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: 9058

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: 23678
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!
Bien entendu, on peut sauter sur sa chaise comme un cabri en disant l’Europe ! l’Europe ! l’Europe ! mais cela n’aboutit à rien et cela ne signifie rien.

-Charles de Gaulle
User avatar
Tracer Tong
 
Posts: 588
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
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: 606

Print view this post

Previous

Return to Christianity

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: Google [Bot] and 9 guests