could all of 1 Cor 11 after vs 2 be interpolation?

[davidbrainerd]

1 Cor 11.3-16 is listed as probable interpolation in William Walker Jr's Interpolations in the Pauline Letters and is the subject of chapter 5....but couldn't everything after verse 2 be interpolation?

Why move from "I praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the traditions just as I passed them on to you" (verse2) to "In the following directives I have no praise for you, for your meetings do more harm than good" (verse17)?

Its a contradiction! Especially if he's gonna follow with "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread" (verse23) because this accusation that they don't keep the tradition of the eucharist as Paul passed it to them contradicts vs 2's claim that they "are keeping the traditions just as I passed them on to you"! So maybe the whole chapter after verse 2 is interpolation.

[Bernard Muller]

I don't think 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 is an interpolation. Paul made a blunder in the first part of the passage and tried to fix it in the second half: http://historical-jesus.info/55.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Stuart]

The Marcionite text excludes 10:32-11:2, and likely 11:11-16, as well as 11:23-32. I think Walker identified the Catholic additions and thought those original. This is actually good work in separating the two layers of text, simply the wrong assignment of what was early and what was later.

See Adeversus Marcionem Book 5, Chapter 8 (1-3) for quotes. (Note Epiphanius explicitly quotes verse 1:10, as does Dialogue Adamantius 5.23, but DA is unreliable and only in the Greek making it a dubious source).

[FransJVermeiren]

1 Cor 11:23 and 1 Cor 15:3 contain the same combination of παρἐλαβον (I received) and παρἐδωκα ὑμῖν (I delivered to you). It is hard to believe that Paul used this phrase to convey his message so shortly after the events, with all the eyewitnesses at hand. This sounds like the way someone who lived a couple of generations later would express himself. In my opinion this phrase is the signature of a second century interpolator. As 1 Cor 11:2 also contains παρἐδωκα ὑμῖν probably the same interpolator is at work here.

[DCHindley]

The Marcionite text excludes 10:32-11:2, and likely 11:11-16, as well as 11:23-32. I think Walker identified the Catholic additions and thought those original. This is actually good work in separating the two layers of text, simply the wrong assignment of what was early and what was later.

Hmmm. I do not think it is as easy as all that. William O. Walker ("W.O.W." ) was applying a pretty rigorous method and that kind of mistake is unlikely.

Back on April 30, 2016 I cited his work and method here:
http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... ons#p52180

Now it happens that pages 15-90 of William O Walker Jr's Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (Sheffield 2001), greatly condensed with the author's consent by the editors of the journal Alpha (Alvin P Cohen, Glenn S Holland, and E Bruce Brooks, see http://www.umass.edu/wsp/publications/alpha/) can be found at the following url: http://www.umass.edu/wsp/publications/a ... lation.pdf

Definition. A gloss is an explanatory note or comment, generally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript by a reader, scribe, or the author of the document. A later scribe might copy a gloss into the document, assuming that it was meant to be part of it. Unlike a gloss, an interpolation is foreign material inserted deliberately and directly into the text.

A Priori Probability of Interpolations. That interpolations were introduced into many Classical writings cannot be questioned. ... Beyond this, there is evidence that early Christians introduced interpolations into Jewish writings. ... Jewish texts in which Christian interpolations have been identified are the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, and 4 Ezra.

The presence of interpolations in other ancient literature would lead us to expect, on a priori grounds, that the Pauline letters may contain non-Pauline interpolations.

The Lack of Manuscript Evidence. Apart from two passages,11 every proposed interpolation in the Pauline letters appears in all extant manuscripts of the letters. This raises the crucial question: Might a passage appear in all surviving manuscripts and yet be a non-Pauline interpolation? I suggest that the absence of direct manuscript evidence for interpolation should be seen precisely as the absence of evidence. Barrett reminds us that ‘the evidence of the [extant manuscripts] can tell us nothing about the state of the Pauline . . . literature before its publication’ (presumably late in the 1st century).12

11) Rom 16:25-27 and 1 Cor 14:34-35 occur at different places in different manuscripts
12) Barrett First 14.

Then he turns to how one might recognize them.

External Evidence for Interpolation

1. Absence from Witnesses [that is, when a church father cites a passage, some parts of it are not mentioned]. ...
2. Presence [of some pericopes] in Different Locations. ...
3. Lack of Citation in an Early Writer who might reasonably be expected to have mentioned it. ...

Internal Evidence for Interpolation

4. Interruption. A passage which seems to interrupt its context, so that the context becomes continuous when the passage is removed, is likely to be an interpolation. ...
5. Repetition From Context. Another phenomenon suggesting that a seemingly interruptive passage may be an interpolation is the repetition – near the end of that passage or in the verse directly following – of a significant word or phrase from the verse preceding. ...
6. Linguistic Evidence. With due allowance for the effect of subject matter on vocabulary, unusual vocabulary or grammatical forms in a passage may suggest that it is an interpolation. ...
7. Content Evidence for the distinctiveness of a passage is the counterpart of linguistic evidence. ...
8. Situational Evidence. The case for distinctiveness is stronger when the language or content of a passage is not merely different from its context, but can be related to specific outside material, or to a later situation. ...
9. Motivational Evidence for 1 Cor 14:34-35 is closely related to the situational evidence. After the time of Paul, when the status and role of women in the Church apparently came to be regarded as problematic, it may have appeared desirable to have the Apostle say something to address the problem. Hence the addition of a passage such as 1 Cor 14:34-35 to an authentic letter.
10. Location. Why was an interpolated passage inserted precisely where it is? ...

This does not mean that scholars cannot mislead themselves, but this is more common when they believe they can judge authenticity by style alone. "Style" is in the eye of the beholder, and thus subjective. Style is not quite the same thing as "internal evidence" but close enough to fool many.

FWIW, here is an entirely authorized copy of a step by step case study, originally published in CBQ 69 (2007), explaining why Walker considers 1 Corinthians 15:29-34 a "non-Pauline" interpolation:

https://www.umass.edu/wsp/forum/wswg28/ ... alker).doc

DCH

[Stuart]

DHC,

I meant by that post that the model we have for Paul, or more specifically the one WOW uses, has problems explaining issues like that. There are thus some assumptions which must be incorrect. It's easier to accept Harnack's opinion was correct than to reevaluate the entire framing of the NT era.

I do think however, that studies like Walker, Munro, and others who find differences and seams in the Pauline material are not in anyway unproductive. But we should separate their observations from their conclusions. This is really my point.