spamandham

I'll include those in the OP then, since they're part of the discussion. For each of these, support is drawn from RM Price, "The Pre-Nicene New Testament", 2006 hardback. Page numbers and footnotes (if applicable) provided. Since I'm typing this in manually, allow for the possibility of a few 'copyist errors'. Finally, I am not personally familiar with all the writings Price references in support of his claims, but present them here nonetheless.

Rom 5.15, the scholarly translation, according to Price (p. 402):
But the offense is not quite like the gift; for if it was by means of the one man's offense that the many died, how much more fully did the gratuitous gift of God become abundant for the many by one individual! - nothing here that even remotely suggests the subject (either Jesus Christ from vs 17 or the Coming One from vs. 14) was a historical human. Even worse, Price insists that 15-19 are too redundant and contradictory to have been penned by one individual.

1Co 15.20 - 15.22, a general note on 1 Cor. 15. There are so many obvious interpolations in this chapter, you have to wonder if any of it is original.

Beginning with 1 Cor 15:1, pp.360-361, footnotes a-e.
"So I inform you, brothers, of the news with which I evangelized you, the same that you welcomed and in which tradition you stand, the one by which you are saved, providing you hold firmly to what I said when I evangelized you -- unless, perhaps, it was all some mistake"

Huh? Paul has to inform them that he long ago evangelized to them, and they were saved by it, unless of course he was mistaken? Not only is this grossly anachronistic - an obvious fictive recollection inserted by someone other than Paul - but the editor left the door open to retract any of Paul's teachings he didn't like, or insert new ones! And so he does.

According to Price (footnote f p.362), vv. 3-11 have been argued by Arthur Drews, G.A. Wells, Winsome Munro, J.C. O'Niell, and others, to constitute an interpolated apologetic for the resurrection (although R.J. Hoffmmann considers vv 5-8 as possibly genuine).

Moving on to vs 20-22, in absence of the above noted here, and in absence of vs. 23, you might conclude that Paul is referring to an ordinary human being, but let's look at vs. 23
"But let each rise in his proper order. Christ ripens first, then those who belong to him, once he appears,"

Note the tenses. The ripening of Christ is in the present tense, whereas his appearance is in the future tense. When you combine this with the rather obvious exegesis of Pss. 8:6 in vs. 27,, ("But when it says that 'all things have been subjected to him...'), as pointed out by Doherty in "The Jesus Puzzle", the idea that this refers to a historical man of memory completely falls apart.

Php 2.8, p 475 footnote i. This is part of a gnostic hymn fragment that begins in vs. 6 and ends with vs. 11, as argued by F.C. Baur. As P. L. Couchoud points out, the name 'Jesus', is not bestowed until after his earthly mission is complete (vs. 9). Is this hymn is original, then it demonstrates the author was gnostic. That doesn't discount a belief by the author in a historical Jesus, but neither does it support a recent man of history.

(Note that Php. 2:12 is another obvious anachronism according to Price, p. 475 j, indicating Paul was long dead at the time it was written)


Rom 1.3 - 1.4 , p 394. Here is the scholarly translation, starting at vs 2.
,which he had already promised through his prophets in Holy Scripture, about his son, "sprung from the line of David according to flesh, miraculously appointed Son of God according to the Spirit of Holiness by a resurrection of the dead, Jesus-Christ, or Lord.
According to Price, most scholars agree this is a Christological quotation from an earlier creed, an anachronism indicating a later insertion.

2Co 1.19 , p. 384
"For there was nothing equivocal about the Son of God, Christ-Jesus, the one preached among you by me and Silvanus and Timothy."

I don't see how this verse is even relevant to the discussion.

FathomFFI

Try to Google any sentence or even 6 or 7 words of any sentence of any of the translations above, and tell me what the results are.

I could not find a single reference to any of his translations. There's also not really enough information posted to work with. :huh:

spamandham

I gave you the reference, including page numbers, and even typed the translations manually where appropriate. You will not find all scholarly work (or even most) free online through google. If you're serious, you will check the book out from a library, or buy it. Or if you're willing to give me the benefit of the doubt, just trust I typed the relevant verses in reasonably accurately. (less important ones you can just look up on biblegateway and pick your favorite translation)

Maybe someone who's actually interested will go through my post instead of just shrugging it all off.

FathomFFI

Like I said, not enough information in your post to work with. Also, I'm not that hard up to go spend money on your argument by buying a book.

Indeed, if we can't even find one single reference to his work online, then what does that tell you? I can find plenty from other scholars, so why is nobody talking about his views?

Even his forum is totally dead. Therefore, all I need to say is, "That's his opinion. Next?"

spamandham

Fine then, your entire OP is summarily dismissed as a naive rant.

spamandham

BTW, RM Price' home page is http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/

There is no forum there at all, so I have no idea what teamFFI is talking about in regards to his nonexistent forum being dead. Nor is there any credibility at all to the claim that there are no online references to Price. Dude, are you just making crap up?

Regardless, I'll leave it to other posters to decide for themselves whether or not RM Price is a legitimate scholar, or whether teamFFI is blowing smoke.

FathomFFI

Go ahead. Dismiss it.

And that means .. what? :huh:

FathomFFI

Yep, great research. This is all too common with you.

Have you considered clicking the link to "The Bible Geek" on the left side of your screen at the web site you listed?

There's also a BG Members area?

:Cheeky:

The question is not regarding his scholarship, but of you presenting any argument with any substance.

You have not.

FathomFFI

Consider just one of your quotes from him:

Who are these "most scholars" who agree it's an anachronism indicating a later insertion? What did they say? What is their reasoning? What evidence did they provide? Where is all this information? In a book you expect me to buy? Get serious, and post an argument from the book. It's your argument, not mine, so the least you can do is actually post something to argue about.

Let's see how you do. And then when you are done with that, I'd like you to explain how in Roman's 1.3, the exact same language from Paul is found throughout the rest of Romans numerous times for the three main quotes of this verse:

Romans 1.3

"Jesus Christ our Lord" - Rom 1.3, 5.21, 6.11, 6.23, 7.25
"The seed of" - Rom 1.3; 9.7; 11.1
"According to the flesh" - Rom 1.3; 8.1; 8.4; 8.5; 8.12; 8.13; 9.3;

:wave:

spamandham

That's the BibleGeek forum, not the Robert Price forum. The BibleGeek is a little known webcast. I'd be surprised to find more than a trickle of posts there. Why would you expect more?
First you whine about the inability to get all your answers from google, then you whine about your unwillingness to remedy the situation by putting any effort into the discussion at all (by say checking out the reference from a library).

Then you try an offhanded slander of Price by referring to the forum of a pretty much defunct podcast he experimented with as being dead, and simply falsely claim you there are no references to him online (my guess is you had no idea his first name was robert, and simply typed RM Price into google, right?).

And you conclude that since you have no idea what anything I said means, that therefore none of it counts as as having any substance.

I wonder if the following icon was specially prepared, just for you.

:banghead: