neilgodfrey wrote:Peter Kirby wrote:neilgodfrey wrote:
Of course the passage was interpolated.
I gotta say this certainty isn't really characteristic of you, Neil.
Nor is this eagerness to line up a series of scholarly witnesses to an opinion.
Such a level of certainty also isn't justified on the basis of the evidence alone.
Seems like this interpolation hypothesis is a fig leaf that some are eager to keep firmly in place.
The scholarly witnesses are not to "an opinion" but to published arguments for a case. So many people just bandy about the claim that it's an opinion of a minority or majority or whatever which is meaningless. There are actually arguments for the claim and they rarely seem to be in anyone's vision when discussing this.
I am pointing out that one scholar has assembled references to the history of scholarly challenges to the authenticity of the passage.
I have posted more recent arguments from the literature for the interpolation case along with a number of arguments challenging those. It is evident that some of those latter arguments arise from apologetics.
The interpolation case stands or falls quite apart from any reference to mythicism. The more serious question is how we interpret Paul and the earliest Christian theology. This passage jars with everything else we read from the "genuine Paulines".
Interpolation in the letters should be expected and assumed on principle given all we know about the practice as it has been found to exist in so much Greco-Roman literature.
Obviously I am not questioning whether there are any interpolations in ancient letters in a general way.
I understand that there are arguments. I understand that this passage, if it is the weakest link in an interpretation of the Pauline corpus, is not the worst problem that any such interpretation could have.
The arguments for interpolation are interesting, but they can't beat someone over the head with how strong they are. The passage is possibly non-interpolated. I'd give it at least a 10% chance of being non-interpolated. Giving it any less would be overestimating our knowledge of the Pauline letters in general and our ability to determine the authenticity of this particular passage within them.
But we get too complacent with converting our "probably this" and "probably that" into something much more than what it is. We also very much like to hammer out dissonant facts quickly and then diminish them to a greater extent than we should in preservation of our working theory and understanding of a subject. Converting that >10% into a shorthand 0% for all intents and purposes is attractive, especially for certain readings of the Pauline corpus, but also lazy.
Keep in mind that this is coming from someone who believes there is at least 5% chance (without having looked into it overmuch personally) that we don't have any pre-70 Pauline letters at all... another issue that is too conveniently glided over by pretty much everybody, again for the sake of pretty schemes, working models, and cherished interpretations.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
