"You shall not permit a sorceress to live" (Exodus 22:18 ESV).
KJV famously states: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."
Elizabeth Sloane claims: "The original Hebrew word used in Exodus, translated as 'witch,' is mekhashepha. But what that word actually meant when Exodus was written thousands of years ago, we cannot know, leaving us with only modern interpretations."
To say that we cannot know what mekhashepha denotes, full stop, seems wrong-headed. Maybe we cannot know with absolute certainty what the word means, but scholars can approximate what it might have denoted when the text was written. We likely have enough data to approximate the meaning.
Exodus 22:18 (LXX): φαρμακοὺς οὐ περιποιήσετε
Brenton Translation: "Ye shall not save the lives of sorcerers."
Targum Jonathan on Exodus 22: "Sons of My people Israel, whosoever practiseth witchcraft you shall not suffer to live."
Compare King Saul's prohibition against "witches" in 1 Samuel 28.
Notice also the LXX connection between the Hebrew word and the Greek, pharmakeia, which is usually translated "spiritism" in the GNT. Besides, Sloane points out, Deut. 18:10-12 issues a similar warning. So it seems clear that witchcraft explicitly conflicts with the Bible's counsel to ancient Israel and the Christian ecclesia. Yet one could reject magic/witches on purely logical grounds as well (i.e., by the light of natural reason). On the other hand, Christians have not been given authority to kill witches/sorceresses.
Victor Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary: "The feminine word mĕkaššēpâ ('sorceress') is the feminine counterpart of masculine mĕkaššēp in Deut. 18:10 (NIV, '[one who] engages in witchcraft'). The difference between the two scriptural references, apart from gender, is that Deut. 18 only condemns the practice of sorcery, while Exod. 22 punishes its practice with death."
Joe M. Sprinkle, The Book of the Covenant, 163:
"In including the case of the sorceress, the author is possibly indirectly condemning the 'sorcerers' of Pharaoh in Egypt who in the narrative had imitated the miracles of Moses (Exod. 7.11) and contributed to Pharaoh's obstinacy. The fact that a feminine form, 'sorceress', was chosen here has struck interpreters as curious. Phillips speculates that Exod. 22.17 is meant to fill a loophole in existing legislation where the prohibition of sorcery previously applied only to men.2 That divination of this type—the exact activities of this kind of divination are not well defined—was more commonly practiced by the female than the male in Canaan is likewise speculative: Deut. 18.10 confirms that men practiced this kind of divination. Interestingly, one of the most prominent diviners in the Bible (under the term 2i«) is the female medium of Endor (1 Sam. 28.7). It is at least possible that an author/ editor of this regulation, being aware of the story of the medium of Endor to come later in the Bible, condemned her by making the form here feminine."
None of the information presented here is meant to justify witch hunting or the Salem witch trials.
81 comments:
Exodus 22:17
https://www.sefaria.org/Targum_Jonathan_on_Exodus.22?lang=bi
חַרְשִׁיּוּתָא
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Dictionary_of_the_Targumim,_the_Talmud_Babli_and_Yerushalmi,_and_the_Midrashic_Literature/%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%AA_-_%D7%97%D7%A8%D7%96%D7%A7
LXX Exo 22:18 φαρμακους ου περιποιησετε
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%23110350&redirect=true
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=JNaDupoSycMC&pg=PA562&lpg=PA562&dq=%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82+poison&source=bl&ots=OGBKk5WE_i&sig=j8Y2bu1lRCOYDVhYhZjMcSlY4wk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqjqbqkIDcAhWqD8AKHQdoCTcQ6AEITjAD#v=onepage&q=%CF%86%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%BC%CE%B1%CE%BA%CE%BF%CF%85%CF%82%20poison&f=false
So much for pharmacological doctoring :)
1Sa 28:7 και ειπε Σαουλ τοις παισιν αυτου ζητησατε μοι γυναικα εγγαστριμυθον και πορευσομαι προς αυτην και εκζητησω εν αυτη και ειπαν οι παιδες αυτου προς αυτον ιδου γυνη >>εγγαστριμυθος<< εν Ενδωρ
The Targum and Wikisource dictionary both support understanding the Hebrew as a practicer of witchcraft or a sorceress. Granted, φαρμακους or its singular counterpart could be translated "poisoner," but such an interpretation depends on context. Yet it seems clear that Exod 7:11 has sorcerers in mind, not simply "poisoners" or pharmacists (i.e., they were magic-practicing priests). Besides, don't forget the close association that drugs and spiritism came to have in antiquity. Hence, the nexus between "druggery" (an obsolete English term) and demonism in JW publications. The basic lexicographical rule is that we translate/construe words according to context. Sometimes there is ambiguity, but what gives us reason to think the Israelites did not want to abide "pharmacists" or "poisoners"? What contextual or textual cues lead us down that path?
