
              various forms of modern art or literature, he wouldn¹t be surprised if
              people misread this film because of lack of familiarity with its constituent
              elements and genre. When I mentioned that some people had complained of lack
              of plot and not enough character development, or explanation of Jesus¹
              teaching, he replied that this was exactly what he meant. It is entitled The
              Passion (not Life) of the Christ (not Jesus). I was pretty impressed.

              Well that¹s enough...

              Rikk



              On 28/2/04 9:02 PM, "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...> wrote:

              >
              > ----- Original Message -----
              > From: "Jim West" <jwest@...>
              > To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
              > Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 3:34 PM
              > Subject: [XTalk] allusions...
              >
              >
              >> > What the devil was the allusion about when the devil was carrying a hairy
              >> > backed baby around?
              >> >
              >> > Thanks
              >> >
              >> > Jim
              >
              >
              > It was a graphic of John 8:44:
              >
              > Ye are of [your] father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do.
              > He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because
              > there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own:
              > for he is a liar, and the father of it.
              >
              > The child, I believe, represented (As 4G states), the Jews.
              >
              >
              > Jack
              >
              >
              >
              > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
              >
              > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              > ADVERTISEMENT
              > Click Here
              > <http://rd.yahoo.com/SIG=12cbc7olr/M=274551.4550177.5761904.1261774/D=egroupwe
              > b/S=1705077360:HM/EXP=1078117299/A=2019528/R=2/SIG=14188n927/*http://ad.double
              > click.net/jump/N3349.yahoo1/B1282054.27;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=300x250;code=1863
              > 4;dcopt=rcl;ord=107803>
              >
              >
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
              > * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/
              > *
              > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              > * crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
              > <mailto:crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
              > *
              > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
              > <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
              >




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Jack Kilmon
              ... From: Bob MacDonald To: Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 5:35 PM Subject: RE: [XTalk] allusions...
              Message 6 of 30 , Mar 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Bob MacDonald" <bobmacdonald@...>
                To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2004 5:35 PM
                Subject: RE: [XTalk] allusions...


                > Jim asked: What the devil was the allusion about when the
                > devil was carrying a hairy backed baby around?
                >
                > I guess this is a mockery of the madonna and child image -
                > Satan's 'new creation'.
                >
                > Bob


                I believe it is an allusion to John 8:44


                JK
              • Jim West
                ... Curiously, Gibson has another definition- http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/news/040301-passion.html which frankly I find incomprehensible. I like
                Message 7 of 30 , Mar 2, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 01:22 PM 3/2/04 -0600, you wrote:

                  >I believe it is an allusion to John 8:44


                  Curiously, Gibson has another definition-
                  http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/news/040301-passion.html

                  which frankly I find incomprehensible. I like the allusion to John 8:44
                  much better as it actually makes sense.

                  Jim

                  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                  Dr Jim West
                  Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
                  http://biblical-studies.org -- Biblical Studies Resources
                  http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com -- Biblical Studies Resources Weblog


                  "Critics are like eunuchs. They know what is supposed to happen, but they
                  can't do it themselves". Soren Kierkegaard
                • Jan Sammer
                  I am still hoping that someone on this list will comment on the underlying meaning of diabolos in the Greek of GJohn and its Aramaic or Hebrew background.
                  Message 8 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I am still hoping that someone on this list will comment on the underlying
                    meaning of diabolos in the Greek of GJohn and its Aramaic or Hebrew
                    background. Diabolos is literally slanderer or liar and the entire passage
                    deals with the true parenthood of the Jesus's interlocutors: are they the
                    Children of Abraham or the Children of the Slanderer or someone who makes
                    false accusations. Could the reference possibly be to Genesis 16:12 and
                    Ishmael? These are the alternatives that Paul discusses in Galatians and
                    they may apply in this case as well. But here is no occasion in the
                    scriptures where Ishmael makes false accusations against anyone. Or from a
                    different temporal perspective, could the slanderer or false accuser be an
                    oblique allusion to Annanias the high priest who had falsely accused Paul
                    and/or Caiaphas who had falsely accused Jesus? Or perhaps the entirely
                    priestly line that was persecuting the nascent Christian movement? In
                    Hebrews it is stressed that Abraham recognized the priesthood of Melchizedek
                    and Jesus was said to be a priest in the tradition of Melchizedek--in
                    opposition to the high priests of the day. This suggests that the contrast
                    of Children of Abraham / Children of Diabolos might indicate a dichotomy
                    between two traditions of priesthood. Jesus' interlocutors claim to be the
                    children of Abraham, whose priest was Melchizedek, yet they follow
                    prentenders to the priesthood that falsely accused Jesus of blasphemy and
                    that were falsely accusing Paul of propagating a superstitio. If we want to
                    get at the intent of this passage, we need to shed the medieval notion of
                    diabolos as incarnate evil, one that is apparently propagated once more in
                    the movie under discussion.

                    Jan Sammer

                    > >I believe it is an allusion to John 8:44
                    >
                    >
                    > Curiously, Gibson has another definition-
                    > http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/news/040301-passion.html
                    >
                    > which frankly I find incomprehensible. I like the allusion to John 8:44
                    > much better as it actually makes sense.
                    >
                    > Jim
                    >
                  • Lisbeth S. Fried
                    Dear All, Is it not whitewashing to label the Diabolos as simply slanderer or liar? I seem to recall that Diabolos is used in the Greek writings to translate
                    Message 9 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear All,
                      Is it not whitewashing to label the Diabolos as simply slanderer or liar?
                      I seem to recall that Diabolos is used in the Greek writings to translate
                      the demons of Zoroastrianism, along with the term daemon.
                      Liz Fried
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: Jan Sammer [mailto:sammer@...]
                      Sent: Wed, March 03, 2004 3:44 AM
                      To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [XTalk] allusions...


                      I am still hoping that someone on this list will comment on the underlying
                      meaning of diabolos in the Greek of GJohn and its Aramaic or Hebrew
                      background. Diabolos is literally slanderer or liar and the entire passage
                      deals with the true parenthood of the Jesus's interlocutors: are they the
                      Children of Abraham or the Children of the Slanderer or someone who makes
                      false accusations. Could the reference possibly be to Genesis 16:12 and
                      Ishmael? These are the alternatives that Paul discusses in Galatians and
                      they may apply in this case as well. But here is no occasion in the
                      scriptures where Ishmael makes false accusations against anyone. Or from a
                      different temporal perspective, could the slanderer or false accuser be an
                      oblique allusion to Annanias the high priest who had falsely accused Paul
                      and/or Caiaphas who had falsely accused Jesus? Or perhaps the entirely
                      priestly line that was persecuting the nascent Christian movement? In
                      Hebrews it is stressed that Abraham recognized the priesthood of
                      Melchizedek
                      and Jesus was said to be a priest in the tradition of Melchizedek--in
                      opposition to the high priests of the day. This suggests that the contrast
                      of Children of Abraham / Children of Diabolos might indicate a dichotomy
                      between two traditions of priesthood. Jesus' interlocutors claim to be the
                      children of Abraham, whose priest was Melchizedek, yet they follow
                      prentenders to the priesthood that falsely accused Jesus of blasphemy and
                      that were falsely accusing Paul of propagating a superstitio. If we want
                      to
                      get at the intent of this passage, we need to shed the medieval notion of
                      diabolos as incarnate evil, one that is apparently propagated once more in
                      the movie under discussion.

