2 cor 5:16 as interpolation

[DCHindley]

... a later editor "updated" Paul's letters, which originally had nothing to do with Jesus or Christ,

This was similar to the view of Arthur Drews, even if in a reversal way (for Drews, the mystical author was the original).

Again, Gordon Rylands doesn't follow Drews on this point. He thinks that the editor was not a particular person, but there were a lot of later editors, therefore making it quasi impossible to determine precisely the ''true'' passages of the historical Paul.

Yeah, in reading A. Schweitzer's Paul & His Interpreters, I noticed that all 19th century radical critics tended to think Jesus' message was libertine, which Paul then spiritualized, with the works of Paul were subject to "Judaization." I do not see how this fits the evidence, so it seems to me this is what those critics *wanted* to have been the case. The "tail was wagging the dog" as we say here.

When I attempted to connect arguments and set aside digressions, I had, in effect, separated off the Christological statements and Christologically oriented arguments, with the remaining passages becoming more intelligible in the context of 1st century CE Judeo-Hellenistic private associations that would have been associated with rich households.

On the other hand, the Christological statements were not coherently connected to one another, meaning (to me) that they could not have been the nucleus of Paul's thought. In fact, not one of these Christological passages and comments advanced the Judean arguments of Paul: that gentiles could participate in the blessed age on equal footing with Judeans without having to circumcise themselves of observe the Mosaic law.

There was a little common ground, such as the idea that faith is important, but for Paul it was faith that God would one day establish that promise land in Judea, while for the editor it was faith in the redemptive sacrifice of a divine Christ. I may have faith that my car will start next time I turn the key, and someone else may have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but we do not thus have a communion of faith.

DCH

[davidbrainerd]

If there is an interpolation in verse 16, I doubt its the whole verse. The first sentence of verse 16 flows well with verse 17, if you change verse 17's therefore to a because:

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh, because if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Certainly flows better than

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Yet if that were the case and I were the interpolator I'd have kept because:

From now on, therefore, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we once regarded Christ according to the flesh, we regard him thus no longer. 17 Because, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

Because works better. The reason we know no one after the flesh is "because" anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The way its worded with "therefore" sounds like the reason anyone in Christ is a new creation is because "we regard no one according to the flesh" which seems completrly backwards. So there's sn awkwardness in logic here no matter how you look at it.

Since Paul is so bad at logic, and gets his cause and result backwards, maybe the weird and awkward text as we have it is original!

Or did I just demonstrate that the entirety of verse 16 is an interpolation?

Because

14 For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; 15 and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation.The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

presents no logical problem.