Q Why do definitions and the historical context of words matter when discussing social constructs, like those in dictionaries or legal texts?
https://www.quora.com/Why-do-definitions-and-the-historical-context-of-words-matter-when-discussing-social-constructs-like-those-in-dictionaries-or-legal-texts/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- amateur linguist
- 28.VII.2026
- I have as a favourite Matthew 6:7.
Some Protestants translate “battologein” as “repeat oneself” where a more reasonable translation is “speak with a stutter”. But they will point to next words “as the heathen do” and say “look, Hindus and Muslims are heathens, and so are Buddhists, and they have repetitive prayers”.
The thing is, while Hindus and Buddhists weren’t totally unknown in the Roman Empire, they were very marginal. Muslims didn’t even exist yet.
So this means “as the heathen do” should refer to something else than repetition in praying. Unless Greeks and Romans in their paganism did so, and they didn’t.
Look up Velleius Paterculus, Roman History, book II, last chapter.
Another favourite is this verse:
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.
It’s Romans 1:20. Certainly, it points to God being provable from observations. But also, the observations are there to the naked eye, to people who have no microscope or telescope. Not saying these can’t bring additional proof, but the thing is, first we need to know what St. Paul was directly talking about.
I’d say, prove God from Geocentrism, like Aristotle did. The intellectual framework was certainly there in St. Paul’s day, and Geocentrism can be evidenced by the naked eye. Unlike the things that are supposed to prove Big Bang.
Obviously, it is also possible for someone’s erroneous definition to matter in the wrong way, like if he were saying Romans and Greeks were doing repetitive prayer since Nimrod in Babylon, as I think … well, I actually know now:
Every one knows how thoroughly Romanist is the use of the rosary; and how the devotees of Rome mechanically tell their prayers upon their beads. The rosary, however, is no invention of the Papacy. It is of the highest antiquity, and almost universally found among Pagan nations. The rosary was used as a sacred instrument among the ancient Mexicans. It is commonly employed among the Brahmins of Hindustan; and in the Hindoo sacred books reference is made to it again and again. Thus, in an account of the death of Sati, the wife of Shiva, we find the rosary introduced: “On hearing of this event, Shiva fainted from grief; then, having recovered, he hastened to the banks of the river of heaven, where he beheld lying the body of his beloved Sati, arrayed in white garments, holding a rosary in her hand, and glowing with splendour, bright as burnished gold.” In Thibet it has been used from time immemorial, and among all the millions in the East that adhere to the Buddhist faith. The following, from Sir John F. Davis, will show how it is employed in China: “From the Tartar religion of the Lamas, the rosary of 108 beads has become a part of the ceremonial dress attached to the nine grades of official rank. It consists of a necklace of stones and coral, nearly as large as a pigeon’s egg, descending to the waist, and distinguished by various beads, according to the quality of the wearer. There is a small rosary of eighteen beads, of inferior size, with which the bonzes count their prayers and ejaculations exactly as in the Romish ritual. The laity in China sometimes wear this at the wrist, perfumed with musk, and give it the name of Heang-choo, or fragrant beads.” In Asiatic Greece the rosary was commonly used, as may be seen from the image of the Ephesian Diana.
So, the one indication that Greeks used rosaries in Asia is the status of the Ephesian Diana according to Hislop. I checked it, and nothing looking like a rosary is there. And Rome?
The necklaces which the Roman ladies wore were not merely ornamental bands about the neck, but hung down the breast, just as the modern rosaries do; and the name by which they were called indicates the use to which they were applied. “Monile,” the ordinary word for a necklace, can have no other meaning than that of a “Remembrancer.” Now, whatever might be the pretence, in the first instance, for the introduction of such “Rosaries” or “Remembrancers,” the very idea of such a thing is thoroughly Pagan. It supposes that a certain number of prayers must be regularly gone over; it overlooks the grand demand which God makes for the heart, and leads those who use them to believe that form and routine are everything, and that “they must be heard for their much speaking.”
He fails to prove that Remembrancer can have no other meaning than “remember to say this prayer” … and also fails to check Velleius Paterculus about what “heard for their much speaking” really looks like. Why should I believe the theology of someone who so grossly bungles basic philology?
As to monile, he thought it had to mean something like “remembrancer” from the verb monere. But here is a different etymology:
Connected to Old English mene (necklace/collar), Sanskrit maṇí (jewel/necklace), and Old Irish muin (neck).]3, 2, 1
monile - Wiktionary, the free dictionary
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monile#Latin
A lion’s mane has the same etymology, it would seem.
No comments:
Post a Comment