                      Jan Sammer

                      > >I believe it is an allusion to John 8:44
                      >
                      >
                      > Curiously, Gibson has another definition-
                      > http://www.christianitytoday.com/movies/news/040301-passion.html
                      >
                      > which frankly I find incomprehensible. I like the allusion to John 8:44
                      > much better as it actually makes sense.
                      >
                      > Jim
                      >




                      The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                      To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                      crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      List managers may be contacted directly at:
                      crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com





                      ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      --
                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/

                      b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                      c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                      ... Can you tell us where you read this? And which Greek writings are you speaking of? Jeffrey -- Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.) 1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                      Message 10 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "Lisbeth S. Fried" wrote:

                        > Dear All,
                        > Is it not whitewashing to label the Diabolos as simply slanderer or
                        > liar?
                        > I seem to recall that Diabolos is used in the Greek writings to
                        > translate
                        > the demons of Zoroastrianism, along with the term daemon.

                        Can you tell us where you read this? And which Greek writings are you
                        speaking of?

                        Jeffrey
                        --

                        Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                        1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                        Chicago, IL 60626

                        jgibson000@...



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Lisbeth S. Fried
                        Darn, I was afraid someone would ask me, I ve been trying to remember. I thought Herodotus, but I couldn t find it. Now I see that I must be wrong. It s not in
                        Message 11 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Darn, I was afraid someone would ask me, I've been
                          trying to remember. I thought Herodotus, but I couldn't
                          find it.
                          Now I see that I must be wrong. It's not in L&S, and
                          if it were in Herodotus, or any of the Greek writers I
                          would have read, then it would be in L&S, so oops!
                          mea culpa.
                          Back to the drawing board,
                          or maybe back to lurking.
                          Liz Fried
                          Slinking away, redfaced.
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: Jeffrey B. Gibson [mailto:jgibson000@...]
                          Sent: Wed, March 03, 2004 1:03 PM
                          To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [XTalk] allusions...




                          "Lisbeth S. Fried" wrote:

                          > Dear All,
                          > Is it not whitewashing to label the Diabolos as simply slanderer or
                          > liar?
                          > I seem to recall that Diabolos is used in the Greek writings to
                          > translate
                          > the demons of Zoroastrianism, along with the term daemon.

                          Can you tell us where you read this? And which Greek writings are you
                          speaking of?

                          Jeffrey
                          --

                          Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                          1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                          Chicago, IL 60626

                          jgibson000@...



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                          The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                          To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                          crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          List managers may be contacted directly at:
                          crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com




                          Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                          ADVERTISEMENT





                          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          --
                          Yahoo! Groups Links

                          a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                          http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/

                          b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                          c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Bob Schacht
                          ... Liz, Don t slink away, please. Was this what you were thinking of? ... [from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm ] From The Anchor Bible
                          Message 12 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            At 01:22 PM 3/3/2004 -0500, you wrote:
                            >Darn, I was afraid someone would ask me, I've been
                            >trying to remember. I thought Herodotus, but I couldn't find it.
                            >Now I see that I must be wrong. It's not in L&S, and
                            >if it were in Herodotus, or any of the Greek writers I
                            >would have read, then it would be in L&S, so oops! mea culpa.
                            >Back to the drawing board, or maybe back to lurking.
                            >Liz Fried
                            >Slinking away, redfaced.

                            Liz,
                            Don't slink away, please. Was this what you were thinking of?

                            >Manichæism

                            >II. SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE
                            >
                            >Doctrine

                            >The key to Mani's system is his cosmogony....
                            >We are giving the cosmogony as contained in Theodore Bar Khoni, embodying
                            >the results of the study of Francois Cumont. Before the existence of
                            >heaven and earth and all that is therein, there were two Principles, the
                            >one Good the other Bad. ...

                            >Opposed to the Father of Grandeur is the King of Darkness. He is actually
                            >never called God, but otherwise, he and his kingdom down below are exactly
                            >parallel to the ruler and realm of the light above....

                            >These two powers might have lived eternally in peace, had not the Prince
                            >of Darkness decided to invade the realm of light. On the approach of the
                            >monarch of chaos the five aeons of light were seized with terror. This
                            >incarnation of evil called Satan or Ur-devil (Diabolos protos, Iblis
                            >Kadim, in Arabic sources), a monster half fish, half bird, yet with four
                            >feet and lion-headed, threw himself upward toward the confines of light.

                            [from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09591a.htm ]

                            From "The Anchor Bible Dictionary" [as copied in
                            http://www.satanservice.org/propaganda/acad.90sa.txt, so caveat lector!]:

                            >_DEVIL_ {Gk *diabolos}. The LXX and NT translation of the OT
                            >*satan*. *Satan* is a judicial term referring to an "accuser,"
                            >"slanderer," "calumniator," or "adversary" in court (cf. Ps 109:6).
                            >The NT also uses the transliteration *satanos*, which is synonymous
                            >with *diabolos* (cf. Rev 12:9). *Diabolos* is rare outside the
                            >LXX and the NT. It is found in Wis 2:23-24, which identifies the
                            >serpent of Genesis 3 with the Devil....
                            >
                            >SATAN as a supernatural accuser of humankind in the heavenly court
                            >and working for God occurs three times in the OT. In Zech 3:1-10
                            >Satan stands at God's right hand to accuse Joshua the High Priest,
                            >only to have his accusation spurned. In Job 1-2 Satan questions
                            >the sincerety of Job's righteousness before God in the midst of
                            >the heavenly council. Here his office is expanded beyond accuser,
                            >for he is given control over sickness, death, and nature in the
                            >testing of Job. In 1 Chr 21:1 Satan incites David to sin by
                            >taking a census. Here the anarthrous form of *Satan* becomes a
                            >proper name. Also apparent here is the tendency to divorce
                            >temptation from God and assign it to Satan, for in the earlier
                            >version of the census of David, God, not Satan, is the agent of
                            >the temptation (2 Sam 24:1; cf. Jas 1:13).
                            >
                            >The notion of the Devil as an independent evil power no longer
                            >in heaven but ruling a demonic kingdom and headed for judgement
                            >is absent in the OT. This move from a subordinate accuser to
                            >an independent tempter was a development of the intertestamental
                            >period and has been attributed to a number of factors. In
                            >limited favor in current scholarship is the proposal that the
                            >Hebrew notion of Satan was borrowed or heavily influenced by the
                            >dualism of Persian Avestan Zoroastrianism, in which Angra Mainyu,
                            >the evil god, opposes Ahura Mazda, the good god. However, in
                            >Hebrew thought, Satan is always subordinate to God and Angra
                            >Mainyu does not function as an accuser in Zoroastrianism. Still,
                            >a development of Zoroastrian concepts cannot be ruled out.

