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

[cienfuegos]

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.

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.

Price is clear about his intentions, there is nothing dishonest in his translation.

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).

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.

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.

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:

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?"

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.

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."

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.

[robert j]

Price is clear about his intentions, there is nothing dishonest in his translation.

Please note, I have not said that his translation was dishonest. I don't see it that way at all. That is your word, not mine.

There isn't anything inaccurate about the way he presents this (as seen by reading the commentaries ...

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:

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 haven’t heard Price talk about the book, nor have I read the description on Amazon --- the book should stand on its own. I have read the book and found no clarification about “interpretive translation”. Price described the epistles he presents as “canonical”. I would be very pleased to withdraw my criticism if I missed an appropriate disclosure in the book.

In the case of the two verses I pointed out, the statement from Amazon that the text is “tied more closely to the Greek than most previous translations” is not accurate. Both verses contain extraneous words that are neither attested to by the extant Greek nor supported by other bible translators.

The commentaries are merely opinions. For many students of Paul, the extraneous words are important as they significantly skew the interpretation, not only of the passages in question, but of the wider Pauline paradigm. Was Paul imprisoned in Rome or Ephesus? Did he ever go to Rome? And Galatians 4:10 is an important passage for the interpretation, not just of the verse (Jewish vs Celtic), but also for the wider letter as the product of an historical Paul, or of a Marcionite. For students of Paul these are important questions for which, in my opinion, bias was unnecessarily introduced with the out-of-the norm translation of the two verses presented in the book as “canonical”. My intention here and now is not to argue for one solution over another --- these are big issues. I'm arguing only that, IMO, translations with extraneous, unnecessary words that unnecessarily bias the interpretation towards one solution over another --- words not attested to by the Greek --- should not be represented as canonical.

Sure my criticism is a little arcane --- and the book has some balance between a popular presentation and a scholarly one. But, as the product of a Professor of Scriptural Studies, I believe criticism over methodology is entirely appropriate.

I’m not interested in belaboring the point over the translations. I’ve made my case, and anyone interested can take it or leave it, in all or part, as they see fit.

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.

[Sheshbazzar]

robert j,
For conscience sake, I must say, I agree with the 'Celtic solution', ie that 'Paul' was addressing gentiles who had fallen back into the observing of the times, festivals, calendars, and ways of their various ancestral non-Israelite gods.

'Paul' as he traveled made a point of teaching in the synagogues, and any gentiles desiring to hear what he had to say, were invited to come to the synagogue from Sabbath to Sabbath to hear him preach. There, if they did not already, they would learn way of the Holy one of Israel, of His Sabbaths, His Feasts, and His appointed Calendar.
(Acts 18:1-11 _Paul preached to the Corinthians, Jews and Gentiles alike, throughout a course of 52 consecutive weekly Sabbaths and 7 'High Sabbaths', laboring with his hands as a tentmaker on the non-Sabbath days. (see also Isa. 56:1-8, 58:13, 66:18-23)
Paul taught by both word of Scripture and by his personal example the continuing observance of the Scriptural Sabbaths, the only Scripturally appointed and approved 'Sabbaths', 'weeks', 'months', 'seasons' and 'years'.
He would have taught the same to the Galatians, as is indicated in Gal 4:8-12.

But this post is not at all to argue the details of such matters, only to assure you robert j, that I know of, and have met with, I know not how many thousands that also hold this same understanding of these texts.
In due time, the calendars of world will be adjusted, and brought into conformity with One. It is now only a matter of time.

Sheshbazzar.

[robert j]

For the sake of fairness, and for those that don’t have the book, here are Price’s words that I found about his translation and his accompanying commentary. ---

“The remaining chapters of The Amazing Colossal Apostle venture analyses of each of the canonical Pauline Epistles.” (Intro, xvi).

“In the remaining chapters, I provide my own translation of and commentary on the letters that have been traditionally ascribed to Paul, and if someone objects that the whole procedure is subjective and circular, I deny it. Right or wrong, I have laid out my criteria, derived from a paradigm of widely attested religious evolution. If someone charges that my endeavor here is wholly speculative, I congratulate him on his grasp of the obvious.” (p. 248-249).

I had read the later passage a few times before, and still don’t understand it as a clear disclosure of creative translation. Dr. Price denies that the translation and commentary were circular and subjective. Is the admission of speculation in reference to just his commentary? “Obvious"-ly "wholly speculative” seems to me like it would be an odd way to describe a NT translation.

Granted, others may understand the statement differently.

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.

[Peter Kirby]

Price tells the reader that the letters of Paul he cites are "my own translation" (p. 248).

The Amazing Colossal Apostle: The Search for the Historical Paul was published on December 3, 2012, although it includes essays previously published.

The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-four Formative Texts was published on November 15, 2006.

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)

Galatians 4:10 in The Pre-Nicene New Testament, p. 324:

"You keep holy days and months of fasting and penitential seasons and canonical calendars!"

of Philippians 1:16-17,

" … I have been called on at present to defend the news before Caesar". (p. 457)

Philippians 1:16 in The Pre-Nicene New Testament, p. 473:

"These latter preach because of their love for me, knowing that I have been called on at present to defend the news before Caesar."

I couldn’t find such a disclaimer in the book and that’s the issue on which I disagree with Dr. Price here.

I haven’t heard Price talk about the book, nor have I read the description on Amazon --- the book should stand on its own.

