how mythicists are judged

[Irish1975]

Irenaeus Against Heresies 4.33.5—

Iudicabit autem et eos qui putativum inducunt. Quemadmodum enim ipsi vere se putant disputare, quando magister eorum putativus fuit? Aut quemadmodum firmum quid habere possunt ab eo, si putativus et non veritas erat? Quomodo autem ipsi salutem vere participare possunt, si ille, in quem credere se dicunt, semetipsum putativum ostendebat? Putativum est igitur, et non veritas, omne apud eos: et nunc iam quaeretur, ne forte cum et ipsi homines non sint sed muta animalia, hominum umbras apud plurimos proferant.

My translation

{“A presbyter and disciple of the apostles once said to me [sc. Irenaeus]… }

He [the spiritual disciple of 1 Corinthians 2:15] will also judge those who speak of an alleged Christ. How can such persons imagine themselves to be saying something, if they had only an alleged teacher? Or how could they take something from him really solid, if he hadn’t been true, but only alleged? And how can they have a true share in salvation, if He, in whom they say they believe, only allegedly revealed himself? But then everything about them is likewise a conjecture, and not the truth. And one might ask if they are not really human, but dumb beasts, who pass for shadows among the masses.”

Roberts & Donaldson

“He shall also judge those who describe Christ as [having become man] only in [human] opinion. For how can they imagine that they do themselves carry on a real discussion, when their Master was a mere imaginary being? Or how can they receive anything stedfast from Him, if He was a merely imagined being, and not a verity? And how can these men really be partaken of salvation, if He in whom they profess to believe, manifested Himself as a merely imaginary being? Everything, therefore, connected with these men is unreal, and nothing [possessed of the character of] truth; and, in these circumstances, it may be made a question whether (since, perchance, they themselves in like manner are not men, but mere dumb animals) they do not present, in most cases, simply a shadow of humanity.”

Keble:

And he shall judge those also who bring in an unreal Christ. For how think they to argue truly themselves, when their Master was unreal? Or how can they have from him any thing to be depended on, if He was imaginary, and not the Truth? And how can they themselves truly partake of salvation, if He in whom they say they believe, exhibited Himself in appearance only? With them, therefore, all is unreal, and not the Truth: and the question shall now be added, whether haply they are bearing about in the sight of the many shadows of men, being themselves not men, but dumb creatures?

[Peter Kirby]

And, yes, this new reply was prompted by this gratuitous comment:

This remark seems to reflect an inadequate understanding of how ancient texts are translated. Not trying to ding you, it’s just that I’ve heard similar things from other knowledgable users of the forum.

Just take your own supposed translation here (you call it a translation):

The right-thinking spiritual man of 1 Corinthians 2:15 will also judge those who speak of an alleged Christ.

It's absurd and incredibly misleading to insert "of 1 Corinthians 2:15," as if it's part of the text, even if we understand that to be the meaning.

I see.

I thought that, by citing the Latin original, there would not be a problem if I were to clarify some of the references based on the surrounding text.

In the context of judging "an inadequate understanding of how ancient texts are translated" (falsely, it seems to me), I'm revisiting this.

It's noteworthy that you both defend the validity of your translation and justify its additional clarifications by reference to "citing the Latin original," which contrasts with your expansive translation. I say this because the discussion of valid translations was extremely relevant in our discussion (I offered a translation, you disagreed with it ... you now said I had an inadequate understanding of how texts are translated, I now disagreed with the excesses of yours). So of course a theory of translations was relevant in this thread.

But the primacy of referring to the "original" was extremely important in the other discussion. Yet you swept its importance under the rug by defending the validity of translations and focusing on a theory of how texts are translated validly. In this way, you neglected the main point you're making here: i.e., don't rely on translations, read the original. I agree with this defense, but it should be applied consistently. As such, so much of what you're saying in that other thread about how to translate truly misses the mark.

[Irish1975]

I'm not suggesting that there was any intent to deceive. (That's not what the word "misleading" means, either.)

Merriam-Webster Online
mislead (transitive verb) : to lead in a wrong direction or into a mistaken action or belief often by deliberate deceit

[Irish1975]

I don't see that there is any real issue here about texts, translating, etc.

If it's a personal thing then we should just clear it up privately.

[Peter Kirby]

I consider the word misleading to be appropriate precisely because it doesn't necessarily imply deceit, and that's how I always use it.

Your more recent posts have already now answered what I was saying about the other thread. There's nothing else.

[Peter Kirby]

I would judge the ensuing commentary to be a successful engagement with that text. A number of people took a look at their Irenaeus and offered their interpretations.

Including me! I sincerely do appreciate the thread, among other things you've posted.

[Irish1975]

cool