Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron
Tracer Tong wrote:But you claimed the text is ungrammatical. Again (third time of asking!), is it fair to say you don't have the ability to demonstrate that is the case?
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Gregory Hays' 2003 translation of Meditations
Hays' endnote for 11.3 says:"This ungrammatical phrase [like the Christians]
is almost certainly a marginal comment by a later reader;
there is no reason to think Marcus
had the Christians in mind here."
Tracer Tong wrote:So certain translators think that the reference is spurious. What's the evidence that it is?
proudfootz wrote:I couldn't find anything arguing the issue one way or the other online, either.
Cito di Pense wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:But you claimed the text is ungrammatical. Again (third time of asking!), is it fair to say you don't have the ability to demonstrate that is the case?
No, Leucius does not claim it; LC quoted Gregory Hays as claiming the text is ungrammatical. Go complain to Gregory Hays, who is described as having translated Meditations
Cito di Pense wrote:If you want to exclude from this discussion anyone who cannot translate Koine Greek with a professional understanding of its grammar, go do it in a university somewhere, instead of bullying people on the internet with nothing more than insubstantial hints that you can. There is furthermore no basis for requesting evidence of interpolation when what's going on is translation and interpretation, both of which you know are not exact sciences. If you don't like the practice of suspecting interpolation when one cannot actually photograph a marginal notation that's been incorporated, then you don't like it.
Cito di Pense wrote:We should accept all ancient scribblings as genuine unless we can see the scribbling in the margin.
Tracer Tong wrote:Cito di Pense wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:But you claimed the text is ungrammatical. Again (third time of asking!), is it fair to say you don't have the ability to demonstrate that is the case?
No, Leucius does not claim it; LC quoted Gregory Hays as claiming the text is ungrammatical. Go complain to Gregory Hays, who is described as having translated Meditations
Sure Leucius claims it, a position in support of which he quoted Hays.
Tracer Tong wrote:I haven't said that Brunt regarded the text as ungrammatical, but that he thought it was spurious.
That aside, all I've asked you to do is support a position which you articulated. I've invited you to do so multiple times, yet you haven't. This suggests that you're not able to, yet you seem unwilling to clarify whether that's the case.
I also checked the old and new Teubner editions: the former retains the text, whereas the latter doesn't.
I've yet to read Brunt's piece, but I'll let you know when I do so.
Leucius Charinus wrote:
My position is that I have cited the translators' opinions that the reference is an interpolation ("margin gloss foisted upon text") from their respective translations and footnotes.
proudfootz wrote:Apparently no one here is expert enough to determine whether the 'experts' opinions are valid or not.
To me, it is interesting that this is a matter of controversy among the 'experts'.
Tracer Tong wrote: I've merely pointed out that you've yet to defend this position which you've endorsed, likely because you're unable to do so.
Tracer Tong wrote:Leucius Charinus wrote:
My position is that I have cited the translators' opinions that the reference is an interpolation ("margin gloss foisted upon text") from their respective translations and footnotes.
You've not merely cited them: you've cited them with approval, including the claim that the text is ungrammatical.
I've merely pointed out that you've yet to defend this position which you've endorsed, likely because you're unable to do so. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
Stein wrote:proudfootz wrote:Apparently no one here is expert enough to determine whether the 'experts' opinions are valid or not.
To me, it is interesting that this is a matter of controversy among the 'experts'.
Of course, unreasoning hatred of any and all experts is the in thing right now. Look at our Dear Leader, Mr. Trump.
Leucius Charinus wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:Leucius Charinus wrote:
My position is that I have cited the translators' opinions that the reference is an interpolation ("margin gloss foisted upon text") from their respective translations and footnotes.
You've not merely cited them: you've cited them with approval, including the claim that the text is ungrammatical.
The claim that the text is ungrammatical is the translator's. Gregory Hays' 2003 translation of MeditationsHays' endnote for 11.3 says:
["This ungrammatical phrase [like the Christians]
is almost certainly a marginal comment by a later reader;
there is no reason to think Marcus
had the Christians in mind here."
I have merely cited the translators' expert opinions.I've merely pointed out that you've yet to defend this position which you've endorsed, likely because you're unable to do so. Correct me if I'm mistaken.
The experts can defend their own opinions. You are mistaken to think that by stating the opinion of experts I am obliged to have to also defend their opinions. You are free to introduce other expert opinion to the contrary which you have done.
Leucius Charinus wrote:I have merely cited the translators' expert opinions.
Leucius Charinus wrote:The experts can defend their own opinions. You are mistaken to think that by stating the opinion of experts I am obliged to have to also defend their opinions. You are free to introduce other expert opinion to the contrary which you have done.
proudfootz wrote:Apparently no one here is expert enough to determine whether the 'experts' opinions are valid or not.
To me, it is interesting that this is a matter of controversy among the 'experts'.
The Greek title translates as “that which is to himself”, not Meditations, which implies, at least to me, ‘thoughts that I wish to distribute to others’, whereas, Aurelius’ title, in Greek, implies to me, rather, ‘thoughts that I wish to keep confidential’--perhaps a diary of sorts.Tracer Tong 03 May 2017 wrote:
What evidence is there that [Roman Emperor] Marcus' [Aurelius’] reference to Christians is not genuine [in his famous work entitled, in English, ‘Meditations’, Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν]?
Leucius Charinus 06 May 2017 wrote:
Marcus Aurelius Antoninus' reference to "christian obstinacy" (circa 167 CE) is located at Meditations, 11:3. Here is George Long's English translation:
"What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show."
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 16 guests