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

Re: [XTalk] allusions...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 30 , Mar 3 11:20 AM
    • 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 2 of 30 , Mar 3 11:36 AM
      • 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 3 of 30 , Mar 3 1:13 PM
        • 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 4 of 30 , Mar 3 1:18 PM
          • 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 5 of 30 , Mar 3 1:41 PM
            • 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 6 of 30 , Mar 3 1:46 PM
              • 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 7 of 30 , Mar 3 1:59 PM
                • 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 8 of 30 , Mar 3 2:03 PM
                  • 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 9 of 30 , Mar 3 2:07 PM
                    • 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 10 of 30 , Mar 3 2:36 PM
                      • 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 11 of 30 , Mar 3 3:10 PM
                        • 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 12 of 30 , Mar 3 6:00 PM
                          • 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 13 of 30 , Mar 3 6:12 PM
                            • 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 14 of 30 , Mar 3 7:26 PM
                              • 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 15 of 30 , Mar 3 11:26 PM
                                • 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 16 of 30 , Mar 4 5:12 AM
                                  • 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 17 of 30 , Mar 4 7:48 PM
                                    • 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 18 of 30 , Mar 4 11:17 PM
                                      • 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.