Accepted interpolations in Paul's 'authentic' epistles

[TedM]

Are there any passages widely believed by the scholars to be interpolations in Paul's 7 'authentic' epistles? We can point to various passages as possibilities, but I'm wanting to know if there are any that are unquestioned by the vast majority of scholars.

[Adam]

Does "scholars" include evangelicals? If so we have a null set, don't we.
The real fun is with Romans 15 and 16 and I Corinthians 15.

[neilgodfrey]

Your question assumes a professional absence of personal apologetic interest within a field that is well known -- even self-confessedly -- made up mostly of persons with a personal interest in maintaining the overall integrity of the canonical texts and who by and large argue, in effect, that those canonical texts defy the more general trend among ancient writings to accrue interpolations.

But fwiw, Sturdy compiled a list of scholars believing Paul's letters to be interpolated, matched against specific passages.

[DCHindley]

Are there any passages widely believed by the scholars to be interpolations in Paul's 7 'authentic' epistles? We can point to various passages as possibilities, but I'm wanting to know if there are any that are unquestioned by the vast majority of scholars.

I suppose that depends on whether you mean scholars who accept the possibility that the NT text, from the time written, could have been corrupted in transmission. If so, those scholars will look primarily at textual variants. If not, then we have KJV only type "scholars". Even a scholar as conservative as Daniel Wallace will consider the possibility of corruption in transmission, and cautiously support some emendations, but to him the "autograph" of the document (the document as published by the original author) was God inspired and without error. I think he, and a number of other evangelical Christians (especially in "mainline" protestant churches) largely accepts the NIV translation, which is based on the Nestle-Aland eclectic text (with other comparables, such as MSS of the Byzantine text types).

There is a great difference, though, between an interpolation and a corruption. The errors that the above scholars are willing to consider are not really "interpolations", which by definition are intentional additions or changes to a text, but are more like glosses (brief comments, opinions, etc.) or outright mistakes. However, since divine inspiration can be seen as being filtered through human minds that are not perfect (I think this is similar to how Roman Catholics see inspiration of scripture since Vatican II), there are moderate scholars who will consider the possibility that the "autographs" might contain misunderstandings of divine inspiration. In this case, the original authors might well revise what they have published, causing some of the textual variants seen.

The fun is when you expand the scope to include bona-fide "interpolations". If someone believes that the "autograph" is divinely inspired and thus inerrant, there simply cannot be any interpolations, period. For those who see divine inspiration as filtered through imperfect human minds, there can be revisions, and thus some interpolations.

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? ...

As you can imagine, interpretation of internal evidence can be quite subjective. The emendations to Homer suggested by the author of the Kestoi (supposedly Julius Africanus) are blatantly silly, but he was absolutely convinced that he was right as rain and - in all modesty I am sure - a genius! I mentioned in a post to MrMacSon that a lot of the emendations to the Greek & Latin Hermetic writings proposed by [not Sir] Walter Scott are questionable at best. Why not suggested emendations to the NT text (excision, correction, whatever) as well? In the latter case, Scott felt that passages had been written out of order, so these would not be true interpolations, but corruptions, but there are a few places where he seems to have identified real interpolations.

LIBELLVS XVIII [18]
When musicians undertake to make harmonious melody, then, if in the performance their good intent is thwarted by the discordance of their instruments, [ ]2 one does not impute the blame a to the musician’s inspiration, but one ascribes the fault to the unsoundness of the instrument; it is this, we say, that has made the music fall short of perfect beauty, obstructing the musician in his rendering of the melody, and depriving the audience of the joy of hearing the clear sweet strain. And even so, let no man who is present at this festival find fault with my art by reason of my personal defects; but be it known that the spirit which God breathes into men of my sort is unfailing. ...

2) [‘The writer’s argument is absurd; for when the instruments are defective, and fail to do what is required of them, the musician is bound to be jeered at by the audience.’] This must be a note written by a dissentient reader.

But those who do not want to consider the possibility of interpolations because of the inherent subjectivity of those who identify them, then what are we to do? Throw the baby out with the bath water? Wouldn't it be better to check the bathwater for a baby in it before discarding down the drain? I'd hope so.

DCH

[DCHindley]

Your question assumes a professional absence of personal apologetic interest within a field that is well known -- even self-confessedly -- made up mostly of persons with a personal interest in maintaining the overall integrity of the canonical texts and who by and large argue, in effect, that those canonical texts defy the more general trend among ancient writings to accrue interpolations.

