C’mon On Robert, Really? Review of Amazing Colossal Apostle

[robert j]

When one takes up the battle-standard of new Pauline authority, gathers allies, and marches forward with what I believe to be misleading information --- I feel compelled to respond.

In, The Amazing Colossal Apostle – The Search for the Historical Paul (2012), Robert M. Price takes up the battle-standard and leads the charge on page xiii of his Introduction,

“As I view it, the field of Pauline studies has been largely moribund for many years. It's high time we extricate ourselves from the Sargasso Sea of traditionalism and reclaim what our critical forebears achieved.” (p. xiii)

And Price recruited some allies. On the back cover of the book we find,

“... Price places Paul's epistles within historical context and, through careful, detailed exegesis … He sets new standards for future work ...” --- Hermann Detering

“... Price takes us places others fear to tread because they are constrained by lack of historical insight … “ --- Robert Eisenman

Even though I disagree with a great many of Price’s conclusions, I believe the book is a valuable read, and contains some useful reviews of the scholarship in some areas. But does the book represent, as Detering claims, “new standards for future work”?

Dr. Price chides men who added words to the Paulines,

"Subsequent Marcionite redactors and Gnostic interpolators would have interposed their own opinions here and there in the text, "correcting" views they thought erroneous or deficient, as is the way with ancient copyists … Once Catholics decided to co-opt the Marcionite canon, they would have padded the text with new material ..." (p. 253-254).

In the last half of his book, Price cites in-full thirteen Pauline letters that he calls, "the canonical Pauline epistles" (Introduction, p. xvi). Blocks within each epistle are interspersed with his commentary.

Price tells the reader that the letters of Paul he cites are "my own translation" (p. 248). But, in my opinion, Price goes beyond translation, and --- just as he accuses redactors and interpolators of old --- he pads the text with new material.

In the first example, here is a standard translation from the extant Greek of Galatians 4:10,

"You observe days and months and seasons and years."

Here is Galatians 4:10 in Price's book,

"You keep holy days and months of fasting and penitential seasons and canonical calendars!" (p, 425)

Price added several words to the text that are not found in the Greek of extant ancient manuscripts of Galatians. As far as I could find in his commentary, Price does not reveal that he changed the text --- but his modified passage furthers his Marcionite interpretation. Of this verse Price writes,

"Verse 10 tells us they were Judaizing Christians who kept certain holy days and food regulations, reminding us that in so doing, they worshipped not the true God, but the much inferior angels of the demiurge." (p. 426)

Price's extra words were likely inspired by Tertullian (Adv. Marc. 5.4), who clearly identified his similar extra words as his own opinion.

For another example, here is a typical translation of Philippians 1:16-17,

"These do so out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel; the others are proclaiming Christ out of self-interest, not sincerely, thinking to cause me trouble in my imprisonment."

In this passage, the extant phrase reads,
" … I am appointed for the defense of the gospel"

But Price changed this line to his reading,
" … I have been called on at present to defend the news before Caesar". (p. 457)

"Before Caesar"? Those words do not occur in this passage in the extant text of ancient manuscripts of Philippians. As far as I could find, Price does not reveal in his commentary that he changed the text, even though he discusses Philippians 1:15-18 at length. (p. 457).

Significant points of interpretation are at stake with both examples. However, interpretation is secondary here. The extant scriptures are primary evidence in our investigations --- interpolation is no longer an option.

robert j.

[Peter Kirby]

The "before Caesar" bit does seem the most egregious, and perhaps he'd like to take it back on reflection.

The first example is basically a dispute regarding philosophy of translation. Price may be adding words, but it's not dishonest. It's a different way of translating. I haven't read this book, but he's pretty clear about his preferred way to translate in the The Pre-Nicene New Testament.

To bring this full circle you should inform us whether this leads him to incorrect critical conclusions based on incorrect interpretations.

[toejam]

I've been keen to read this for a while. Also, is this not the greatest book title ever?? haha!

[robert j]

The "before Caesar" bit does seem the most egregious, and perhaps he'd like to take it back on reflection.

The first example is basically a dispute regarding philosophy of translation. Price may be adding words, but it's not dishonest. It's a different way of translating. I haven't read this book, but he's pretty clear about his preferred way to translate in the Ante-Nicene New Testament.

