Posted: Jun 17, 2017 3:00 am
by Tracer Tong
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Tracer Tong wrote:

You don't have to; as I said above, there's no obligation. But you shouldn't be surprised that someone asks you to defend what you think, no? Note that we've seen this issue is disputed in scholarship, so what reasons do you have for siding with one side over the other?


I started with the Loeb translator because that's not a bad place to commence.

https://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=t ... as_rights=

and then I looked at the most popular translation in recent times which was Gregory Hays, 2003.

That was the extent of it at the time.

You are quite entitled to point out a more complete review would have been better, and I'd agree. After all, how long is a piece of string? I would also be interested in reading Brunt's article on this because it could save quite a bit of time in summarising the various translators' opinions at the time Brunt wrote. I have had a look on JSTOR but cannot find the article.


So, given that you've been exposed to alternative views (in scholarship, I mean), would it be fair to say that you're no longer committed to the view that the text is ungrammatical or spurious? If you still are, again I wonder how you've chosen one position over the other.


I have made a study of all the Christian references in the classical literature (i.e. not sourced from Eusebius or the "Church") prior to the 4th century and my provisional conclusion is that the best explanation of these references is that all of them represent corruptions of the classical literature by the church organisation between the 4th century and the 15th century.


That's a strange view, but it doesn't represent an answer to my question. You know now that the genuineness of the reference in the Meditations is disputed in scholarship, so how have you judged between the two positions?