But fwiw, Sturdy compiled a list of scholars believing Paul's letters to be interpolated, matched against specific passages.

That is a very interesting list! I knew that large sections of the Pauline letters had been questioned as either interpolations or outright forgeries, mainly by Dutch Radicals, from reading Al Schweitzer's Paul and His Interpreters, but a lot of specific details had to be omitted from his commentary, as entertaining as it is. Like the drains of a Roman bath, many babies must have been thrown out with the bath water. Pity. Washed babies make much better foundlings than unwashed ones, but are worthless to anyone if simply discarded. [Oh wait, maybe I still am writing the previous post ... ]

DCH

[neilgodfrey]

Are there any passages widely believed by the scholars to be interpolations in Paul's 7 'authentic' epistles? We can point to various passages as possibilities, but I'm wanting to know if there are any that are unquestioned by the vast majority of scholars.

Probably the best way to establish such a list is to consult modern Bible's and check footnotes for the one or two passages that are "generally agreed" to be interpolations.

[MrMacSon]

..fwiw, Sturdy compiled a list of scholars believing Paul's letters to be interpolated, matched against specific passages.

That is a very interesting list! I knew that large sections of the Pauline letters had been questioned as either interpolations or outright forgeries, mainly by Dutch Radicals, from reading Al Schweitzer's Paul and His Interpreters, but a lot of specific details had to be omitted from his commentary, as entertaining as it is. Like the drains of a Roman bath, many babies must have been thrown out with the bath water. Pity ...

While "few authors have argued against ..[the] seven ['authentic' Pauline] epistles" -

"...even the least disputed of letters, such as Galatians, have found critics.[12] Moreover, the unity of the letters is questioned by some scholars. First and Second Corinthians have garnered particular suspicion, with some scholars, among them [biblical scholars] Edgar Goodspeed and Norman Perrin, supposing one or both texts as we have them today are actually amalgamations of multiple individual letters. There remains considerable discussion as to the presence of possible significant interpolations."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorshi ... d_epistles

12 for example, F. R. McGuire, even though otherwise critical scholars like A. Q. Morton saw this text as the benchmark for refuting Pauline authorship of most other epistles; see A. Q. Morton and J. McLeman, Paul, the Man and the Myth (1966). Additionally, Robert Price argues that Galatians was written by Marcion; see RM Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament (2006).

[DCHindley]

Are there any passages widely believed by the scholars to be interpolations in Paul's 7 'authentic' epistles? We can point to various passages as possibilities, but I'm wanting to know if there are any that are unquestioned by the vast majority of scholars.

Probably the best way to establish such a list is to consult modern Bible's and check footnotes for the one or two passages that are "generally agreed" to be interpolations.

But footnotes in something like an Oxford Study Bible won't tell you who says so, at least not the ones I have (RSV & NAB Study Edition). Even better, if TedM can get ahold of a copy of an edition of the Nestle Aland Greek text (or GNT, not as hard as one might think, as the Greek text is available online) or even the latest UBS (United Bible Society) edition, the suspected interpolations will be bracketed. These, of course, will almost always have been suspected on account of manuscript variants, and the footnotes will always tell you what the variants are (in their unique and mysterious symbols).

For an English reader, learning to read Greek letters is not especially hard as most of them resemble English/Roman letters in some general way, and the exceptions aren't overwhelming. Since Greek is transliterated a lot in academic publications intended for general readership, most folks who read this kind of stuff have become familiar with commonly discussed terms and words. Learn to transliterate the letters and you can follow things much easier.

For those who might need an aid, and can view Excel files, behold, one is here:

Copy of (Hindley) Inflected Greek Unicode Letters & Numbers.xlsx

(25.8 KiB) Downloaded 191 times

DCH

[Ben C. Smith]

For those who might need an aid, and can view Excel files, behold, one is here:

Copy of (Hindley) Inflected Greek Unicode Letters & Numbers.xlsx

DCH

Wow, David, you even included the wau and the sampi.

[DCHindley]

For those who might need an aid, and can view Excel files, behold, one is here:

Copy of (Hindley) Inflected Greek Unicode Letters & Numbers.xlsx

DCH

Wow, David, you even included the wau and the sampi.

I wanted to wau folks with a sampi of just how many inflected Greek letters there are (about 266). It is no wonder that OCR software has such a hard time with Ancient Greek. Sometimes the sheer stress of picking the right ones to post on this forum causes me to get dieresis.

DCH