I didn’t accuse Price of being dishonest (though I suppose you didn’t directly say that I did). I suggested that Price --- after chiding the ancients for interpolating and padding the text --- did the very same thing. And then he used his padded text to support his specific interpretation of the passage.

In Galatians 4:10, I don’t deny one might characterize Price’s version as a different way of translation. But I still believe that it goes beyond translation and clearly falls into the realm better left to interpretation. In this book, he characterized the epistles he presented as “canonical”, and he didn’t (as far as I could find) inform the reader that he added significant material to the scriptures. Many other bible translators have not crossed that line in this passage as Price has ---- see here ---
http://biblehub.com/galatians/4-10.htm

IMO, Price's version of Galatians 4:10 would be more accurately described as a proposed Marcionite recension, rather than canonical.

To bring this full circle you should inform us whether this leads him to incorrect critical conclusions based on incorrect interpretations.

Perhaps someday I will.

[Peter Kirby]

In Galatians 4:10, I don’t deny one might characterize Price’s version as a different way of translation. But I still believe that it goes beyond translation and clearly falls into the realm better left to interpretation.

That's one point of view. It's not really more than an opinion, though. Every translation can be criticized, and this kind of translation (whether Price is doing it or not) is an easy target, made even easier when not even being judged according to its own standards.

But, in my opinion, Price goes beyond translation, and --- just as he accuses redactors and interpolators of old --- he pads the text with new material.

Many other bible translators have not crossed that line in this passage as Price has

Different translation theory, different translation. To be clear, I don't prefer the kind of translation that Price is doing. But to compare it to the addition of words to the Greek is not an exact comparison, by any means, when Price is explicitly providing a paraphrastic translation (sometimes the phrase "dynamic equivalence" pops up here).

Moreover, you have not provided any evidence that Price is basing his interpretation of Galatians of 4:10 on a faulty or "padded" translation, even though you say that "then he used his padded text to support his specific interpretation of the passage." Price is proficient in Greek, has access to the Greek, and is smart enough to know that the original words can have been only in Greek. So why assume that he's not relying on his interpretation of the Greek, especially when the translation is his own and therefore not something that he needs to use as a crutch? Surely the basis of his interpretation rests on the original Greek text and lies behind both his interpretation and behind the translation that he offers for the reader? You'd have a better claim against him if he didn't know Greek and/or was using someone else's translation.

[cienfuegos]

The "before Caesar" bit does seem the most egregious, and perhaps he'd like to take it back on reflection.

The first example is basically a dispute regarding philosophy of translation. Price may be adding words, but it's not dishonest. It's a different way of translating. I haven't read this book, but he's pretty clear about his preferred way to translate in the Ante-Nicene New Testament.

I didn’t accuse Price of being dishonest (though I suppose you didn’t directly say that I did). I suggested that Price --- after chiding the ancients for interpolating and padding the text --- did the very same thing. And then he used his padded text to support his specific interpretation of the passage.

In Galatians 4:10, I don’t deny one might characterize Price’s version as a different way of translation. But I still believe that it goes beyond translation and clearly falls into the realm better left to interpretation. In this book, he characterized the epistles he presented as “canonical”, and he didn’t (as far as I could find) inform the reader that he added significant material to the scriptures. Many other bible translators have not crossed that line in this passage as Price has ---- see here ---
http://biblehub.com/galatians/4-10.htm

IMO, Price's version of Galatians 4:10 would be more accurately described as a proposed Marcionite recension, rather than canonical.

To bring this full circle you should inform us whether this leads him to incorrect critical conclusions based on incorrect interpretations.

Perhaps someday I will.

Did you read the commentary on biblehub?

In particular:

The "days," then, in the present passage, we may suppose, are the sabbath days, together perhaps with the two fast days every week which the Jewish tradition prescribed (Luke 18:12). The "months" point to the new moons, the observance of which might occasion to these Gentiles considerable scope for discussion in adjusting themselves to the Jewish calendar, different no doubt from the calendar they had been hitherto used to. The "seasons" would be the annual festivals and fasts of the Jews, not only the three prescribed by the Levitical Law, but also certain others added by tradition, as the Feasts of Purim and of Dedication. So far we appear to be on tolerably sure ground. The fourth item, "years," may refer either to the sabbatical year (Leviticus 25:2-7), which at any rate latterly the Jews had got to pay much attention to (1 Macc. 6:49, 53; Josephus, 'Ant.,' 14:10, 6; also 14:16, 2; Tacitus, 'Hist.,' 5:4); or possibly the jubilee years, one such fiftieth year, it might be, falling about this time due.