For more info concerning "poison," in this sense, see https://www.etymonline.com/word/poison
For 1 Sam. 28:7, see https://books.google.com/books?id=pKcKAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA386&dq=%CE%B5%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BC%CF%85%CE%B8%CE%BF%CF%82+liddell+scott&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbgMi27YDcAhVLZKwKHcvhDdMQ6AEIQzAE#v=onepage&q=%CE%B5%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CF%81%CE%B9%CE%BC%CF%85%CE%B8%CE%BF%CF%82%20liddell%20scott&f=false
Brenton: "Then Saul said to his servants, Seek for me a woman who has in her a divining spirit, and I will go to her, and enquire of her: and his servants said to him, Behold, [there is] a woman who has in her a divining spirit at Aendor."
NETS prefers "ventriloquist,"; I venture to say that Brenton's handling of the text is more accurate.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43725201?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1845&context=etd
https://books.google.com/books?id=8e-5BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA107&lpg=PA107&dq=1+samuel+28:7+septuagint+divining+spirit&source=bl&ots=9-ssqNta-Y&sig=Lpg9S15viIIgN9iVlQ0wrveoVvM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOwIPI8oDcAhUSI6wKHXSSAyU4ChDoAQhXMAg#v=onepage&q=1%20samuel%2028%3A7%20septuagint%20divining%20spirit&f=false
Liddell-Scott has "one that prophesies from the belly" (LXX)
Nothing wrong with pharmacology/druggery per se: just don't mix it with scorcery and spells. :)
See also https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2017/01/galatians-520-spiritism.html
Robert Alter's rendering of 1 Sam. 28:7:
"Seek me out a ghostwife, that I may go to her and inquire through her." And his servants said to him, "There is a ghostwife at En-dor."
Then Alter comments on 1 Sam. 28:8:
"The narrative motivation is obvious: as the very ruler who has made necromancy a capital crime (see verse 9), Saul can scarcely come to engage the services of a necromancer unless he is disguised as a commoner."
necromancer: a person who practices necromancy; a wizard or magician.
See R. Alter, The David Story, page 173.
Thing is, when it comes to spells what is the significant difference between a doctor saying - "take two pills twice a day" (sugar pills) over "one pill once a day" and the measurable difference in placebo effect?
I didn't really intend to enter a moral philosophy discussion, but was more concerned with how Exod 22:18 might be translated or understood. Whether correctly or not, scientists generally think what they're doing is empirical and naturalistic, much different than spells or magic.
For instance, beta blockers slow down my heart and control high bp. I don't think magic or the placebo effect can explain beta blocker effects. Or insulin reduces glucose levels, but this is all scientific, not all about magical incantations.
As I stated, this blog deals with theology in its various manifestations. Medicine is not my forte.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289249968_Ancient_Egyptian_Medicine_A_Systematic_Review
I think I sent you information on a new journal dealing with Egyptian medical practice & that i now seems less bazaar & more evidence based. Cant track it down again. I know it was a UK university. Can you post if you find it?
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/finger-pulse-longevity/
Placebo is REAL. Point being demonstrated here:-
https://addictionresource.com/addiction/bad-trip/
"Leave the disturbing place or stop the music which provokes your thoughts."
Drugs in themselves are a tool it it control of the brain state that turns them into a weapon.
See https://www.amazon.co.uk/Magic-Ordinary-Recovering-Shamanic-Judaism/dp/1556434448
It makes some interesting points regarding the translation Exodus 22:18.
I believe this is the journal you had in mind from Manchester Uni: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)61749-3/fulltext
The addiction link you posted didn't say anything about the placebo effect. Bad trips are caused by actually working drugs: the website then tells a drug user how to avoid the bad trip caused by drugs or how to blunt the effects. But what is written on the site differs from the placebo effect.
There is also a difference between taking drugs to get high and consuming drugs for medicinal reasons. BP drugs have their side effects, but who takes them to get high?
If I can lower BP without drugs or improve my glucose levels through exercise or diet, that's what I prefer to do. But I think there is a science behind modern medicine. When all goes as planned, there is a causal nexus between the drug and its effect.