                            An ancient connection may also be linguistic. As one website argues,
                            >...the root of the term diabolos (diavolos in Greek, even today) itself is
                            >also the Aryan root div. Moreover, if we base another argument on the
                            >anthropological claim of the common Indo-European ancestry of all the
                            >peoples of the Mediterranean basin, we can as well safely presume that
                            >even the Aryan root div emerges directly from the Sanskrit root deva....
                            > The important role played by the demons in the Mazdean system may be
                            > observed in the Vendidad, which is the largest and most complete part of
                            > the Avesta, so much so that when the sacred book is written or printed
                            > without the commentaries it is generally known as Vendidad Sade which
                            > means something that is "given against the demons" - vidaevodata, i.e.
                            > contra daimones datus or antidaemoniacus.

                            [http://occult.yabal.com/demon_zoroaster.html%5d

                            Does this do anything to jog your memory?
                            And does anyone else have Pagel's The History of Satan handy?

                            Bob

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • Jan Sammer
                            I don t think it s a whitewash. It is the literal and ordinary meaning of the term. The term could apparently cover different situations, but in its most
                            Message 13 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I don't think it's a whitewash. It is the literal and ordinary meaning of
                              the term. The term could apparently cover different situations, but in its
                              most ordinary sense it meant "slanderer" or "accuser" -- as in 1 Timothy
                              3:11 where wives are advised not to be diabolous-we are obviously not
                              talking about demonic possession here, but simply of the need to avoid
                              behavior such as slander and false accusations. What I am getting at is that
                              the use of the term in John 8:44 does not necessarily mean that Jesus'
                              interlocutors are the children of the devil (as in Mel Gibson's hairy baby,
                              if that is in fact the allusion), but merely children of false accusers and
                              slanderers. That is why I hoped for input from an Aramaicist, since I seem
                              to recall that in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew, "son of" or "children of" is
                              often used figuratively to indicate belonging to a certain group. Thus the
                              statement that Jesus' Jewish interlocutors were children of diabolos, could
                              merely mean that they belonged to a group of slanderers and false
                              accusers--i.e., in contemporary terms (in terms of the composition of the
                              first redaction of GJohn), we have to do with Paul's opponents from among
                              the temple hierarchy. Again no whitewash is being attempted, just digging
                              for contemporary meaning.

                              Jan Sammer

                              > Dear All,
                              > Is it not whitewashing to label the Diabolos as simply slanderer or liar?
                              > I seem to recall that Diabolos is used in the Greek writings to translate
                              > the demons of Zoroastrianism, along with the term daemon.
                              > Liz Fried
                            • Lisbeth S. Fried
                              Yes, you are correct in the Aramaic/Hebrew interpretation of son of. But the text is in Greek! Would it have that meaning in Greek, or do you posit an
                              Message 14 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Yes, you are correct in the Aramaic/Hebrew interpretation of "son of."
                                But the text is in Greek! Would it have that meaning in Greek, or do
                                you posit an Aramaic original?
                                Liz Fried
                                (back from slinking away)
                                -----Original Message-----
                                From: Jan Sammer [mailto:sammer@...]
                                Sent: Wed, March 03, 2004 2:20 PM
                                To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: Re: [XTalk] allusions...


                                I don't think it's a whitewash. It is the literal and ordinary meaning of
                                the term. The term could apparently cover different situations, but in its
                                most ordinary sense it meant "slanderer" or "accuser" -- as in 1 Timothy
                                3:11 where wives are advised not to be diabolous-we are obviously not
                                talking about demonic possession here, but simply of the need to avoid
                                behavior such as slander and false accusations. What I am getting at is
                                that
                                the use of the term in John 8:44 does not necessarily mean that Jesus'
                                interlocutors are the children of the devil (as in Mel Gibson's hairy
                                baby,
                                if that is in fact the allusion), but merely children of false accusers
                                and
                                slanderers. That is why I hoped for input from an Aramaicist, since I seem
                                to recall that in Aramaic as well as in Hebrew, "son of" or "children of"
                                is
                                often used figuratively to indicate belonging to a certain group. Thus the
                                statement that Jesus' Jewish interlocutors were children of diabolos,
                                could
                                merely mean that they belonged to a group of slanderers and false
                                accusers--i.e., in contemporary terms (in terms of the composition of the
                                first redaction of GJohn), we have to do with Paul's opponents from among
                                the temple hierarchy. Again no whitewash is being attempted, just digging
                                for contemporary meaning.

                                Jan Sammer

                                > Dear All,
                                > Is it not whitewashing to label the Diabolos as simply slanderer or
                                liar?
                                > I seem to recall that Diabolos is used in the Greek writings to
                                translate
                                > the demons of Zoroastrianism, along with the term daemon.
                                > Liz Fried




                                The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                                To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                                crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                List managers may be contacted directly at:
                                crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com




                                Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                ADVERTISEMENT





                                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                --
                                Yahoo! Groups Links

                                a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                                http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/

                                b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Jan Sammer
                                I have read books and articles which did propose such, in a way that I found convincing at the time. But leaving that posibility aside, one would expect the
                                Message 15 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I have read books and articles which did propose such, in a way that I found
                                  convincing at the time. But leaving that posibility aside, one would expect
                                  the Greek spoken by native Aramaic speakers, such as Paul or the author of
                                  GJohn, presumably, to have been affected by Aramaic syntax. Thus one does
                                  not need to postulate an Aramaic precursor to John's gospel simply because
                                  one finds Aramaicisms in the Greek syntax.

                                  Jan Sammer

                                  ----- Original Message -----
                                  From: "Lisbeth S. Fried" <lizfried@...>
                                  To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                  Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:36 PM
                                  Subject: RE: [XTalk] allusions...


                                  > Yes, you are correct in the Aramaic/Hebrew interpretation of "son of."
                                  > But the text is in Greek! Would it have that meaning in Greek, or do
                                  > you posit an Aramaic original?
                                  > Liz Fried
                                  > (back from slinking away)
                                • Jim West
                                  ... For what reason do you suggest that Paul was a native speaker of Aramaic. Was there much need for Aramaic in Tarsus? I think he knew Aramaic, but he
                                  Message 16 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 10:13 PM 3/3/04 +0100, you wrote:
                                    >I have read books and articles which did propose such, in a way that I found
                                    >convincing at the time. But leaving that posibility aside, one would expect
                                    >the Greek spoken by native Aramaic speakers, such as Paul or the author of
                                    >GJohn, presumably, to have been affected by Aramaic syntax. Thus one does
                                    >not need to postulate an Aramaic precursor to John's gospel simply because
                                    >one finds Aramaicisms in the Greek syntax.

