Top critical review
55 people found this helpful
Worst scholarship I have read in many years
on July 13, 2008
Rarely do I take time to review books here, as doing so takes away from my prized reading time. In this case, I cannot in good conscience let this book be loosed upon an unsuspecting public, boosted as it is by the other reviews, which, given the unbelievable level of inaccuracy and sloppiness of this book, I can only read with sadness. People who love the truth and enjoy the discovery of new things, should be protected from material that is of such unbelievably bad quality.
My keen disappointment began last evening, as I read the author date the DIDACHE as '1st or 2nd century' (which is correct as it stands) but then refer to the Didascalia as an 'earlier' text, which is of course completely risible. How can a Christian text precede 1C?
I could cite many more example, but, as I wrote above, I love to spend my time reading, not reviewing.
I continued reading because I thought this a pretty good cross-section of apocrypha, even if the editorial comment is inaccurate and often baffling in its syntax. But the last straw came just now, when, in reading 'The Preaching of Peter' (a Clementine Homily excerpt), I found the introductory text, characterizing this as Ebionite, completely opposite to what this actually is .
AFter this erroneous info in the intro, things only get worse. ON p 817 of the same chapter, the author truncates XVII.17 from an original that runs 250 words in English, down to a sentence of 1/10 that. The result is completely reverses the meaning of the text-- I mean, to the very opposite point of the original.
You can easily see it for yourself. Visit [...] and read Homilies 17.17 (google or wikipedia to Clementine homilies) Of this, only the very last sentence is given in Mr Price's book.
That absurd corruption tells you all you really need to know. If you enjoy being deceived on page after page, hey, kid, go for it !