On the exegetical side for Exod 22:18:
Zondervan Bible Commentary (One Volume): Cf. Lev. 19:26; Dt. 18:10–14; 1 Sam.28:9. The verse implies that women especially were involved in sorcery; some cite Pughat in the Canaanite Aqhat legend (though see NBD, p. 726). Magic was widely practised in Mesopotamia and was proscribed in both Babylonian and Assyrian law.
Expositor's Bible Commentary (Abridged Edition): Old Testament: "Sorceress" is the feminine form of a Semitic word that means "magician" or "sorcerer." The intensive form of the Hebrew verb means to use incantations, magic, sorcery, or the arts of witchcraft. Our English "witch" is alleged to have come from "to wit," i.e., "to know." The LXX rendered our word by pharmakos ("poisoners"), since sorcerers dealt in drugs and pharmaceutical potions.
Easton's Bible Dictionary: Witch
Occurs only in Ex. 22:18, as the rendering of _mekhashshepheh_, the feminine form of the word, meaning "enchantress" (R.V., "sorceress"), and in Deut. 18:10, as the rendering of _mekhashshepheth_, the masculine form of the word, meaning "enchanter."
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology: (c) The OT saw any magic as a potential rival to the worship of Yahweh and a threat to the well-being of the people. It was forbidden by law, and those who practiced it were to be put to death (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 19:26, 31; 20:6, 27; cf. Mic. 5:12). As Deut 18:10 - 14 shows, such practices were ranked with human sacrifice as an abomination to the Lord (cf. also 2 Ki. 17:17; 2 Chr. 33:6). The prophets denounced it as lies and deception (Isa. 44:25; 57:3; Jer 27:9 - 10; Ezek. 22:28; Zech. 10:2; Mal. 3:5). Jezebel was condemned as a sorceress (2 Ki. 9:22), and Manasseh's apostate practices included various forms of magic, soothsaying, and human sacrifice (21:3 - 6). His grandson Josiah abolished all forms of the occult (23:24).
Standard definitions for placebo say "a beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment,". Note , or treatment, but there is nothing in my understanding of the term that means it has to be a beneficial effect just as long as it does have an effect.
In hebrew, does the femanine form of the verb make it litterally femanine in gender.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/vul/passage/?q=exodus+22:18;+exodus+22:20.
"the Hebrew word in Exodus 22:18 was ?mekhashshepheh?,the feminine
form of a word meaning ?witch?or ?magician?(it is not clear whether the term
was always bad or whether it was ambivalent)."
The beneficial component of "placebo" sounds like something etymological. The Latin verb placere can mean, "to please," but you're correct that the placebo effect is not limited to beneficial effects. However, another point I was making earlier is that the placebo effect is not "magical." That is, it does not result from witchcraft or supernatural actions.
I usually think of grammatical gender as "accidental" (i.e., morphological) unless context indicates otherwise. Hebrew does have ways of distinguishing males from females, as you know. For example, Proverbs 22:6.
For the Vulgate rendering, see https://books.google.com/books?id=wmPkBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA107&dq=maleficos+vulgate&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb3trqhITcAhVJAqwKHZCKD08Q6AEIQjAF#v=onepage&q=maleficos%20vulgate&f=false
Just been looking at the terms used at Isaiah 8:19. Very interesting.
Looking at the JSTOR article I have her difficulty tracking down the information referenced in footnotes 14 & 15.
I found Robert Alter's tome, The Five Books of Moses. Here's how he renders Exod 22:18ff: "No witch shall you let live. Whosoever lies with a beast is doomed to die."
Alter's footnote on Exod 22:17:
17. No witch shall you let live. This verse marks the beginning of a second group of laws, no longer formulated casuistically but as absolute imperatives. The witch or sorceress is feminine because, as ibn Ezra and many others after him note, female practitioners predominated, though it may be inferred that male sorcerers are also implied. Ibn Ezra also proposes, somewhat fancifully, a thematic link with the previous law: a seducer might well resort to sorcery in order to have his way with a young woman. The practice of witchcraft had an understandable persistence in ancient Israel, as the tale of the necromancer of Endor (1 Samuel 28) illustrates. The monotheistic objection to the institution, whose efficacy was not necessarily denied, was to an occult technology that could manipulate the spirit realm which was reserved to God alone.
"occult technology that could manipulate the spirit realm" - I have to wonder to what is being referred here, as the things manipulated are observable. If one defines spirit as the motivation and decision making of humans.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/two-minute-shrink/201004/hypnosis-underused-technique
I'm not going to venture an opinion as to what Alter fully means. However, occult usually refers to something that's magical, supernatural or mystical. He's probably using "technology" along the etymological lines of the Greek, techne. The occult technology in this case appears to be necromancy.