I think Price's goal in his translation is to give readers a more rounded sense of what these ancient writers were referring to. If you consider the commentary here and compare the passages in this case (not sure about the Caesar case), it is clear that for most readers, Price's version gives a clearer idea of what the writer intended the reader to understand.

EDIT: The Caesar case:

For the confirmation of it by my sufferings. They who preached Christ with a pure intention, knew certainly that the apostle was sent to Rome to defend the gospel by suffering for it.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson ... ians/1.htm

I guess he could have said "Rome" but the idea here is that he is in chains in Rome defending the gospel before Caesar. Once again, this is about making these texts more contextually understandable to us removed by 2000 years and several layers of cultural differences (except maybe Stephen Huller). I don't think it is as clear that this is misleading as you seem to think.

[robert j]

EDIT: The Caesar case:

For the confirmation of it by my sufferings. They who preached Christ with a pure intention, knew certainly that the apostle was sent to Rome to defend the gospel by suffering for it.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson ... ians/1.htm

I guess he could have said "Rome" but the idea here is that he is in chains in Rome defending the gospel before Caesar. Once again, this is about making these texts more contextually understandable to us removed by 2000 years and several layers of cultural differences (except maybe Stephen Huller). I don't think it is as clear that this is misleading as you seem to think.

This is a good example. You seem to agree with the interpretation that Paul was “in chains in Rome defending the gospel before Caesar”.

But the evidence in the letters seems to point to the imprisonment, mentioned in the letter to the Philippians, taking place in Ephesus, not Rome. A solution with which many investigators agree. Certainly a solution as strong as others. It’s a matter of interpretation.

The extant Greek texts do not say “before Caesar”. By adding those words to the letter --- and declaring it to be canonical --- one introduces bias to the primary evidence.

[andrewcriddle]

Price is presumably basing his translation of Philippians 1:16-17 on 4:22

All the saints greet you, especially those of Caesar’s household.

Andrew Criddle

[cienfuegos]

EDIT: The Caesar case:

For the confirmation of it by my sufferings. They who preached Christ with a pure intention, knew certainly that the apostle was sent to Rome to defend the gospel by suffering for it.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson ... ians/1.htm

I guess he could have said "Rome" but the idea here is that he is in chains in Rome defending the gospel before Caesar. Once again, this is about making these texts more contextually understandable to us removed by 2000 years and several layers of cultural differences (except maybe Stephen Huller). I don't think it is as clear that this is misleading as you seem to think.

This is a good example. You seem to agree with the interpretation that Paul was “in chains in Rome defending the gospel before Caesar”.

But the evidence in the letters seems to point to the imprisonment, mentioned in the letter to the Philippians, taking place in Ephesus, not Rome. A solution with which many investigators agree. Certainly a solution as strong as others. It’s a matter of interpretation.

The extant Greek texts do not say “before Caesar”. By adding those words to the letter --- and declaring it to be canonical --- one introduces bias to the primary evidence.

I'm not saying I agree, I am saying that Price's version attempts to give the reader contextual understanding of the passage. I don't think he strays from what is a fairly mainstream understanding of the passage.

[John T]

"Verse 10 tells us they were Judaizing Christians who kept certain holy days and food regulations, reminding us that in so doing, they worshipped not the true God, but the much inferior angels of the demiurge."...Price (p. 426)

********************************

Paul is not claiming Jews were worshiping angels or the demiurge instead of God. Instead, he was trying to show the superiority of salvation via faith rather than by trying to keep the Jewish laws.

Why this simple point is lost on Price and others is perplexing.

"Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until offspring would come to whom the promise land had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator."...Galatians 3:19-20

The "elemental spirits of the world" are the "elementary principles" of the Jewish law ( Gal 4:3&9) and not some angel the Demiurge.

It appears Dr. Price took license with the writings of Paul in order to make it more conducive to his theology.

robert j did an excellent job in pointing out the hypocrisy of Dr. Price.

V/R

John T