Epistle to the Ephesians 6.13-17

[M. Demetrius]

I think Mithras was from further East, but I'm no authority on that. :wink:

If such a treatise could be brought to light, on Mithraism (not likely since it was a secret society, and little is known, so I read) would it be more, or less valid to Roman Army talking than a Christian 1st Cent document? (Obviously it would be better placed in a different thread) The Army had adherents to both those and other religious structures, right?

[jpvdgiessen]

Skew away!
The early translators changed pomegranate to apple so that they'd have to stop explaining to Europeans what a pomegranate was. Eve handed Adam a pomegranate. Yet modern translations with all the info they have and claims of trying to translate accurately still leave in "apple" because they believe that the species of fruit isn't important (Eve and the avacado? .. cacao pod? ... stalk of maize? .. ahah... tomato!!)

So why not with descriptions of armor and weapons? Folk don't know the differences between an Aspis and a Scutum (but what variety of scutum!?!).. it's only important to know that it was a "shield". Now "shield" has become a metaphor when it may have actually been important to the oroginal author or scribe to use the word he chose.

Eve's Apple come from the Latin malus, which also means "evil" and is mentioned some verses further in Genesis. Today most theologians belief it was a fig. But of course there is no proof for this or any other kind of fruit.

About what kind of shield, when I was in the army the officer alway said: take your "riffle", without identifying which kind of riffle I had. I think the same is for Paul, it was not important for the readers, so he used a general Greek word.

[M. Demetrius]

You are correct that malus can mean evil (masculine nominative) or apple tree in proper context, it can also mean mast (like of a ship's sail holder) or a pole. Malum can mean evil (neuter nominative or masculine accusative) or apple. At the risk of being once again presumptuous, can you point me to the later verses in Genesis where apple is mentioned? I'm asking because Strong's Exhaustive Concordance shows the first use of "apple" in Deuteronomy, and that only in King James. Other translations such as New American Standard and New International Version don't have the word "apple" listed until Psalms and following books.

I have read parts of several commentaries on Genesis and have never seen any who purport to show the fruit was a fig. The Hebrew word for fruit used in Genesis 3 is "peri", and is translated foliage, fruit, offspring, and other similar words, but never "fig", and never "apple". So I guess I'm not reading the same theologians. The most likely and sensible description I've read is that the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was unique, and no longer exists on earth today, so there's no way we can know what the fruit looked or tasted like.

Are there any theologians on this forum who could lend a hand here?

I totally agree with your interpretation of the shield (and by extension, the other armaments).

I know someone is saying, "Why is Demetrius doing this?". If I were to put words in Vegetius' mouth, or in Caesar's, or say that Herodotus said such and so, and it were not documentably provable, there would be many who would take me to the whipping post for misquoting or worse. I'm just questioning for source information for the statements made about this passage of an ancient document, for which there are multiple translations. That ought to be a fair game, oughtn't it?

[hoplite14gr]

@ Hibernicus

"A scholar might read "aspis" and translate it it as "shield" etcetcetc "

A scholar who reads aspis must translate shiled because thats what it means in Greek.

@ Jonah

Thanks for pointing out that many people suffered because a bunch of senile old men didn't bother to check the literary staff correctly.
"lost in translation" can be extremely dramatic sometimes.


The original text fragments are: (forgive the latin (chalcidic )) letters
13
"Dia toyto analavate tin panoplia toy Theoy" = For this take the panoply of God
14
"endysamenoi ton thoraka tis dikeosynis" = dress yourselves in the armor of justice

16
"epi pasin analabontes to thyreo tis pisteos" = along with all this take the thyreos of faith en o dynithisate panta ta veli toy poniroy ta pepyramena sbesai" along with these take the thyreos of faith that is cabable of extinguishing the flaming arrows of the "evil one"
Here he uses it not in the emblem meaning but on the shield meaning as thyreos is the item that protects from the flamming arrows.

Kind regards

[jpvdgiessen]

The passage is in Genesis 2:9 and is taken from the Latin Vulgate.
See http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Gen&chapter=3#n16 (the notes) for some background information.

In the Hebrew source there is no kind of identification of the fruit. But (I know this is getting a theological study 9 there is mentioning of the figtree. Rashi (a famous rabbi) said "the tree from which they ate" (Bereshiet 3:9; Sanh. 70b) Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said (Midrash Rabbah, Bereishis, ch. 19): "[They chose the] leaves which brought grief (to’anah) to the world" The same opinion stated by Rabbi Nechemiah (Berachos 40a) "the Tree of Knowledge was a fig [tree]". (Directly translated from Hebrew, between [] are additions from me)
Further background information about this subject: Encyclopedia Judaica Vol.6 p.1274; M. Zohary, "Plants of the Bible" p. 58-59; A.S. Yahuda "Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian" p. 194-196

At last, there is some discussion about the tappûach in the Bible it could be "apple" but some say it's the "apricot". The only places this word is mentioned in the Bible are: Proverbs 25:11; Song of Solomon 2:3, 5; 7:8; 8:5; Joel 1:12; (and yes there are some other passages like Joshua 12: 17; 15:34; 15:53; 16:8; 17:7, 8; where tappûach is a town)

And you are right about mentioning the sources.

[Caius Fabius]

Okay, I suggest less apples and more shields, or moving this to off topic. :lol:

[M. Demetrius]

I agree, (did I already say that?) But I'm guilty as charged, Your Honor. Flay me now or deal with me again later. :wink: :roll:

[Hibernicus]

My apologies if the following post stepped over a restriction but I was asked by Demetrius to address some comments I made.

I wonder which modern translations you are using, Hibernicus, that call the fruit "apple".

I dont have all my references in my library anymore. I passed along most of my "Bible" resources years ago. The quotes I posted earlier were off the web.

Regarding apple and pomegranate.. IIRC "apple" comes from medieval depictions and "pomegranate" IIRC was a favored interpretation of an author..something to do with what the pomeganate represented in babylonian religion .... if I remember correctly.. it also features prominently in ancient/early mediterranean, near and middle east cultures and religion.

regarding "apple" these two came up real quick on a search.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/061124.html
http://judaism.about.com/library/3_askr ... s_eden.htm

Hope that helps!

Sean / Hibernicus

[M. Demetrius]

Most modern Roman historians say the scutum was frequently made of pine, since the pine tree was very common throughout the Empire. That we have no pine examples is explained because pine rots away much faster than the more dense woods of the surviving museum and archeological specimens.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Most modern Roman historians say the scutum was frequently made of pine, since the pine tree was very common throughout the Empire. That we have no pine examples is explained because pine rots away much faster than the more dense woods of the surviving museum and archeological specimens.

ARRRRGH!!!!!!!!

[M. Demetrius]

What, did I say something wrong?
:?

[M. Demetrius]

Does anyone see the irony and utter absurdity of completely indefensible premises like the pine board nonsense?
Of course I made that up.
Of course it's fallacious.
I don't believe it, and nobody else does, either, I hope. Does one see how utterly absurd it is to make claims like that and have no supporting documentation? Hmm.

Point being, all sorts of eyebrows went up pm the faces of those who read it, and most readers probably saw it as simply spurious. Pardon the obviousness of it all, but somehow, it amazes me how much junk gets dumped on a particular ancient document, and how much slack is given to other documents, both older and younger. I marvel. I am not generally provocative, but you know, sometimes people reach their limits, that's all.

There you go, I have spoken my mind on the matter, for good or ill. I rest.