Necromancy by definition focuses on what's not observable, like trying to communicate with the dead or conjure effects apart from the natural causal continuum. The "spirit realm" for Alter (again, I'm not trying to read his mind), refers to that world inhabited by spirits. In this case, I believe he's talking about the spirits of deceased persons.
Hynosis is another one of those things that people try to naturalize, but it seems objectionable in the light of Deut 18:10ff.
For the common meaning of occult, I would like to recommend the Wikipedia article about the occult. Here is a quote from that article:
"In common English usage, occult refers to 'knowledge of the paranormal', as opposed to 'knowledge of the measurable', usually referred to as science."
'knowledge of the measurable' - this I have a problem with as most of natural science is far from natural as it uses artificial constraints for it measurements, making closed systems where none actually exist. So the divide between natural and supernatural is blurry to say the least from this perspective.
EG. for the witch of Endor - did anyone actually SEE something or did they "sense" a presence . If they actually saw with the eye doesn't it falls into the realm of the natural or is an image like this -
http://www.holographyforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=661
of the supernatural? I suppose once it might have been or seen that way.
I'm not advocating the contemporary definition of "science" (scientia), but ideally, science is supposed to deal with measurable things. Nearly all scientists today would argue that science is "natural," insofar as it deals with the measurable, the physical, and "does not allow a divine foot in the door." That's the ideal. Whether it lives up to the ideal is another question.
Again, I'm not advocating these ideas, but see http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html
The witch of Endor (ghostmistress) claimed to see Samuel if I recall the account correctly. Maybe there was a presence felt. Nevertheless, scientists normally would not classify such events, if they occurred, as natural events.
See http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/01/09/billions-and-billions-of-demons/
Here's a quote from that link: "Nearly every present-day scientist would agree with Carl Sagan that our explanations of material phenomena exclude any role for supernatural demons, witches, and spirits of every kind, including any of the various gods from Adonai to Zeus. (I say 'nearly' every scientist because our creationist opponent in the Little Rock debate, and other supporters of 'Creation Science,' would insist on being recognized.) We also exclude from our explanations little green men from Mars riding in space ships, although they are supposed to be quite as corporeal as you and I, because the evidence is overwhelming that Mars hasn’t got any."
I think my main point with this is if "science" took all parameters into account in at least a general sense then applied physics would create no pollution of any significant kind. Pollution being resources in inappropriate locationd, none closed loop systems. Verification and validation generally do not take this into account. In any case to say that the witch saw bit Saul who was also third did not speaks for itself. I wonder how much Saul paid for the service.
My science classes in college emphasized two principles: naturalism and empiricism. Scientists tend to maintain that once spirit beings or immaterial souls come into play, science is no longer science, but theology instead. Science as practiced today does not take all parameters into account: only what's natural and empirical. Famously, even Aristotelian formal and final causes haven been cast out; only the material and efficient causes remain in science today.
I don't have a major problem with creating "artificial" situations in order to conduct experiments if we're made aware of such constraints from the outset. To your last question, I'm not sure what sorceresses charged back then, especially to rulers like Saul.
Luke 16:31.
Well, you know what the naturalists say: dead people don't come back to life. I.e., they claim that resurrection is impossible. And Moses/the Prophets are out of the question.
"insulin reduces glucose levels" yes but it is not a drug. It is a replacement therapy and should this be the standard treatment for "non insulin dependent diabetes"? Also the blatant lie that low serotonin is the key driver for clinical depression. Some of the drugs treatmets REDUCE serotonin & there is no correlation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4DquTXqe-U
Not much real, practical, effective, repeatable science out their.
I was just trying to make the basic point that science, medicinal or otherwise, is not "magic" but it's supposed to be the very antithesis of magic.
This page: https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/diabetes-types-insulin#1
mentions Afreeza and calls it a "drug."
Insulin glargine (Lantus) is also called a drug here: https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-20815/lantus-u-100-insulin-subcutaneous/details
I don't necessarily think insulin should be the standard treatment, but my comment only concerned what insulin does. I'm not saying anyone should take or not take man-made insulin.
I'm not advocating medical treatments, drugs of any kind, or dietary regimens. But I believe it's a fact that some drugs reduce glucose levels or hypertension even if their side effects are less than desirable. I don't see how you can deny that medicines (causes) produce certain effects including the amelioration of depression.
One presenter on a video I once watched said that we (humans) have learned more about pain in the last 50+ years than ever before. He argued that we now how to treat about any pain through meds--all thanks to modern medical science. That doesn't mean all this advancement has not brought other problems though.