Having finally come to possess a copy of this book, with Kindle, I have to agree. This is a legitimate criticism. At the very least Price should have referred to his earlier volume The Pre-Nicene New Testament, but a Kindle search reveals that he does not. Nor does a search for "translation" find anything more relevant than that one quote regarding "my own translation" that you have already cited. If he did -- or better, if he had explained the method of the translation that he uses copiously in the later chapters -- he could have a better defense.

Robert Price does not actually even say very much regarding his style of translation in the 1200-pager, with only some general remarks at the beginning and a sparse comment at the end following some brief statements on the text used:

"This book represents one of an almost infinite number of possibilities for what the New Testament might have looked like if it had been assembled under different circumstances. It is not definitive in any sense, nor could it be. But if it attains its goal of shaking the New Testament loose from the mummy-bands of familiarity and helps make the New Testament a whole new book for the reader, then I am satisfied." (p. xxv)

"I might have invited other scholars to join me in preparing translations for these books, but I decided not to because I wanted my own distinctive viewpoint to be reflected throughout the whole collection. In my experience, committee translations tend to be dull and safe. I wanted neither." (pp. 1187-1188)

The dust jacket reads (in my opinion, likely the words of Dr. Price): "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 meaning 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, and pleroma for the Gnostic godhead. ... The critical insights and theories on display in these pages have seldom been incorporated into mainstream conservative Bible translations, and in many ways, Price has made the New Testament a whole new book for readers, along them, by virtue of the translation, to comprehend the meaning of the text where it is obscured by the traditional wording." (the dust jacket for The Pre-Nicene New Testament)

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.

I’m not interested in belaboring the point over the translations. I’ve made my case, and anyone interested can take it or leave it, in all or part, as they see fit.

This is quite fair. I don't see us getting much out of beating this horse further. I apologize if it's dragged on too long already. And I recognize that you are giving Price a fair shake. But I hope the references to his earlier book have helped put this in context.

[robert j]

Deleted by the author.

[Sheshbazzar]

No doubt RM Price writes with all good intentions. That he has no intention to mislead, is no indication nor assurance that he does not.
Reminds me of a certain well known proverb.

The problem with RM Price's creative 'translation', with its redacted in personal commentary/interpretations, is that it is bit too much like having the likes of Augustine or Joseph Smith 'explaining' the 'true understanding' of these texts.
Although in this case, we have a Bible 'translator' who is not content to simply give his explanatory commentary upon each verse, but one that rewrites the texts so as to insert and include his personal views, interpretations, and biases into the texts.
RM Price becomes not a translator of the actual bare texts before him, but a Bible writer producing and introducing new portions of text that did not formerly exist, stating many things [of his own persuasions and interpretations] that the previous texts he is allegedly 'translating' actually DO NOT state.

A textbook example of engaging in eisegesis. Only in this case not only reading into the text what isn't there, but engaging in the introducing into a text, what wasn't there.

Not impressed.

Sheshbazzar

[slevin]

A textbook example of engaging in eisegesis. Only in this case not only reading into the text what isn't there, but engaging in the introducing into a text, what wasn't there.
Not impressed.

And, I am not arguing this point with you, but, I would ask, if you would not mind sharing with us, which textbook title, in your view, performs a thorough, proper assessment of the ancient literature, such that you would be impressed, since Price's book apparently falls short of the mark?

If none exist, is there a particular link to the archives where you, or someone else perhaps, someone whose writing you do find impressive, may have performed a more competent analysis, without "introducing into the text, what wasn't there"?

[Sheshbazzar]

Knowledge is cumulative. There is no one 'expert' or writer who is going to be able to provide a total and unbiased analysis of every aspect of these texts.
There are a lot of unknowns as to where, when, and by whom these texts were written, and how much of what they report is fact, how much of it is propaganda fiction, and how much was latter introduced redactions and interpolations, to which no one as yet has any validated answers.

R Price with his bogus 'translation' is only carrying on the tradition, under the guise of 'translating' of incorporating additional biased textual corruptions, so employing his eisegesis in moving the text further and further away from its original form and sense.
'Improving' on the readability, via adding words to the text to bring it into 'conformity' with popular interpretations, the texts so diddled with grow ever longer, but never any better.
All such revisions and interpolations do is reinforce whatever dogmatism it was that was applied in the forging of these inauthentic textual additions.

I am not going to point you to any "authoritative source" or "sources", just a bit of advice. Study the ancient texts themselves. Educate yourself as to what they contain, (and do not contain)
If you have not as yet read and studied every chapter of the Bible (I suggest sticking to the text of The KJV or NKJV for the start) from the beginning to the end, I suggest that you do so now, and several times at the least, and in private.
Then you will be a bit better prepared to deal with Bible "experts" who will attempt to lead you about by the nose.
Study diligently and sincerely. Seek out and gain comprehension of the ancient words and idioms, and endeavor to learn to read the languages so that you will no longer be dependent upon the opinions of others.
THEN seek out, read, and evaluate the arguments of the wide range of commentary on these texts, avoid becoming dogmatic, but keep an open and alert mind.
New findings, new information, and new evidences of the facts and fictions are being discovered and brought to light daily, challenging and overthrowing long held religious paradigms.
Unless you are a Fundamentalist who has taken an oath that you 'Will not be moved' no matter how much evidence is brought to bear, you will desire to add to your personal store of accurate and independently verified knowledge.

There is no 'shortcut' to where you want to go, or to the knowledge that you wish to possess, by the reading of some present day authors books, or inventive 'translations'.

Best wishes in all of your endeavors.

Sheshbazzar