                                    For what reason do you suggest that Paul was a native speaker of Aramaic.
                                    Was there much need for Aramaic in Tarsus? I think he knew Aramaic, but he
                                    learned it in Jerusalem. It wasn't his mother tongue. Does someone
                                    somewhere suggest otherwise?

                                    Jim

                                    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                    Dr Jim West
                                    Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
                                    http://biblical-studies.org -- Biblical Studies Resources
                                    http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com -- Biblical Studies Resources Weblog


                                    "Critics are like eunuchs. They know what is supposed to happen, but they
                                    can't do it themselves". Soren Kierkegaard
                                  • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                    Bob Schacht wrote: (quoting a source) ... Is it? Here are all the instnaces of the use of the noun (excluding the NT ones) that I found seraching the TLG from
                                    Message 17 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Bob Schacht wrote:

                                      (quoting a source)

                                      > *Diabolos* is rare outside the
                                      > >LXX and the NT. It is found in Wis 2:23-24, which identifies the
                                      > >serpent of Genesis 3 with the Devil....

                                      Is it? Here are all the instnaces of the use of the noun (excluding the
                                      NT ones) that I found seraching the TLG from 8BCE to 1 CE, using DIABOLO
                                      and DIABOLW as my search terms.

                                      Yours,

                                      Jeffrery

                                      ********
                                      Pindarus Lyr. Frg Incert.297.1

                                      Thucydides Hist 6.15.2.4

                                      Isocrates Trapez 27.4; 48.6; Panath 21.4

                                      Aristophanes Comic. Eq 45

                                      Andocides Orat. De redit 24.3

                                      Xenophon Hist. Ages 11.5.4

                                      Plato Phil. Ep 329.b.8

                                      Lysias Orat. Or9 2.3

                                      Pherecydes Hist. 003 92.1

                                      Hyperides Orat. Lyc Ar.7.28

                                      Aristoteles Phil. Top 126a.31; Top 126b.9;

                                      Apollodorus Comic. Fragmenta tit 6-7.1 Fragmenta Dia.tit.1

                                      Nicostratus Comic. Fragmenta tit 10.1

                                      Menander Comic. Fragmenta 878.1; Fragmenta FIF.485.1 Fragmenta 803.1

                                      Anaximenes Hist. et Rhet. Ars rhetorica 29.14.3; 29.28.3

                                      Polybius Hist. Hist 28.2.2.3; Hist 32.1.6.2

                                      Posidonius Phil. Fragmenta 214.11

                                      Carystius Hist. Fragmenta 2.3

                                      Demetrius Rhet. Formae epistolicae 17.5

                                      Liber Jubilaeorum Fragmenta frag w.13

                                      Testamenta XII Patriarcharu Testamenta xii patriarcharum 8.3.1 8.8.4.
                                      8.8.6; 10.1.9; 10.3.2.

                                      Philo Judaeus Phil. Sac 32.10

                                      Diodorus Siculus Hist. Bibliotheca historica 37.5a.1.16

                                      Dionysius Halicarnassensis Antiq Rom 5.11.1; 8.49.6

                                      Vita Adam Et Evae 15.6; 16.1; 16.3; 16.11; 17.8; 21.6

                                      Bruti Epistulae Epistulae 56.18

                                      Plutarchus Biogr. et Phil. Cor 16.6.4; Marc 27.5.1; CatMi 54.2.2; Ant
                                      35.1.1; Brut 34.2.2; Quomodo adulator ab amico internoscatur 59.E.2;
                                      61.D.3; De fraterno amore 479.A.13; 481.B.8; 490.E.1; Maxime cum
                                      principibus philosopho esse disserendum 778.D.7; De proverbiis
                                      Alexandrinorum 26.2

                                      Flavius Arrianus Hist. et Ana 7.12.5.6

                                      Flavius Josephus Hist. AJ 13.303.3; 16.5.2; 16.200.3; 16.399.3;
                                      17.146.5; BJ 1.72.3; BJ 1.448.1; BJ 1.493.5; BJ 1.564.3; BJ 1.633.7

                                      Appianus Hist. BC 5.9.78.17

                                      Assumptio Mosis Fragmenta frag b.2; Fragmenta frag h.1; Fragmenta
                                      frag i.2; Fragmenta frag i.4; Fragmenta frag j.2

                                      Clemens Romanus Theol. et Epistula ii ad Corinthios 18.2.3; Homiliae
                                      3.59.4.3; Homiliae 7.11.2.1; Homiliae 8.9.1.2; Homiliae 19.2.4.2;
                                      Homiliae 19.2.6.1; Homiliae 20.9.3.1
                                      Pseudo-Clementina 42.10
                                      Ignatius Scr. Eccl. Epistulae vii genuinae 1.10.3.4; 3.8.1.3;
                                      6.9.1.4; Epistulae interpolatae et epistulae suppositiciae 2.4.2.4;
                                      2.10.8.2; 3.5.2.5; 3.5.3.2; 3.5.3.4; 6.3.2.9; 6.6.1.3;
                                      6.6.2.4; 9.5.1.2; 9.5.1.5;10.5.1.4; 11.10.4.3; 11.14.1.1;
                                      12.5.3.5

                                      Polycarpus Scr. Eccl.
                                      Epistula ad Philippenses 5.2.3; 7.1.3

                                      Septuaginta
                                      Para1 21.1; Esth 7.4; Esth 8.1.2; Ma1 1.36; Ps 108.6.2; Job 1.6.; Job
                                      1.7; Job 1.9.1; Job 1.12; Job 2.1. Job 2.2; Job 2.3; Job 2.4. Job 2.6;
                                      Job 2.7; Sap 2.24; Zach 3.2

                                      Rhetorica Anonyma Progymnasmata 1.625.27;

                                      Historia Alexandri Magni Recensio F 25.7.3; Recensio F 78.13.3;
                                      Recensio F 80.15.14 Recensio F 80.16.13 Recensio F 125.9.9; Recensio E
                                      14.5.3 Recensio E 25.7.3 Recensio E 78.13.2; Recensio E 80.16.14
                                      Recensio E 125.9.9 Recensio V 28.25 Recensio V 28.26 Recensio V
                                      35.20

                                      Vitae Aesopi Vita G 110.8; Vita W 110.8

                                      Physiologus
                                      Physiologus 6.15;
                                      Physiologus 11.23; 15.7 17.12
                                      Physiologus 17.23
                                      Physiologus 18.7
                                      Physiologus 23.8
                                      Physiologus 23.9
                                      Physiologus 25.6
                                      Physiologus 26.7
                                      Physiologus 27.10
                                      Physiologus 30.9
                                      Physiologus 30.10
                                      Physiologus 30.12
                                      Physiologus 30.13
                                      Physiologus 30.30
                                      Physiologus 30.35
                                      Physiologus 30bis.8
                                      Physiologus 34.21
                                      Physiologus 34.27
                                      Physiologus 35a.7
                                      Physiologus 45.7
                                      Physiologus 45.9
                                      Physiologus 45.10
                                      Physiologus 45.12
                                      Physiologus 46.11