"Historically, some natural source protein products have been regulated as drugs under the FDC Act, not biological products under the PHS Act. Insulin is one of those products. When human insulin (Humulin) was approved as the world's first recombinant DNA drug product in 1982, it was approved under the FDC Act."
"I don't see how you can deny that medicines (causes) produce certain effects including the amelioration of depression."
Quite easily when compared correctly to placebo which also makes my point about the true power of placebo.
https://www.nhs.uk/news/medication/big-new-study-confirms-antidepressants-work-better-placebo/
More snake oil as 8 week period of drug taking and abstanance prove nothing other than withdrawal symptoms & why were some of the studies previously unpublished when funded by the manufacturers and industry? It would have been in their interest to publish ALL positive studies.
http://www.deadlymedicines.dk
http://iipdw.com
Duncan, the placebo effect does not show that depression medicine is ineffective. I've seen drugs improve depression and witnessed psychosis being ameliorated. People have stopped hearing voices and having bad thoughts. If you want to believe bp meds or depression meds don't work, I cannot convince you otherwise.
Are meds deadly? Yes, they often are. I take certain meds, but undergo a checkup every 3 months for liver, etc. I feel the meds have extended my life, but I am aware of side effects.
Regarding pain:-
https://www.practicalpainmanagement.com/resources/intractable-pain
I wonder what is claimed for the poor people who go through this as a managment. A friend of mine has a crumbling spine and the only drug that works is straight morphine & even that is not that effective. The most common form of this is phantom lower back pain.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/back-in-circulation-sciatica-and-cholesterol/
As for using NSAIDS
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/anti-inflammatory-life-is-a-bowl-of-cherries/
So I would not put too much store by causes and treatment that seem to have an air of respectability (scientific).
I have to go by the data and not the anecdote.
https://youtu.be/RyHQRxQGBhI
See from 19:20.
Any drug that messes with the brain chemistry might seem to work in the short term but in the long term causes currently irriversible damage that may be completely unnecessary in that longer term.
So what you see and what you think you see can be quite different.
Hearing voices:-
https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2018
We keep coming by back to the same places, as expected:-
https://m.medicalxpress.com/news/2017-11-nutrition-key-role-early-psychosis.html
Note the vitamin d role in psychosis.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kmhADwAAQBAJ&pg=PT145&lpg=PT145&dq=animal+protein+inhibits+supercharged+vitamin+d3&source=bl&ots=k9EIfPOv1Z&sig=jw85r_eYpUB_cGjRLNpTP6tHzFo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjtibv8n6zcAhVLKVAKHVPSDywQ6AEwAXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=animal%20protein%20inhibits%20supercharged%20vitamin%20d3&f=false
More vectors converge.
Duncan, there is no perfect cure in this world, despite our best efforts. I understand that some people have pains which will remain unresolved or be poorly treated. My comment should have been taken as a general observation.
The point is whether drugs lower bp, ameliorate voices/psychoses or really help to treat pain. It's not just anecdotal to say that Terazosin helps to lower high bp. Nor is it merely anecdotal to say that Tylenol or Ibuprofen help to control pain in many people. Might some pain be treated naturally? I never said it could not be. But the data/evidence is overwhelming that hypertension can be treated with meds and so can depression and psychosis. So can diabetes. That is not just anecdotal.
What irreversible damage does Prozac cause or Lexapro? What solid evidence is there for such claims?
Quoting from one of your sources:
"Antipsychotic medication is not always successful in eliminating voices, so it might help people to suggest they could live with their own voices too"
Not always successful is not the same as never successful. My experience (based on the word of certified medical pros) has been that people usually need drugs and therapy to cope with psychoses. No one is suggesting that drugs alone are the answer. My argument is rather that drugs are not magic or just placebos.
"Okay, you're not going to convince me that eating meat is responsible for psychoses, if that is what you're suggesting. I've eaten plenty of meat and I'm not psychotic (yet). More seriously, see https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/psychosis/causes/
This discussion was supposed to be about translation, not dietary matters. But I'm willing to entertain the matter for a little while. Biblically, we can eat in accord with our conscience unless we consume blood or stumble our brethren. We also have to eat in accordance with a sound mind, but that is up to the individual.
Regarding blood pressure: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-pressure/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20373417
People sometimes recommend cherries to help with gout pain. Allopurinol works for me and plenty of other people: cherries were not efective for me.
