Historical Jesus

Abrahamic religion, you know, the one with the cross...

Moderators: Blip, DarthHelmet86

Re: Historical Jesus

#42261  Postby proudfootz » May 12, 2017 7:45 pm

I couldn't find anything arguing the issue one way or the other online, either.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10250

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42262  Postby Cito di Pense » May 14, 2017 1:52 pm

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:

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."



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.

Tracer Tong wrote:So certain translators think that the reference is spurious. What's the evidence that it is?


Yes, of course. We should accept all ancient scribblings as genuine unless we can see the scribbling in the margin. Well, that's what makes a horse race.

proudfootz wrote:I couldn't find anything arguing the issue one way or the other online, either.


And if you hope to find definitive arguments for stuff like this, then you miss the point of arguing about it on the internet instead of in an academic journal.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Ivar Poäng
Posts: 24644
Age: 6
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42263  Postby Tracer Tong » May 14, 2017 2:40 pm

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. Of course, he's free to retract that claim.

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.


Far from excluding anyone from discussion, I've (several times, in fact) invited Leucius to defend his assertion, not suspicion, the text is ungrammatical; asking someone to support such an assertion is not "bullying"; and the fact that we are dealing in "translation and interpretation" hardly means that requesting evidence has "no basis".

Cito di Pense wrote:We should accept all ancient scribblings as genuine unless we can see the scribbling in the margin.


Not a textual principle I would endorse!
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1188
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42264  Postby Leucius Charinus » May 16, 2017 10:52 am

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.


I repeated Gregory Hays'' claim of 2003, Maxwell Staniforth's claim of 1964 and C.R. Haines' claim (Loeb edition), since these guys are regarded as having credentialed skills. You then added a 4th claim (P.A. Brunt) to the list. It seems to me that you are trying to shoot the messenger. It wont work. You need to shoot these translators.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 736

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42265  Postby Tracer Tong » Jun 08, 2017 4:22 pm

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.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1188
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42266  Postby proudfootz » Jun 09, 2017 1:58 am

I suppose in lieu of arguments one way or the other we'll have to describe the passage as 'controversial'.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10250

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42267  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 09, 2017 2:28 am

Tracer Tong wrote:I haven't said that Brunt regarded the text as ungrammatical, but that he thought it was spurious.


True.

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.


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.

I also checked the old and new Teubner editions: the former retains the text, whereas the latter doesn't.


That's interesting.

I've yet to read Brunt's piece, but I'll let you know when I do so.


I have great respect for Brunt's opinions. He has written some fine articles.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 736

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42268  Postby Tracer Tong » Jun 10, 2017 12:15 am

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.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1188
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42269  Postby proudfootz » Jun 10, 2017 12:45 am

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'.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10250

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42270  Postby Stein » Jun 10, 2017 2:22 am

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.

Free nails it right here.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/chris ... e#p2184444

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2346

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42271  Postby Stein » Jun 10, 2017 2:25 am

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.


-- and after failing to address Tracer Tong's question for -- how many weeks now? -- it's ^#^%$&$ obvious that Lucius IS entirely unable to back up anything he's said on this score.

What a surprise -- not.

Stein
Stein
 
Posts: 2346

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42272  Postby RealityRules » Jun 10, 2017 4:47 am

.

:doh: lol. Down the rabbit-hole we go again.

_________________________________________
Last edited by RealityRules on Jun 11, 2017 1:30 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
RealityRules
 
Name: GMak
Posts: 2720

New Zealand (nz)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42273  Postby Leucius Charinus » Jun 10, 2017 5:18 am

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 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."

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.
"It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Christians is a fiction of men composed by wickedness. "

Emperor Julian (362 CE)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
 
Posts: 736

Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42274  Postby proudfootz » Jun 10, 2017 10:32 am

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.



You might have a point, except no one in this thread has expressed any such opinion.

Maybe you should save this post for the unlikely event of its ever being relevant?



As for Free's fact-free assertions, it does seem he has nailed the faux outrage so typical of Real Jesus advocates.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10250

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42275  Postby proudfootz » Jun 10, 2017 10:35 am

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 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."

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.


Somehow Stein has mistaken your citations of experts as 'unreasoning hatred'.

Be prepared for further wild and reckless accusations from that quarter - perhaps of something like Holocaust denial.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10250

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Historical Jesus

#42276  Postby Tracer Tong » Jun 10, 2017 11:42 am

Leucius Charinus wrote:I have merely cited the translators' expert opinions.


As I've said already, you've not merely cited them, but cited them with approval.

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.


I haven't suggested there's an obligation; you are of course welcome to decline to defend the views you endorse. And so you have done, since you're unable to defend them.

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'.


No one, or someone?
Last edited by Tracer Tong on Jun 10, 2017 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1188
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42277  Postby tanya » Jun 10, 2017 7:32 pm

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]?
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.

So, the first question, in my view, is not to decide whether or not passage 11:3 represents a later interpolation, but rather to ask, why Aurelius would choose such a title, for a collection of his personal observations and ideas, had he intended their broadcast to a wider audience than himself alone? The title does not support a notion of wide dispersion. Do we possess evidence to suggest that Aurelius did or did not intend publication of his thoughts?