                                      Apophthegmata
                                      001 133.44
                                      001 156.14
                                      001 232.21
                                      001 236.6
                                      001 236.11
                                      001 245.17
                                      001 268.26
                                      001 272.54
                                      001 300.23
                                      001 309.12
                                      001 309.41
                                      001 365.32
                                      001 424.5
                                      001 425.35
                                      001 428.13

                                      Apophthegmata
                                      002 31.2
                                      002 32.11
                                      002 34.4
                                      002 34.9
                                      002 76.2
                                      002 77.1
                                      002 175.24
                                      002 176.5
                                      002 189.13
                                      002 189.27
                                      002 190.14
                                      002 191.6
                                      002 275.1
                                      002 276.3
                                      002 310.1
                                      002 312.3
                                      002 312.6
                                      002 312.8
                                      002 362.8
                                      002 373.1
                                      002 393.3
                                      002 393.6
                                      002 393.8
                                      002 400.5
                                      Apophthegmata
                                      003 410.21
                                      Apophthegmata
                                      005 PRO.5.2
                                      005 4.23.6
                                      005 4.23.11
                                      005 4.67.1
                                      005 5.4.50
                                      005 5.30.7
                                      005 5.42.16
                                      005 5.42.32
                                      005 5.43.16
                                      005 5.44.8
                                      005 5.46.11
                                      005 5.48.5
                                      005 7.23.1
                                      005 9.6.4
                                      Apophthegmata
                                      006 8.1
                                      Apophthegmata
                                      007 3.1
                                      007 3.3
                                      007 5.3
                                      007 14.2
                                      007 16.2
                                      007 17.1
                                      007 24.3
                                      007 24.4
                                      007 26.1
                                      007 26.3\
                                      007 29.8
                                      007 29.10
                                      007 29.12

                                      Magica
                                      Papyri magicae 12.6
                                      Scholia In Aelium Aristidem Pan.94,12.17
                                      Scholia in Aelium Aristidem Tett.161,7.5 BD.
                                      Scholia in Aelium Aristidem Tett.161,8.2
                                      Scholia In Aeschylum
                                      Scholia in Prometheum vinctum 944.2 Scholia in equites sch
                                      eq.103h.1;
                                      Commentarium in nubes sch nub.98a.1

                                      Scholia In Euripidem Scholia in Euripidem sch Hipp.625.8

                                      Anonymi In Hermogenem Rhet Commentarium in librum

                                      Scholia In Lucianum Scholia in Lucianum 15.10.2; 15.26.1

                                      Scholia In Pindarum
                                      Scholia in Pindarum P 2.140a.1
                                      Scholia in Pindarum P 2.140c.2
                                      Scholia in Pindarum P 2.165a.4
                                      Scholia in Pindarum P 2.165b.4

                                      Scholia In Sophoclem
                                      Scholia in Sophoclis Ajacem 138b.3
                                      Scholia in Sophoclis Ajacem 148e.1
                                      Scholia et glossae in Sophoclis Ajacem
                                      Scholia in Sophoclem Aj.137.4

                                      Scholia In Thucydidem
                                      Scholia in Thucydidem 6.15.2.1
                                      Scholia in Thucydidem 8.91.3.13

                                      Arsenius Paroemiogr. Apophthegmata 18.53b.1

                                      Apocalypsis Sedrach Apocalypsis Sedrach 4.11; 5.7
                                      Acta Philippi
                                      Acta Philippi 2.3
                                      Acta Philippi 110.4
                                      Acta Philippi 112.2
                                      Acta Philippi 140.9
                                      Acta Philippi 24.3
                                      Acta Philippi 25.3
                                      --

                                      Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                      1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                      Chicago, IL 60626

                                      jgibson000@...



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Jan Sammer
                                      You are right to point out that Paul s native tongue was more likely to have been Greek than Aramaic, unless his family were recent migrants; but the point I
                                      Message 18 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        You are right to point out that Paul's native tongue was more likely to have
                                        been Greek than Aramaic, unless his family were recent migrants; but the
                                        point I was trying to make was that even Paul's syntax is affected by
                                        Aramaic, since Aramaicisms naturally became a part of the normal form of
                                        expression for Hellenized Jews. At the very least we need to watch out for
                                        such syntax in reading Paul's Greek. But let us try to focus on the text
                                        whose original meaning we are trying to discern. Why translate diabolou as
                                        devil in John 8:44 and as something akin to "contrariness" to be avoided by
                                        wives in 1 Tim 3:11? If the meaning is determined by context, then does the
                                        context of having a diabolos for a father (which is equivalent to being the
                                        children of one) necessarily refer to being sired by a demonic being? Could
                                        it not just as well, and more reasonably perhaps, refer to adherence to a
                                        body of false accusers and slanderers?

                                        Jan Sammer

                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Jim West" <jwest@...>
                                        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                        Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 10:18 PM
                                        Subject: Re: [XTalk] allusions...


                                        > At 10:13 PM 3/3/04 +0100, you wrote:
                                        > >I have read books and articles which did propose such, in a way that I
                                        found
                                        > >convincing at the time. But leaving that posibility aside, one would
                                        expect
                                        > >the Greek spoken by native Aramaic speakers, such as Paul or the author
                                        of
                                        > >GJohn, presumably, to have been affected by Aramaic syntax. Thus one does
                                        > >not need to postulate an Aramaic precursor to John's gospel simply
                                        because
                                        > >one finds Aramaicisms in the Greek syntax.
                                        >
                                        > For what reason do you suggest that Paul was a native speaker of Aramaic.
                                        > Was there much need for Aramaic in Tarsus? I think he knew Aramaic, but
                                        he
                                        > learned it in Jerusalem. It wasn't his mother tongue. Does someone
                                        > somewhere suggest otherwise?
                                        >
                                        > Jim
                                        >
                                      • Jim West
                                        ... I agree that context is everything. and I suppose that one could translate John 8:44 - You are a contrary lot! And you do the lustful things your father
                                        Message 19 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 10:46 PM 3/3/04 +0100, you wrote:
                                          > Why translate diabolou as
                                          >devil in John 8:44 and as something akin to "contrariness" to be avoided by
                                          >wives in 1 Tim 3:11? If the meaning is determined by context, then does the
                                          >context of having a diabolos for a father (which is equivalent to being the
                                          >children of one) necessarily refer to being sired by a demonic being? Could
                                          >it not just as well, and more reasonably perhaps, refer to adherence to a
                                          >body of false accusers and slanderers?

