[Greek] διαμάχομαι (diamachomai), [Latin] pugnare: to protest strongly, to struggle against, to argue heatedly, to strive, to fight fiercely, to contend sharply; Acts 23:9
Joshua’s Battle: painting by J.H. Schonfeld (1635) This term occurs 9 times in Joshua 10
Background information:
Greek Hellenism: This term means to fight, to contend, to exert oneself, and to contend with. Thucydides’ The Peloponnesian War 3.42 states “The good citizen out to triumph not by frightening his opponents but by beating them fairly in argument; a wise city will not deprive them of their due. In this way successful orators would be least tempted to sacrifice their convictions for popularity and unsuccessful speakers resort to the same popular arts in order to win over the multitude.” Plato’s Meno 86c states “This is a point for which I am determined to do battle, so far as I am able, both in word and deed.” Aristophanes’ Knights 339 states “No, by Poseidon, we will fight first to see who speaks first.”
Old Testament: This term means to fight, to do battle, to make war, and to eat (use as food). This term can be used literally, metaphorically, and figuratively. Proverbs warn about whom one associates with. Proverbs warns about intruding on an unwilling host. Hunger, fever, and pestilence can consume (devour) a person. In Num.14:9 people are viewed metaphorically as food, becoming the invaders’ prey and spoils.
“When you sit down to dine with a ruler, carefully consider who is before you.” Prov. 23:1
Be careful of the company you keep. Otherwise you may be corrupted or may been seen as corrupt.
“The path of the wicked do not enter, nor walk in the way of the evil…For they eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence.” Prov.4:14,17
Be careful with whom you associate with. You may also become involved, associated, or linked with these evil people.
“Do not take food with unwilling hosts, and do not desire their delicacies.” Prov.23:6
Be careful about intruding upon someone when not welcome.
“Come, eat of my food, and the drink the wine I mixed!” Prov.9:5
Partake and drink up wisdom.
“Emaciating hunger and consuming fever, and bitter pestilence.” Deut.32:24
Hunger, fever, and pestilence can consume (devour) the person.
“You need not be afraid of the people of the land, for they are but food for us!” Num.14:9
The invaded peoples often times become the spoils of the conquerors.
New Testament: This term means to protest strongly, to argue vigorously, and to contend sharply. Paul had previously recounted to the Jewish authorities of his conversion experience with Jesus on the road to Damascus. Paul was arrested and brought before the Sanhedrin. After Paul’s statement of defense, Paul was struck in the mouth. The Sanhedrin was made up of both Pharisees and Sadducees. Paul claims that he was on trial for hope in the resurrection of the dead. As a result, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and Sadducees. The Pharisees believed in the resurrection, angels, and spirits. However, the Sadducees did not believe in these three ideas. Rather than discussing Paul’s fate, the Sanhedrin argued among themselves about these theological beliefs. The Pharisees focused more on these theological beliefs (talking points) rather than discussing Paul’s fate. Essentially, the Pharisees conflated (or glossed over) Paul’s claims so that they could win a theological argument against the Sadducees. Paul was eventually exonerated. The commander ordered that Paul be taken away to ensure his safety. Jesus encouraged Paul for bearing witness for Him in Jerusalem. Jesus also stated that Paul must bear witness for Him later in Rome (which will ultimately lead to his martyrdom in Rome). This episode was involved with arguments, violence, and a military presence.
Scripture:
“A great uproar occurred, and some scribes belonging to the Pharisees party and stood up and sharply argued, ‘We find nothing wrong with this man. Suppose a spirit or an angel has spoken to him?’” Acts 23:9
The Pharisees would rather win a theological argument (talking point) rather than discuss Paul’s claim and experiences.
Conflation: It is very interesting to note that there exists a theme (pattern) of conflation (or association) with this term in the Old Testament and New Testament. The Old Testament focuses on the consequences of associating with such evil activity. (One will be lumped into this category). The New Testament focuses on glossing over activity. Conflation involves the combining of separate ideas (or views) into a composite. As a result, sometimes these perceptions, sincerely held views, and assumptions may be conflated, resulting in mixed, ambiguous, or faulty views. Proverbs warns of associating with evil people and evil actions, lest one becomes wicked themselves. In Acts, the Pharisees, more concerned with winning spiritual arguments (talking points) against the Sadducees, gloss over Paul’s encounter with Jesus. The Pharisees conflate Paul’s experience with their own views of the resurrection.
Etymology: Conflation comes from the Latin verb conflare, meaning to blow or to fuse together. From the 1600’s conflation generally meant to bring something together from various sources. From 1885, this notion takes on an inadvertent (accidental) sense. Interestingly, conflation is very closely related to confusion. The Latin word confuse means to fuse, mix, or mingle things or ideas as to render them indistinguishable. Therefore, it could be difficult to distinguish those good people who associate with evil people. The Pharisees, no friends of Paul, perhaps may not have had confused Paul’s experience, but instead glossed over it in order to win a theological argument against the Sadducees.
Conclusion:
Machination, machete, machismo, pugnacious, pugilist, confuse, confusion, conflate, conflation
I think Thuycides had made some valid points about defeating one’s opponents with the use of eloquent words. Plato points out one can do battle with word and deed (for good or bad). Aristophanes hints at the notion of fighting for the right to speak.
It is quite interesting to note that conflating and confusing are very similar in their meaning and use. Conflation can be used intentionally and unintentionally, depending on the context and circumstances.
Proverbs warns against associating with evil actions or with evil persons. Otherwise, it may be difficult to resist such evil inclinations and maintain one’s good character. One may also be perceived as an evil person or as one associated with such a person.
The Old Testament provides many examples of battle and fighting. It was interesting to discover the more nuanced uses of this term such as being prey (spoils), eating the bread of wickedness and drinking the wine of violence, and being devoured and consumed by hunger, fever, and pestilence.
It is also interesting to discover that the Pharisees were more interested in winning theological arguments (talking points) rather than judging Paul. Essentially, the Pharisees conflated or glossed over Paul’s claims with their own views about the Resurrection. So Paul was set free.
There have been countless examples of how opposing sides (mainstream media vs conservative media, mainstream media vs. President Trump, red state vs. blue state etc.) are using political talking points to conflate and bolster their political narratives with the truth. These claims may be true or false, depending on the context and actual facts. Such examples include Impeachment, China/WHO, Russian collusion, election fraud, social medium forums (publisher/platform), racism (how much really exists?), policing (fund/defund), and now protesters/rioters(looters).
Protests and rioting/looters: I think that most of us are in agreement that George Floyd’s death was a tragic injustice. Justice must be taken to address these wrongs. I also think that most of us agree that the sincere protesters have the right to protest. Now unfortunately, many on both sides of the political arena, in their statements and accusations, have willingly or inadvertently conflated the protesters with the rioters. Many times sincere protesters are being lumped in the same category as that of the rioters (looters). The rioters and looters have clearly eaten this bread of wickedness and have drunk this wine of violence. These narratives have unfortunately at times have biased reported, clouded, glossed over, or even ignored the focus on either the protesters or the rioters (looters). It is only when we can clearly separate them that we can adequately understand and make sense of this situation.
Whatever you think about and perceive of the issues our country faces, we must not gloss over the fact that there will continue to be these arguments, fights, and talking points. These are the battles we will have to constantly struggle with! (There is no conflating this).