In no way am I recommending any health plan, but see https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/is-it-safe-to-take-ibuprofen-for-the-aches-and-pains-of-exercise-2017080912185
for more information concerning ibuprofen.
To much to squeeze into this blog comment section but I will try to address a few points. The evidence of long term use and the damage caused by antidepressants is going to be extremely difficult to quantify but it is recognised:-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/14/antidepressants-can-raise-the-risk-of-suicide-biggest-ever-revie/
https://www.medicaldaily.com/why-do-antidepressants-raise-your-suicide-risk-surprising-science-behind-paradoxical-reactions
Would you classify suicide as a long term side effects or not?
https://davidhealy.org/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-serotonin/
Brain disorders are so subjective in the first place but my point about nutrition and vitamin d3 is that meat does block its production even if test indicate you have sufficent D in you system and d3 dificiency is linked to many serious chronic lifestyle illnesses.
I'm thinking the placebo threshold is measured upto 30% success. So without knowing how many these drugs have supposedly helped it may or may not be better than placebo.
If you go through the previous posts in detail I think there is a level of evidence.
https://youtu.be/8RQjfu_4Ag4
https://youtu.be/3oOx40Aicms
https://youtu.be/DfAoVbZoNPE
http://www.fatnews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/fluoxetine-prozac-a-terrible-drug-peter-gotzs
As for muscle soreness and berries:-
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/benefits-of-blueberries-for-blood-pressure-may-be-blocked-by-yogurt/
I have no reason to think that this is not applicable to other types of fruit.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/foods-to-improve-athletic-performance-and-recovery/
The new documentary may cover recovery times and pain levels.
http://gamechangersmovie.com
In the past on my heaviest training days it never occurred to me to use ibuprophen but it would certainly think twice about making that a habit and run risks like these..
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0078823/
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-not-to-die-from-high-blood-pressure/
This also makes a mockery of the genetic arguments.
Just spotted something interesting in Deuteronomy 25. We're all these curses to happen at once or certain curses for certain disobedience? Observe verses 15 & 27.
Also 1 Samuel 6:4. Mice and boyels.
Just in:-
https://www.sciencealert.com/nitrates-processed-meats-linked-manic-symptoms-bipolar
Okay, I'm going to say my peace for now and leave matters at that. There might be a link between suicide and taking antidepressants, but a medical doctor just told me all that stuff is bunk (junk science, if you will). Firstly, again, I'm not recommending that anyone take antidepressants: that is up to each person. But there's two sides to the issue. Please see https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/suicide/symptoms-causes/syc-20378048
This link gives a timely warning about antidepressants. However, these words are included:
"However, keep in mind that antidepressants are more likely to reduce suicide risk in the long run by improving mood."
More qualifications could be made, but time and the nature of this forum does not permit me to do that.
2) Here's another perspective on Prozac and its potential effectiveness: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/21/the-drugs-do-work-antidepressants-are-effective-study-shows
3) I'm aware of Ibuprofen risks: my wife and I both used to consume the drug with some frequency, and even one doctor suggested taking Ibuprofen for gout. He said it was safer than one gout drug. IMO, almost anything in life has risks; we must be aware of those risks and act accordingly (Proverbs 22:3).
4) We've talked about hypertension before. I don't know any doctor who chalks up hypertension to genetics alone. However, is it a factor. I believe there's good reason to think genetics is a major factor. But it's not the only factor, to be sure.
https://www.cdc.gov/bloodpressure/family_history.htm
"Genetic factors likely play some role in high blood pressure, heart disease, and other related conditions. However, it is also likely that people with a family history of high blood pressure share common environments and other potential factors that increase their risk."
"Blacks develop high blood pressure more often than whites, Hispanics, Asians, Pacific Islanders, American Indians, or Alaska Natives. Compared to whites, blacks also develop high blood pressure earlier in life."
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/38/29/2309/3852720?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Do you mean Deut 28 above? My gut answer is that the curses (maledictions) would not happen simultaneously, but diachronically. That is how they occurred in the history of Israel including the Babylonian Captivity. I also don't believe the language has to be construed such that the curses happen all at once.
Worth watching as it addresses a few points we have covered.
https://youtu.be/8138ZywsZL8
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0803/08030301
So, as far as the reaserch and work of Dr. Moncrieff & Dr. Gøtzsche is concerned, they both see as much harm as benefit to these psychiatric drugs and the innefectivness of some like prozac.