                                          I agree that context is everything. and I suppose that one could translate
                                          John 8:44 - "You are a contrary lot! And you do the lustful things your
                                          father wants you to do...." especially since a couple of extremely minor
                                          sources leave "tou patros" out. But if you do, if you translate diabolos
                                          with something other than devil, you have to decide what possible referent
                                          "father" has in the second line of the verse. Devil // father. Or contrary
                                          // father. To me, the second reading is less reasonable and therefore less
                                          likely. So in spite of the political difficulties with leaving "the devil"
                                          in, I think it has to stay just like that- as a clear reference to "the
                                          devil" (whatever the devil the devil is to John and his audience).

                                          Best

                                          Jim

                                          +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                          Dr Jim West
                                          Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
                                          http://biblical-studies.org -- Biblical Studies Resources
                                          http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com -- Biblical Studies Resources Weblog


                                          "Critics are like eunuchs. They know what is supposed to happen, but they
                                          can't do it themselves". Soren Kierkegaard
                                        • Jan Sammer
                                          BTW a recent instance of the adoption of Semitic syntax in modern English are the various expressions based on mother of all battles -- an expression that
                                          Message 20 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            BTW a recent instance of the adoption of Semitic syntax in modern English
                                            are the various expressions based on "mother of all battles" -- an
                                            expression that became famous when uttered by Saddam on the eve of the first
                                            Gulf War and which, as I am given to understand, in Arabic means something
                                            like "the biggest battle you've ever seen"; however for its picturesque
                                            qualities it became quite at home in English over the last decade or so.
                                            Thus an expression such as "the mother of all popsicles" is used and readily
                                            understood in contemporary English to designate a really big popsicle, by
                                            people who don't know a single word of Arabic. Such taking over of syntax
                                            from a foreign language is a common enough phenomenon and should be taken
                                            into consideration in interpreting the NT texts.

                                            Jan Sammer
                                          • Bob Schacht
                                            ... Remember that he spent some time in Arabia during the lost years following his conversion. He also spent some time tramping around in rural parts of
                                            Message 21 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              At 04:18 PM 3/3/2004 -0500, you wrote:
                                              >At 10:13 PM 3/3/04 +0100, you wrote:
                                              > >I have read books and articles which did propose such, in a way that I found
                                              > >convincing at the time. But leaving that posibility aside, one would expect
                                              > >the Greek spoken by native Aramaic speakers, such as Paul or the author of
                                              > >GJohn, presumably, to have been affected by Aramaic syntax. Thus one does
                                              > >not need to postulate an Aramaic precursor to John's gospel simply because
                                              > >one finds Aramaicisms in the Greek syntax.
                                              >
                                              >For what reason do you suggest that Paul was a native speaker of Aramaic.
                                              >Was there much need for Aramaic in Tarsus? I think he knew Aramaic, but he
                                              >learned it in Jerusalem. It wasn't his mother tongue. Does someone
                                              >somewhere suggest otherwise?
                                              >
                                              >Jim

                                              Remember that he spent some time in "Arabia" during the "lost years"
                                              following his conversion. He also spent some time tramping around in rural
                                              parts of Asia Minor (Galatia). Aramaic may not have been his mother
                                              tongue, but he probably had to learn it, would be my guess.

                                              Bob


                                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                            • Bob Schacht
                                              ... I just checked the Greek, and its right there in vs. 24, plain as the nose on your face, according to my copy of BibleWorks. ... Did you wild card the
                                              Message 22 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                At 03:41 PM 3/3/2004 -0600, Jeffrey wrote:
                                                >Bob Schacht wrote:
                                                >
                                                >(quoting a source)
                                                >
                                                > > *Diabolos* is rare outside the
                                                > > >LXX and the NT. It is found in Wis 2:23-24, which identifies the
                                                > > >serpent of Genesis 3 with the Devil....
                                                >
                                                >Is it?

                                                I just checked the Greek, and its right there in vs. 24, plain as the nose
                                                on your face, according to my copy of BibleWorks.


                                                >Here are all the instnaces of the use of the noun (excluding the
                                                >NT ones) that I found seraching the TLG from 8BCE to 1 CE, using DIABOLO
                                                >and DIABOLW as my search terms.

                                                Did you wild card the DIABOLO*? Or is the ending automatically wildcarded?
                                                The word in vs. 24 appears to end in a upsilon (i.e., DIABOLOU)
                                                Bob

                                                BTW, Louw-Nida sez
                                                Louw-Nida
                                                dia,boloj ou m
                                                (a) Devil 12.34
                                                (b) demon 12.37
                                                (c) slanderer 33.397
                                                (d) wicked person 88.124

                                                12.34 dia,boloj, ou m (a title for the Devil, literally 'slanderer');
                                                Satana/j, a/ m (a borrowing from Aramaic; a title for the Devil, literally
                                                'adversary'): the principal supernatural evil being - 'Devil, Satan.' ...



                                                >Yours,
                                                >
                                                >Jeffrery


                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Jeffrey B. Gibson
                                                ... What I was asking about was not whether it occurred in Wis., but whether the word was rare outside the LXX and the NT. ... Yes, it is wild-carded. As I
                                                Message 23 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Bob Schacht wrote:

                                                  > At 03:41 PM 3/3/2004 -0600, Jeffrey wrote:
                                                  > >Bob Schacht wrote:
                                                  > >
                                                  > >(quoting a source)
                                                  > >
                                                  > > > *Diabolos* is rare outside the
                                                  > > > >LXX and the NT. It is found in Wis 2:23-24, which identifies the
                                                  > > > >serpent of Genesis 3 with the Devil....
                                                  > >
                                                  > >Is it?
                                                  >

                                                  > I just checked the Greek, and its right there in vs. 24, plain as the
                                                  > nose
                                                  > on your face, according to my copy of BibleWorks.

                                                  What I was asking about was not whether it occurred in Wis., but whether
                                                  the word was rare outside the LXX and the NT.

                                                  > >Here are all the instnaces of the use of the noun (excluding the
                                                  > >NT ones) that I found seraching the TLG from 8BCE to 1 CE, using
                                                  > DIABOLO
                                                  > >and DIABOLW as my search terms.
                                                  >
                                                  > Did you wild card the DIABOLO*? Or is the ending automatically
                                                  > wildcarded?

                                                  Yes, it is wild-carded. As I said, I did not record the NT instances.

                                                  Yours,

                                                  Jeffrey
                                                  --

                                                  Jeffrey B. Gibson, D.Phil. (Oxon.)

                                                  1500 W. Pratt Blvd. #1
                                                  Chicago, IL 60626

                                                  jgibson000@...



                                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                • Bob Webb
                                                  Paul s claim to be a Hebrew born of Hebrews (Phil 3:5) suggests that, even though he was raised in Tarsus, his mother tongue (spoken at home) was probably
                                                  Message 24 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Paul's claim to be a "Hebrew born of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5) suggests that, even
                                                    though he was raised in Tarsus, his mother tongue (spoken at home) was
                                                    probably Aramaic.

                                                    Bob Webb.


