Layman

I'm really not trying to restart this debate again, but I thought that some of you would be interested in an email exchange I had with Dr. Robert M. Price, and a follow up I had with Dr. Wm. Walker.

In a post I wrote back in September, I discussed my reasons for rejecting the argument that 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 is an interpolation. Therein, I referred to some of the arguments of Dr. Robert M. Price. To my surprise, I received an email from Dr. Price regarding that post. The exchange, in my opinion, was productive (to me and I hope the readers) and cordial. I reproduced the exchange on my blog. Because Dr. Price also referred to Dr. Walker as a scholar who shared his view that this passage was an interpolation, I emailed Dr. Walker as well. His response -- he is undecided on the issue at present -- is blogged here.

Vorkosigan

Thanks for the heads up, Layman.

Both adjectives are wrong. Where Price writes on the NT, he does so with insight and gusto. Where he writes on politics, he upchucks stereotyped, shallow Reich-Christian trash that any one of us could rebut unconscious with our hands behind our backs. I must say I find it incredible that someone who can see right through Paul takes George Bush at face value.

I wish you'd stop making comments like this, Chris. They look.....so petty.

Me too.

Vorkosigan

Toto

prior thread

My thread on Walker's Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles should give you some ideas on how scholars have the "ability to detect interpolations in the Pauline letters that leave no trace in the manuscript traditions or writings of the apostolic fathers."

I see that Robert Price wrote you a fairly testy note accusing you of publishing a "grossly inadequate, strawman account of the piece, making it much too easy for the apologist to disregard what he or she thinks I am saying." And you published it on your blog. Then you emailed William Walker, who gives you a completely noncommital response, and you publish that. (I do not have Walker's book in front of me, but as I recall he does refer to Price's article in a footnote as if he agrees with it. I will check later. But it is clear to me from that book that Walker is a meticulous scholar and probably not one to give off the cuff comments on an issue that he can spend a year researching.)

Nice of you to drop by, Layman. :wave:

Layman

I'm not sure what your point is, Toto.

Are you attacking me for posting emails from a scholar who disagrees with one of my posts? Or commending me? And are you attacking me for checking with Dr. Walker to see what his views were or are you commending me? Or are you attacking me for publishing, with their permission, the entire email exchange? Am I somehow distorting what they said by telling you what they said?

In any event, I thought the exchange between Dr. Price and I grew more cordial as soon as I responded to his email.

If you can find were Dr. Walker does expressly agree with Dr. Price, I'd be happy to update that on my blog. I debated for a while before publishing Dr. Walker's email, but I thought I had to clarify the record since I was blogging something saying he held a position he privately was telling me he was undecided about.

I actually thought that by publishing these emails I was doing the discussion, rather than any one side, a favor.

Toto

Layman, I am not attacking you at all, and I'm sorry if you read any hostility into the post. I was just summarizing the procedings for people not sure if they want to take the time to follow the links, and adding some pertinent links of my own.

I will check Walker's book later tonight.

Vinnie

"""""""""""And just for the record, I am skeptical of our ability to detect interpolations in the Pauline letters that leave no trace in the manuscript traditions or writings of the apostolic fathers. """"""""""""

This is stronger than some might think. I remember reading Gamble's work on early Christian writing practices and it seems someone like Paul probably would have had a copy of his own letter for himself. The idea of self copies and that these letters were probably copied for other chuches very early makes it hard to argue for an interpolation where the manuscript tradition has no variation.

Unless we argue someone collected all the dipsarate copies of a work and changed them all or just argue that we happened to find only the manuscripts without the change we have a problem.

Now after sayign that I have to ask:

1) What is the external attestation of these passages (starting with the earliest up intil say the 4th century)
2) What is the manuscript attestation of these pasageges (starting with the earliest up till the fourtch century).

Because, obviously if we only had one external reference or even three based upon the same textual version we can only claim one independent attestation here. And also if we only had one, two or three manuscripts we could then more convincingly appeal to "well maybe different manuscripts" haven't been found. But if we have a number of different manuscripts and different external attestations its very duifficult to argue this.

It would have to have occured early for this to be the case and Paul's letters were probably copied almost immediatly and even he probaly retained a copy for himself! So this is hard to envision as well. In this case the interpolation burden of proof probably restsu pon anyone trying to overthrow manuscript and patristic attestation.

My $0.02.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

From Kirby's website

Toto

Vinnie - at least read my summary of Walker's arguments. There are collections of Paul's letters, but there are no copies remaining of any individual letters by Paul, if they ever existed.

Vinnie

I wasn't actually "asking" for the info. Just pointing out the logistics and methods used. I posited some textual criteria and I was pointing out the context they make sense in

Its good to have that info hany though so others can check it. Just need the mss attestation now...

Vinnie

Vinnie

An this would weaken the argument.

You mentioned two things:

1) Scribes would copy the longer passage.

This hurts the argument I put forth about copies of copies.

The problem we stil lface is "are there different collections ogf Pauline works in different geographical locations, in different languages and so on?

Though the notion that a Pauline collection replaced individual letters and the collections which were certainly "larger projects" than single letters became more similar to one another is at least more possible.

We still have to tally all the mss evidence and this entails looking at different versions and languages and so on. Paul's letters were also collected by the end of the first century.

We must add this to the number of external attestations for this passage. What time slot oculd it have been made in and how did it effect all versions? After all, the text is quoted by some authors in the 2nd and third century right? THerefore it must have been in their collections of Paul's letters. Do they all rely on the same mss traditions or do they have different versions of Paul's letters?

I myself am not knowledgeable on all the Pauline mss to make a judgment here either way.

Vinnie