What becomes obvious is the gaping hole in the knowledge of nutrition and its role in these types of illness. This type of bias in the past was and still is very prevalent for type 2 diabetes and heart disease but the truth will out as it has for those.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32802-7/fulltext
The study you are referring too can be found here. Note the Dr. Moncreiff's talk was some time after its publication & therefore was not convincing to here. I referred to it earlier and the reference to unpublished studies rang alarm bells immediately. I am affraid that meta analysis can be abused. Unpublished studies are usually that way because of unfavourable findings of some kind or another and I very much doubt that large sums of money are spent to disprove the effectiveness of these or any medication.
Genetics is a major factor when the genes are actually expressed.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Nutrition_and_Gene_Expression.html?id=vV31LsE8WOoC&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10089110
Old news but one needs nutrition to express genes, therefore my comment about the study from Kenya.
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Nutrient_Gene_Interactions_in_Health_and.html?id=cFbMBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button&redir_esc=y
https://www.nap.edu/read/10299/chapter/7
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article-pdf/134/9/2434S/24027619/z4w009040s2434.pdf
Just a few samples of ongoing research.
So is it nature or nurture - imo, more the former.
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/136/4/1126/4664238
This is another factor of nutrition and non nutritional factors.
I don't know the exact percentage that nature plays in diseases, psychoses and illnesses, but I would venture it plays a hugh role. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, there is also the factor of sin (inherited sin). That too is supposed to adversely affect our health and we cannot do a thing about it except follow Christ and worship his Father. We also have to use a "sound mind," but nothing this side of Armagesson is going to eradicate sin from our bodies.
Lifestyle is important. That is undboutedly true. However, I would venture to say that no one regimen has all the dietary answers.
http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/genetics-of-diabetes.html
Many of these main stream sites miss important details.
See:-
http://www.nnsdp.org/Genetics_of_Diabetes.aspx
"What happens is that a family history of type 2 diabetes is one of the strongest risk factors for getting the disease but it only seems to matter in people living a Western lifestyle."
Gene expression.
Coming back to the main thrust of the thread:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/I_II_Samuel.html?id=7W_RmEDu_OkC&redir_esc=y
Translates 1 Samuel 28:3 as:-
Now Samuel had died, and all Israel mourned him; and they buried him in Ramah in his town. And Saul had removed the bottles and the experts from the land.
For "bottles" see:-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/WBS-47kaSlCsJHAKyynEYw
It may be worth opening a new thread for this verse and the translation of it:-
האבות ואת הידענים.
γγαστριμυθους και τους γνωστας.
Quickly for now: we covered lots of ground, but I think the commentary by Auld was quoted above and the "bottles" were mentioned, I believe. I found his treatment of the passage in Samuel interesting: I have Auld's commentary and it might be good to consider his overall discussion of 1 Sam. 28. I will also check out the info on bottles.
Well, I do have Auld's commentary and may have quoted from it, but don't see it now in this thread. Maybe I just consulted his work, but it is in my files. Sorry if I misspoke.
https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium-philistines-introduced-opium-to-ancient-israel-1.5393299
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=M13dCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT138&lpg=PT138&dq=ugarit+"the+healers"&source=bl&ots=-GSW0O06V7&sig=oOA2QN2sxCYpviBo9RhC1S6CypE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwit2NOd8czcAhVOGsAKHcItBbUQ6AEwD3oECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=ugarit%20"the%20healers"&f=false
We discussed 1 Samuel 28:7 LXX above and the word εγγαστριμυθος.
Here are 2 footnotes about 1 Sam. 28:3 from Auld's commentary:
3a. The gt has “ventriloquists” (engastrimythous), as throughout this chapter.
b. a pair in 2 Kgs 21:6 again, where Gk. also renders by gnōstas.
[END QUOTE]
Although he suggests "ventriloquists" for the LXX, I prefer Brenton's translation. See above and compare what LSJ has.
One more quote from Auld's commentary regarding 1 Sam. 28:3:
The term yiddĕʿōnîm, derived from yādaʿ (“know”), is transparent. In a nice anticipation of the gnostics, gt calls them the gnōsteis: they are the “knowledgeable,” the “experts.” The term ʾōbôt is the plural form of ʾôb, which is a bladder or a (skin) bottle, and has presumably been the medium’s familiar prop, such as a crystal ball would become in much later times. We never meet yiddĕʿōnîm in hb without ʾōbôt;36 but whether they refer together to one sort of
intermediary, or separately to two, is beyond our power to settle. It may be that such “experts” gained (or at least presented the results of) their knowledge by use of these “bottles.”
See Auld, page 326.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?t=kjv&strongs=h178
Don't find this information very convincing - especially a root link between ob and ab.
The understanding from Job seems more convincing especially if that bottle carried a "potion" (drugs).