                                                    > -----Original Message-----
                                                    > From: Jim West [mailto:jwest@...]
                                                    > Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2004 4:19 PM
                                                    > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > Subject: Re: [XTalk] allusions...
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > At 10:13 PM 3/3/04 +0100, you wrote:
                                                    > >I have read books and articles which did propose such, in a
                                                    > way that I
                                                    > >found convincing at the time. But leaving that posibility aside, one
                                                    > >would expect the Greek spoken by native Aramaic speakers,
                                                    > such as Paul
                                                    > >or the author of GJohn, presumably, to have been affected by Aramaic
                                                    > >syntax. Thus one does not need to postulate an Aramaic precursor to
                                                    > >John's gospel simply because one finds Aramaicisms in the
                                                    > Greek syntax.
                                                    >
                                                    > For what reason do you suggest that Paul was a native speaker
                                                    > of Aramaic. Was there much need for Aramaic in Tarsus? I
                                                    > think he knew Aramaic, but he learned it in Jerusalem. It
                                                    > wasn't his mother tongue. Does someone somewhere suggest otherwise?
                                                    >
                                                    > Jim
                                                    >
                                                    > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                                    > Dr Jim West
                                                    > Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
                                                    > http://biblical-studies.org -- Biblical Studies Resources
                                                    > http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com > -- Biblical Studies
                                                    > Resources Weblog
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > "Critics are like eunuchs. They know what is supposed to
                                                    > happen, but they can't do it themselves". Soren Kierkegaard
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                                    > ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits
                                                    > for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com.
                                                    > Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
                                                    > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=> 5511
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/wpWolB/TM
                                                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

                                                    The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/

                                                    To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                                                    crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                    To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                                    List managers may be contacted directly at:
                                                    crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com


                                                    Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                  • Jim West
                                                    ... It may imply that he spoke Hebrew at home. It doesn t imply his momma yelled at him to clean his room in Aramaic. To posit Aramaic as a house tongue in
                                                    Message 25 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      At 09:00 PM 3/3/04 -0500, you wrote:
                                                      >Paul's claim to be a "Hebrew born of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5) suggests that, even
                                                      >though he was raised in Tarsus, his mother tongue (spoken at home) was
                                                      >probably Aramaic.

                                                      It may imply that he spoke Hebrew at home. It doesn't imply his momma
                                                      yelled at him to clean his room in Aramaic. To posit Aramaic as a house
                                                      tongue in Tarsus we would need some sort of inscriptional evidence and not a
                                                      mere harkening back to his claim to be a Jew of the Jews.

                                                      Jim

                                                      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                                      Dr Jim West
                                                      Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
                                                      http://biblical-studies.org -- Biblical Studies Resources
                                                      http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com -- Biblical Studies Resources Weblog


                                                      "Critics are like eunuchs. They know what is supposed to happen, but they
                                                      can't do it themselves". Soren Kierkegaard
                                                    • David C. Hindley
                                                      ... even though he was raised in Tarsus, his mother tongue (spoken at home) was probably Aramaic.
                                                      Message 26 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                                      • 0 Attachment
                                                        Bob Webb opines:

                                                        >>Paul's claim to be a "Hebrew born of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5) suggests that,
                                                        even though he was raised in Tarsus, his mother tongue (spoken at home) was
                                                        probably Aramaic.<<

                                                        Hmmmm. I don't see that as obvious.

                                                        When he says "Hebrew born of Hebrews" it is in the context of defending
                                                        himself against rivals who, it appears, were urging Paul's flock to fully
                                                        convert to Judaism. By asserting his status as a natural born Jew of Jewish
                                                        parentage (assuming "Hebrew" means a Jew by ethnicity), he is also asserting
                                                        the unstated fact that he is not a proselyte. This may be taken to mean that
                                                        his opponents were (over zealous?) proselytes, and thus less trustworthy
                                                        sources of authority than he himself claimed to have.

                                                        In the 1st century there were certainly many Jews in Asia Minor whose
                                                        families had lived there for several generations. If they were living in the
                                                        cities, they would undoubtedly speak Greek. They may also speak Aramaic at
                                                        home if their transposition to the area took place in recent times. There
                                                        were cases where significant numbers of Judaeans were resettled to Asia
                                                        Minor in the first couple centuries BCE, but the number of such
                                                        resettlements and the circumstances under which they took place is murky
                                                        water historically, and the implications complex.

                                                        It is not clear if they were resettled as colonists (meaning city dwellers
                                                        who leased their land to locals to farm, and earning other income by
                                                        facilitating trade) or if they were intended to actually farm land owned by
                                                        Greek colonists. If the latter, they were probably mostly living in the
                                                        countryside and villages and may never have spoken anything except a form of
                                                        Aramaic.

                                                        But Paul seems to be a city boy through and through.

                                                        Respectfully,

                                                        Dave Hindley
                                                        Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                                                      • Jan Sammer
                                                        ... translate ... contrary ... less ... devil ... My point in the mother of all battles message on this same thread was that in some cases it is wrong to
                                                        Message 27 of 30 , Mar 3, 2004
                                                        • 0 Attachment
                                                          Jim West:
                                                          >
                                                          > I agree that context is everything. and I suppose that one could
                                                          translate
                                                          > John 8:44 - "You are a contrary lot! And you do the lustful things your
                                                          > father wants you to do...." especially since a couple of extremely minor
                                                          > sources leave "tou patros" out. But if you do, if you translate diabolos
                                                          > with something other than devil, you have to decide what possible referent
                                                          > "father" has in the second line of the verse. Devil // father. Or
                                                          contrary
                                                          > // father. To me, the second reading is less reasonable and therefore
                                                          less
                                                          > likely. So in spite of the political difficulties with leaving "the
                                                          devil"
                                                          > in, I think it has to stay just like that- as a clear reference to "the
                                                          > devil" (whatever the devil the devil is to John and his audience).
                                                          >
                                                          My point in the "mother of all battles" message on this same thread was that
                                                          in some cases it is wrong to look for a referent, since the referent may be
                                                          simply a part of the syntax. The reason for my doubting the traditional
                                                          reading has nothing to do with any political difficulties. If we read the
                                                          text with an understanding of Aramaic idiom--and that is where I asked for
                                                          help, not being an Aramaicist--we find that referents such as father or
                                                          mother are regularly used as devices to indicate origin or ingrained
                                                          character and cannot be taken literally.

                                                          Jan Sammer
                                                        • Bob Webb
                                                          To claim that he was a Hebrew born of Hebrews was not a claim to be Jewish. He already made that claim earlier in Phil 3:5 when he states that he was
                                                          Message 28 of 30 , Mar 4, 2004
                                                          • 0 Attachment
                                                            To claim that he was "a Hebrew born of Hebrews" was not a claim to be
                                                            Jewish. He already made that claim earlier in Phil 3:5 when he states that
                                                            he was "circumcised on the eighth day, a member of the people of Israel".
                                                            The subsequent claim of being a "Hebrew born of Hebrews" I would understand
                                                            to be a cultural claim. Acts describes "Hellenists" and "Hebrews" (Ac 6:1)
                                                            among the Jewish population, which I have understood is a cultural
                                                            distinction between those who had adopted a more Hellenistic orientation
                                                            (dress and language) as compared with those who maintained a more
                                                            Palestinian orientation (dress and language - i.e., Aramaic). Thus I've
                                                            understood Paul's claim to be a "Hebrew born of Hebrews" is a cultural claim
                                                            that, though he was born and raised in Tarsus, the cultural orientation
                                                            maintained by his parents in the home was "Hebrew". Thus my suggestion that
                                                            Aramaic was, in fact, his mother tongue.