The single word in dispute, Χριστιανοί “Christians” is referenced here:
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."

Before we look at the Greek text, here are four questions to address:

a. Were there so many “Christians” running around in Sirmium, (modern day Serbia), in 160-180 CE, when Emperor Aurelius lived there, and composed these private thoughts, that the supreme Roman military commander felt obliged to reference the tiny sect in this collection of thoughts? Which other tiny sects, operating during his reign, does he discuss?

b. Is it not curious that this well educated emperor, Marcus Aurelius, quoting from these famous authors, fails to cite a single word written by any of the Christians of his era? Rusticus, Epictetus, Epicurus, Aristo, Fronto, Antisthenes, Chrysippus, Democritus, Euripides, Heraclitus, Homer, Plato are all quoted in his composition. Gospels--Paul zero.

c. Certainly the writings, whether authored by Irenaeus or Tertullian, i.e. earliest known third century Christian apologists, highlight fault with any author who had composed an earnest repudiation of one of the prevailing Christian views of the preceding epoch. Is it not curious then, that neither Irenaeus, nor Tertullian, mentions, with hostility, this disparaging remark “obstinacy, as with the Christians,” written by Emperor Aurelius, 11:3?

D. Which source material are the dozen different translators using? Is it the same source in each case? From which repository do the various Greek sources originate? Who maintained the “original” Greek text for two thousand years? Do we have a copy of Τὰ εἰς ἑαυτόν included among the texts buried in the desert sands of Egypt--Nag Hammadi, and
https://mykhayl.wordpress.com/yet-anoth ... fathers-2/ ?
Do Christians today, consider then, that Marcus Aurelius was the first person to refer to this sect as “christians”. I had always thought it was Irenaeus who first coined the term.
Here is the offending phrase from book XI, chapter 3, with Christians as suspect:
Παράταξιν ὡς οἱ Χριστιανοί

http://www.lectio-divina.org/index.cfm? ... egory_id=1

http://www.lectio-divina.org/index.cfm? ... ture_id=45


11.3. What a soul that is which is ready [hetoimos: cf. 7.61 as firm], 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 [krisis: cf. 8.28], not from mere obstinacy [parataxis: a placing a line of battle] as with the Christians but considerately and with dignity [lelogismenos: according to calculation & semnos: cf. 6.36 as grand, adjective] and in a way to persuade [peitho: cf. 6.50] another without tragic show.

The argument here, on this forum, is whether or not, “as with the Christians” represents an interpolation. I don’t know the answer. What surprises me, is why Aurelius, who had fought the Germans and the Persians for more than twenty years as battlefield commander in life and death situations, would select a tiny sect, having zero military impact on the Roman Empire, to clarify his meaning of parataxis.

If Emperor Aurelius sought to emphasize some kind of non main stream religious sect, wielding this parataxis, why not emphasize the Jews, rather than the nascent Christians? The Jews had actively opposed Roman authority, off and on, for more than a century. Unlike the Christians, Jews had fought in actual military combat, against Roman Legionaires, in well documented battles, just thirty years before Emperor Aurelius’ reign.

“persuade ...without tragic show” could reference the decision of Eleazar, leader of the Masada fortress defense against the Roman army siege, to have all the defenders commit suicide, rather than face capture. That siege, one century before Emperor Aurelius composed his thoughts, would have had an impact, even after nearly a century, similar to the sentiment aroused, even today, a century later, by the thoughts of the tragic and needless deaths of tens of thousands of AIF and NZEF troops at Gallipoli in 1916. Obstinate surely applies to the mentality of Eleazar, whether or not, it was that famous leader, on the mind of Emperor Aurelius as he sought to illustrate parataxis.

In answer, then, to Tracer Tong’s question, I don’t know what evidence there could be, to prove to anyone’s satisfaction, that Emperor Aurelius’ supposed reference to the Christians, was or was not an interpolation.

In my opinion, Χριστιανοί representing “Christians” was not part of Aurelius’ original text simply because reference to this second century, tiny group professing faith in the divinity of Jesus, would have been illogical in the context of a famous military commander’s private thoughts juxtaposing parataxis with a well known group renowned for display of obstinacy.
tanya
 
Posts: 285

France (fr)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42278  Postby proudfootz » Jun 10, 2017 9:18 pm

Tracer Tong 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'.


No one, or someone?


No one here has volunteered any credentials in translating AFAICT.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10250

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42279  Postby Tracer Tong » Jun 10, 2017 9:27 pm

proudfootz wrote:
Tracer Tong 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'.


No one, or someone?


No one here has volunteered any credentials in translating AFAICT.


I'm studying for a doctorate in Classics, mostly focusing on Greek literature.
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 1188
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Historical Jesus

#42280  Postby proudfootz » Jun 10, 2017 9:33 pm

Tracer Tong wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Tracer Tong 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'.


No one, or someone?


No one here has volunteered any credentials in translating AFAICT.


I'm studying for a doctorate in Classics, mostly focusing on Greek literature.


Good to know! :thumbup:

Perhaps you'll have an opportunity to discover what this controversy is all about. Certainly worth a paper in a journal for someone.
"Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't." - Mark Twain
User avatar
proudfootz
 
Posts: 10250

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 10 guests