I would be interested to know of ANY OT references specific to clay bottles? not to be confused with potsherds which are usually associated with bowls.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/bottle/
Bottles were normally made of skin in the OT.
Thought as much - If you had a clay bottle the per the Canaanites, the language does not cater for it. Presumably not so common in the pastoral culture who would drink water and fermented milk from a skin.
I don't know if you read the Gesenius entry for ob at the blue letter page, but it's probably more reliable than the Strong's definition. I find the ob and ab connection hard to swallow also.
I see what you mean by the Job example which comes from Gesenius. That is why I pointed to his work, although old, over that of Strong's.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bGwokCBSWkIC&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=ob+hebrew+bottle+ventriloquist&source=bl&ots=VB62XNYno7&sig=zZnDGK5Zyqw7htPj__wXK6IgwUY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjEwL72vM_cAhUpAcAKHRXdBAsQ6AEwD3oECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=ob%20hebrew%20bottle%20ventriloquist&f=false
Another old book but with some interesting perspective.
As we're setting forth books that deal with this subject, I don't think this dissertation about 1 Samuel 28 has been mentioned: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/846/
Thanks, see:-
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-dXWDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=“The+Witch+of+Endor,+Pirkei+Ovoth,+or+Bottled+Spirits.”&source=bl&ots=aaOEefHSGR&sig=YgiMF2DFEr26Zvv5IhpJh-iyjNA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiitrSapdHcAhXKCcAKHXRCAGUQ6AEwAHoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=Bottle&f=false
That paper may have been updated.
As for the paper I posted I'm am interested in the footnote at the bottom of page 47 concerning lxx, any thought? Does the comment seem reasonable from you grasp of the Greek.
http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/03/Canaanite-Religion-Tel-Burna
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/12322/1/Complete_Text.pdf
Not opium, but other drugs are possible from above.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/opium-or-oil-late-bronze-age-cypriot-base-ring-juglets-and-international-trade-revisited/763FD09E93CC6ADB344A1C9ABE5FA50E/core-reader
IMO, the natural sense of 1 Samuel 28:7-8 (LXX) is "in," but I see no reason why a sense of accompaniment would be impossible although that would not be the primary sense for me. Accompaniment is certainly a possibility there.
The other posted links are interesting for me as well. Thanks for submitting them. If I come across any other material, I will post to this thread.
From the Greek-English Lexicon for the LXX:
ἐγγαστρίμυθος
,-
ος
,-
ον
A 4-8-3-0-0=15
Lv 19,31; 20,6.27; Dt 18,11; 1 Sm 28,3
ventriloquizing
1 Sm 28,7;
ὁ
ἐγγαστριμυθος
ventriloquist
Lv 19,31;
familiar spirit
(of a ventriloquist)
1 Sm 28,8
Cf. HARLÉ 1988, 172
ἐγγαστριμυθος
http://www.academia.edu/27071039/Gjorgjevski_G._Todorovska_M._The_Story_About_the_Witch_of_Endor_in_the_Writings_of_the_Early_Church_Fathers_Сборник_доклади_от_научна_конференция_Свещеното_писание_в_църковното_предание_проведена_от_8_до_11_октомври_2014г._Фондация_Покров_Богородичен_София_2016_125-145
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FkcFCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA387&lpg=PA387&dq=belly+talker+drugs&source=bl&ots=sve4skcAgP&sig=15cZl1gdJAlI8Dohsf4ObhXtzYs&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiAsMKHh9vcAhXHA8AKHfQmCD4Q6AEwDXoECAEQAQ#v=snippet&q=engastrimuthoi&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VBI6JppgQBAC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=engastrimuthoi+belly+talkers&source=bl&ots=4WHfiNnix6&sig=5yFzJIRgkDWuBvv5y276s5Rw5LA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8numPodvcAhUrBcAKHamMDyAQ6AEwAHoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=engastrimuthoi%20belly%20talkers&f=false
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hFrR0KAqpfUC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=engastrimuthoi+belly+talkers&source=bl&ots=O5ftQ1Uwcl&sig=keOYERMDCuL0Cp0sxNBi3i-BHmo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8numPodvcAhUrBcAKHamMDyAQ6AEwA3oECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=engastrimuthoi%20belly%20talkers&f=false
Thanks for the additional resources--the paper about the fathers and 1 Samuel 28 was interesting and the other works look good too. Looking at engastrimuthoi in a wider context of usage illuminates what it could mean in 1 Sam 28.
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cmawro/corpus
Post a Comment