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

Re: [XTalk] allusions...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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?

          >Manich├Žism

          >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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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 17 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 18 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 19 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 20 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 21 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.