Posted: Jul 10, 2017 12:09 am
Leucius Charinus wrote:Tracer Tong wrote:OK: so you think it's not genuine because it's not grammatical. But looking at the text, I'm not seeing how it's not grammatical. In that case, I look forward to your explanation.
Leucius was unable to offer such an explanation, but perhaps you've the relevant expertise to do so.
This is similar to asking someone in a discussion here to demonstrate why Fermat's last theorem is now held to be true. If you are so inclined to understand the explanations provided of a modest number of cited experts, then read the articles written by those experts and stop requesting other people to spoon feed you these explanations.
I've simply asked you to support the positions you articulate: you've declared the text is both ungrammatical and interpolated, so I've asked you to provide arguments to support those conclusions. The most you've done so far is cite some scholars who think one or the other (or both), in response to which I've cited scholars who don't think either. You seem quite convinced the former scholars have it right (to the extent you've endorsed an argument you've not even read!), but haven't been able to tell me how you've reached that conclusion, either. I've suggested before that you haven't done so because you simply can't do so, and I think I'm probably right about that.
RealityRules wrote:
Perhaps you TT can come you with list of those who argue or assert it is grammatical, and not interpolated; and a summary of why.
We've visited this before:
In the Oxford (1989) translation of A.S.L Farquharson, with notes supplied by Richard Rutherford, the latter rejects calls (namely by P. A. Brunt) for deletion of the reference. In Oxford's replacement of this translation (2011), translated by Robin Hard and with notes by Christopher Gill, the latter recognises that "some scholars" think it is an interpolation, but does not himself endorse their position. As for Farquharson, in his text (Oxford, 1944), he doesn't delete the reference, either...
...and also argues for retaining the text in the corresponding commentary, IIRC. I'd also add, as I've mentioned before, that the old Teubner (Schenkl, 1913) doesn't delete the text.
Again, it's not clear to me why you're citing material (by a psychotherapist, as it goes) about whether Marcus Aurelius persecuted Christians; you claim this bears on whether the relevant passage is an interpolation, but you've yet to explain how.
I also didn't ask how many people have explained how the text is ungrammatical; I asked you to explain how the text is ungrammatical, which is your assertion. If you cannot do so, feel free to say so; it'll save some time.