In “The End of Peregrinus,” Lucian of Samosata narrates the career of a second-century mountebank who adopts a succession of religious postures to gain glory and honor. At one point, Peregrinus takes up Christianity, in order to be supported by the dupes who believe in Jesus and follow his way of mutual support.
(In what follows, I’m going to not-bother with Unicode or with rendering etas with a different character from epsilon — I’m on vacation, all right?
At one point, Lucian characterizes Christians thus: “they denied the Greek gods, and they worshipped that impaled sophisten” (presumably Jesus), where the translations with which I’m acquainted take sophisten as “Sophist.” Now, granted that Lucian has a jaundiced view of Christianity, and that he means no positive assessment of Jesus, isn’t there still reason to construe the Greek in the more general sense of “sage,” “philosopher”? Regarding sophistes as “Sophist” might please advocates of the cynic-Jesus hypothesis, but as a translator I tend to favor the rendering that leaves as little specificity as necessary, and as much leeway for ambiguity and allusion as possible. Lucian’s scorn emerges clearly enough — perhaps even more clearly — if one applies the honorable characterization to the “impaled” (not “crucified,” though we might not expect Lucian to bother about the distinction) leader of this sect, to whom Lucian earlier applies the honorable title of “law-giver” (nomothetes).
Just wondering, is all, when I ought rather to be working on James 4.
Posted by AKMA at August 19, 2004 12:26 PM | TrackBackWhy not simply translate it "Sophist" and allude to Plato's unflattering opinion of that party as manipulative users of theological and metaphysical rhetoric? Couldn't that have been Lucian's intention? That term certainly carries a similar derrogatory connotation today. Just my thought as I avoid, not James 4, but my own tasks and their fast approaching deadlines.
Posted by: Micah at August 19, 2004 01:05 PM