DCHindley

Jiri,

Here is my reasoning ...

spin made the most concise statement: "The admission of interpolation
1) is an admission that the text has layered sourcing,

ie that some parts are later than others.

2) [This admission] does not imply that there was an authentic original,

though there may have been."

You, on the other hand, state that "you cannot talk of interpolation without admitting that some of the base text is authentic," and "one needs to make one's mind whether there is an authentic base of Paul or not."

Even so, you qualify this by saying "that positing the interpolation into Paul excludes logically the possibility of believing at the same time that the corpus is itself fake[/B], reasoning that "[by assuming the corpus is itself fake, one consequently] does not have any standards by which to measure what belongs to it and what does not."

I think this qualification does not take into consideration the reasons why an interpolation is proposed in the first place. Recently on Synoptic-l E. Bruce Brooks described the category of manuscript criticism "[f]ormerly known as 'the higher criticism,'" as "the recovery of earlier states within the formation or proprietary period depended simply on assessing the evidence in the text: discontinuities, inconcinnities, violations of formal pattern, style shifts, and so on."

The only difference between this and the category "[f]ormerly known as 'the lower criticism,'" which is the "removal of errors or improvements introduced by copyists in the post-P[ublication] phase," is the "presence of manuscripts differing from each other."

Brooks cautions that "in either case, the decision is made on the basis of the evidence of the text: its continuity or lack of it, its stylistic uniformity or variability, and so on."

So, manuscript variations may or may not be present, depending on whether the interpolations were introduced before or after publication (that is, the author or an editor releases it into the public domain). The lack of variants does not render those "discontinuities, inconcinnities, violations of formal pattern, style shifts, and so on" moot.

While interpolations made after publication tend to be brief, such as corrections (misguided or not) and glosses, those interpolations made to a text prior to publication, whether by the author himself or an editor, are thematic. They either add to the message (usually this is the author himself) or reform it or add commentary to it. Of course any process to detech this theme has to be somewhat subjective, but differences can be quantified and analyzed.

All one can really say is that if an interpolation is made to a text (pre or post pub), you must have an original text. I think spin is absolutely correct that you cannot be absolutely sure that the original text is authentic or not. Texts can be individually or even collectively published by the author, and then later republished by admirers as collections. Aside of scribal interpolations after publication, textual variants would not be present if the original text and the edited collection do not circulate in the same circles. In fact, even authentic original texts may not have been formally published by the author(such as personal letters). How they come into the hands of a later editor who might interpolate them is an unknown factor.

DCH

Solo

Thanks, Dave. I guess we could spend a lot of time to chase around the definitions of interpolation, but I feel quite comfortable with what I am saying.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

It is virtually impossible to claim that the Pauline writings were interpolated when the Pauline writers could have REVISED their OWN writings.

It is known that authors can REVISE their writings and Publish REVISED editions.

Examine "Against Marcion" 1 by Tertullian.

Tertullian is claiming that there are TWO works of "Against Marcion" that are AUTHENTIC but the first version should no longer be accepted. The Third version is NOT an interpolation it is a REVISED edition or a NEW work.

Tertullian has shown that writings of which there is NO known original and the authors unknown cannot simply be claimed to be interpolated. The original author may have REVISED his OWN work.

archibald

Snipping this from Price's review:

"After showing the a priori likelihood of interpolations having crept into Pauline texts....."

I haven't heard the phrase 'a priori likelihood' used before, but having pondered it, I'm thinking it's not self-contradictory. :]

I have a couple of thoughts.

1. When Price speaks of conservative scholars being reluctant to take on board interpolation cases which are not evidenced from manuscripts, is it correct to say that this reluctance extends, at least in some cases, perhaps many(?), into not giving due weight to indirectly related manuscripts, such as, say, the various anti-heretical texts? Because I'm thinking that surely, these texts must represent almost the 'hardest' and richest evidence available, even though they themselves may also be corrupted, obviously. I ask this because, on the forums I have belonged to, it has been the 'non-orthodox side' which seems more ready and willing to tap into such texts. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe mainstream scholars routinely give adequate consideration to such texts and include them in the overall category of 'manuscript evidence'?

2. On the back of the above, would anyone like to put forward a candidate for 'clearest interpolation that isn't NT ms evidenced'. Presumably this would be based on strong evidence from some of the related texts I mentioned, rather than just being based on what I might controversially describe as lit crit of the epistles. :]

3. Equally, if anyone wants to nominate their strongest candidate in the 'lit crit only' category.....

Your nominee can then be entered for the MOBO* Interpolation Awards. :]

At one point, I believe, spin mentioned something to the effect of, 'look what Origen did to passage so and so....' but at the time I wasn't familiar and can't recall the passage cited either. Maybe it wasn't even Pauline.

* Most Overtly Bleedin' Obvious

DCHindley

I found this definition on the net here:

DCH

PS: FWIW, "The White Man" is an American of African descent.

andrewcriddle

The answer may depend on exactly what one means by 'conservative scholars'. However many scholars are interested in readings which are clearly witnessed to by early Christian texts but have no support in surviving continuous text manuscripts of the Bible.

One problem is that it is often unclear whether the early Christian work genuinely witnesses to a reading that has not survived in any Bible manuscript. In many cases the writer may be paraphrasing rather than quoting exactly.

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

Can some one explain what "Paul" could NOT have written if he was delusional and was "SEEING" things?

It is most laughable that the Pauline writings may the work of a mad man but is expected to be coherent at all times.

Who would vouch for what the delusional would write?

Solo

Let us just say that if you suffer from persistent delusions suggesting an impending catastrophy (viscerally played out by your brain, Heb 10:31, Lk 21:26) then the delusional grand plan of salvation will be a great comfort to you, especially if there is no other help.

Jiri