Price is clear about his intentions, there is nothing dishonest in his translation.robert j wrote:Exactly, and that’s where such concepts belong --- in the commentaries. I have no problem with anyone expressing their interpretations. But I hold a conservative view of translation --- but recognize others may not.cienfuegos wrote:Here you are not only arguing against Price, but also the Benson commentary. I could find other commentaries. I think you could stretch the meaning of "Caesar" to mean Rome in the sense of any Roman in an official capacity acting on the authority of Caesar.
Price's purpose isn't to do what others have already done. Are you reading any of my posts? It doesn't seem like it. Price's purpose is to give the modern reader more of a contextual reading of these ancient works. There isn't anything inaccurate about the way he presents this (as seen by reading the commentaries, which are not at all radical commentaries). That's what he says he is going to do and then he does it. You seem to not like that he set out to do that in the first place. Ok, that's fine, objection noted.robertj wrote:
The translation of these two verses in the book are outside the norm and find little if any support from other bible translators. I could not find any bible translation that presented either of these two verses with the extraneous words found in the book. (If any exist, I didn’t find them).
I don't have the book. I have heard Price talk about the book and it he says things like what I have been arguing. Here is the description of the book from Amazon:robertj wrote:
In my opinion, unless the reader is clearly informed, a translator should not present a translation of scripture as “canonical” when the translation includes significant extraneous words --- words not represented in the extant Greek nor finding significant support among other translators --- words that can significantly influence important points of interpretation. I couldn’t find such a disclaimer in the book and that’s the issue on which I disagree with Dr. Price here.
As an interpretive translation, Price’s text is both accurate and readable and is tied more closely to the Greek than most previous translations. Price conveys the meanings of words in context, carefully choosing the right phrase or idiom to convey their sense in English. For words that had a specific theological import when first written, Price leaves the Greek transliteration, giving readers archons for the fallen angels thought to be ruling the world, paraclete for encourager, andpleroma for the Gnostic godhead.
You do understand the term 'interpretive translation?"
I highly doubt that any Joe from the street is going to stumble upon Robert Price's Pre Nicene canon book and think, "oh, here's a Bible to quote passages from."robertj wrote:Sure some readers will check the translations for themselves --- but many if not most will not. Many might take the verses as presented as “gospel”.
As I said before, I think Price’s book is an interesting read and a valuable source of information on his theories on Paul and the Paulines.
Price didn't provide a Bible, which it seems is what you wanted him to do. I guess he didn't want to do that.