                                                            Bob Webb.


                                                            > -----Original Message-----
                                                            > From: Jim West [mailto:jwest@...]
                                                            > Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2004 9:13 PM
                                                            > To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com
                                                            > Subject: RE: [XTalk] allusions...
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > At 09:00 PM 3/3/04 -0500, you wrote:
                                                            > >Paul's claim to be a "Hebrew born of Hebrews" (Phil 3:5)
                                                            > suggests that,
                                                            > >even though he was raised in Tarsus, his mother tongue
                                                            > (spoken at home)
                                                            > >was probably Aramaic.
                                                            >
                                                            > It may imply that he spoke Hebrew at home. It doesn't imply
                                                            > his momma yelled at him to clean his room in Aramaic. To
                                                            > posit Aramaic as a house tongue in Tarsus we would need some
                                                            > sort of inscriptional evidence and not a mere harkening back
                                                            > to his claim to be a Jew of the Jews.
                                                            >
                                                            > Jim
                                                            >
                                                            > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
                                                            > Dr Jim West
                                                            > Pastor, Petros Baptist Church
                                                            > http://biblical-studies.org -- Biblical Studies Resources
                                                            > http://biblical-studies.blogspot.com > -- Biblical Studies
                                                            > Resources Weblog
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > "Critics are like eunuchs. They know what is supposed to
                                                            > happen, but they can't do it themselves". Soren Kierkegaard
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                                                            >
                                                            > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
                                                            > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                            >
                                                            > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to:
                                                            > crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                                            >
                                                            > List managers may be contacted directly at:
                                                            > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                            >
                                                          • Jack Kilmon
                                                            ... From: Bob Schacht To: Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [XTalk] diabolos,
                                                            Message 29 of 30 , Mar 4, 2004
                                                            • 0 Attachment
                                                              ----- Original Message -----
                                                              From: "Bob Schacht" <bobschacht@...>
                                                              To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
                                                              Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 4:36 PM
                                                              Subject: Re: [XTalk] diabolos, diabolou


                                                              > At 03:41 PM 3/3/2004 -0600, Jeffrey wrote:
                                                              > >Bob Schacht wrote:
                                                              > >
                                                              > >(quoting a source)
                                                              > >
                                                              > > > *Diabolos* is rare outside the
                                                              > > > >LXX and the NT. It is found in Wis 2:23-24, which identifies the
                                                              > > > >serpent of Genesis 3 with the Devil....
                                                              > >
                                                              > >Is it?
                                                              >
                                                              > I just checked the Greek, and its right there in vs. 24, plain as the nose
                                                              > on your face, according to my copy of BibleWorks.
                                                              >
                                                              >
                                                              > >Here are all the instnaces of the use of the noun (excluding the
                                                              > >NT ones) that I found seraching the TLG from 8BCE to 1 CE, using DIABOLO
                                                              > >and DIABOLW as my search terms.
                                                              >
                                                              > Did you wild card the DIABOLO*? Or is the ending automatically wildcarded?
                                                              > The word in vs. 24 appears to end in a upsilon (i.e., DIABOLOU)
                                                              > Bob
                                                              >
                                                              > BTW, Louw-Nida sez
                                                              > Louw-Nida
                                                              > dia,boloj ou m
                                                              > (a) Devil 12.34
                                                              > (b) demon 12.37
                                                              > (c) slanderer 33.397
                                                              > (d) wicked person 88.124
                                                              >
                                                              > 12.34 dia,boloj, ou m (a title for the Devil, literally 'slanderer');
                                                              > Satana/j, a/ m (a borrowing from Aramaic; a title for the Devil, literally
                                                              > 'adversary'): the principal supernatural evil being - 'Devil, Satan.' ...


                                                              Also my belief that the VERY uuuggleeeeee baby carried by Satan is an
                                                              allusion to Jn 8:44 was reinforced by the bracket at the beginning of the
                                                              film in Gethsemane when Satan asks the agonizing Jesus "Who is your father?"

                                                              Jack
                                                            • Jan Sammer
                                                              From: Jack Kilmon ... father? ... If you are right on this, then the filmmaker s interpretation is unforgivably literal, though
                                                              Message 30 of 30 , Mar 4, 2004
                                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                                From: "Jack Kilmon" <jkilmon@...>
                                                                >
                                                                > Also my belief that the VERY uuuggleeeeee baby carried by Satan is an
                                                                > allusion to Jn 8:44 was reinforced by the bracket at the beginning of the
                                                                > film in Gethsemane when Satan asks the agonizing Jesus "Who is your
                                                                father?"
                                                                >
                                                                > Jack

                                                                If you are right on this, then the filmmaker's interpretation is
                                                                unforgivably literal, though derived from a common and probably erroneous
                                                                interpretation of the text of GJohn. If I may I would like to refocus the
                                                                discussion one last time to the question of the meaning and purpose of this
                                                                passage in the hope that we could avoid such tangents, interesting as they
                                                                are, as Paul's native tongue.

                                                                It should be noted, first of all, that the statement in John 8:44 cannot be
                                                                taken literally in any event. Jesus' interlocutors are ordinary people and
                                                                having the diabolos, the an inveterate liar and slanderer, as their father
                                                                can only be understood figuratively in the sense that their actions and
                                                                thoughts are inspired by the diabolos, who is their adoptive or spiritual
                                                                father. Under any reasonable interpretation therefore the statement cannot
                                                                be taken literally. What is then left is to decide is whether the statement
                                                                implies the existence of a diabolical being whom Jesus's interlocutors are
                                                                charged with following or resembling in some way, or whether we are dealing
                                                                with idiomatic language wherein the nature and behavior of Jesus'
                                                                interlocutors is being characterized in a way that is hard to understand for
                                                                speakers of non-Semitic languages. Jesus's interlocutors are charged with
                                                                desiring to adopt the behavior of their father the diabolos and Jesus then
                                                                discusses the nature of the model that they are following: there is no truth
                                                                in him, he has always been a deceiver and a liar, etc. The question remains
                                                                if Jesus's interlocutors are really being accused of being the followers of
                                                                an evil being, in the sense that witches used to be so accused a few
                                                                centuries ago. After all, it is their behavior that is being criticized,
                                                                and which is said to reveal who their true father is. We would say what
                                                                their true nature is. We are apparently dealing with a different linguistic
                                                                idiom.

                                                                Jan Sammer
                                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.