creature

You guys informed me that there was a book out on interpolations in Paul by William Walker, which I then obtained and read . . .

Lets assume that Walker is correct is his views on interpolations in Paul . . .
and I believe he has good evidence in each of his views on each disputed passage.

Then, what we have is the following:

There was a Jesus movement and some or all of its members believed that Gentiles, to be believers, needed to be circumcised. However, Jesus himself tended to draw outsiders, and those less observant of the Law, to himself. And, based on the implications of the gospel of John, Mark 10:21, and perhaps traditions accepted by Clement of Alexandria, it appears that Jesus and John were nearly bf and bf, without necessarily engaging in anal intercourse. Nevertheless, within the Jesus believing movement, there are different ideas as to how Jesus related to the Law of Moses.

Paul was converted to the belief in Jesus as resurrected Messiah. Part of his belief was that Gentiles didn't need to be circumcised and should be accepted as equals, even if they didn't keep the Law of Moses. Together with that, Paul is quite liberal re women in the church, and, slightly less anti-homosexual than he appears. In fact, re women in the church, Paul regards them as nearly or completely equal in privilege and opportunity as men.

During Paul's lifetime, the hot debate was re circumcision. Paul "won" the debate by the fact of there being, within a short time, as many or more, uncircumcized Gentile believers as Jewish believers. And these uncircumcized Gentiles seemed to spiritual Jewish Christians to have the Spirit of God with them, just as it or He was with them. These facts then, began to constitute conclusive "proof" that Paul was right, at least in the minds of some.

So, gradually, the more spiritual Jewish Christians came to terms with and accepted the admission of uncircumcized Gentiles into the church. And if they admitted that, they would also be compelled to accept the letters of Paul as complete or partial authority, or some kind of authority. At least, the Gentile churches which these Jewish Christians were now adopting and regarding as equals regarded Paul's letters as an authority, and it would not do to just trash these letters. That would be equivalent to creating an unnecessary breach with churches that the Jewish Christians were now accepting.

However, these Jewish Christians were not comfortable with several aspects of Paul's letters. Paul is overly liberal with regard to women in the church, with regard to eating meat offered to idols, with how women dressed in church or public. He lacks an instruction to obey the government and he is neutral on same-sex attraction.

And, after Colossians and Ephesians had been added to Paul's letters by Gentile Christians, a Jewish Christian and conservative editor with possession of a collection of Paul's letters added thoughts of his own:
Romans 1:19-2:29 re same-sex attraction;
Romans 13:1-7 re obedience to the government;
parts of I cor which forbid eating meat offered to idols;
I Cor 11 in part and I Cor 14 re women having to wear a veil and keep silent in church;
some of I thess 2;
all of II Thess 2, which mostly is to discourage people from not working;
I cor 13, which reminds us of Matthew that if you have a bunch of gifts, but are not "obeying" God, you are in trouble and nothing;

The editor didn't have too much to do in contradicting the genuine Paul. Mostly he was able to add where Paul seems silent. The editor's worst (most obvious) contradiction with the genuine Paul is on the question of eating meats offered to idols. Paul regards it with indifference; it can't harm a Christian, but should be avoided if causes another person to stumble. . The editor regards it with abhorence and communion with demons!

And the editor gradually won, it seems.

Toto

Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk) by William O. Walker Jr., which can be previewed extensively on Google Books


Walker does not draw these conclusions. You might need to fill in the details here...

This seems clear.

creature

Walker's book has no discussion re Jesus and John.

Walker believes that Romans 1:19-2:29 are a long interpolation for reasons independent of the anti-homosexual content of Romans 1.

If Jesus and John were like 2 boyfriends (as seems to me to be the implication of John's gospel), or if Jesus had "same-sex attraction" or bisexual attraction, then, I am not sure how we would fit together Romans 1 with the life of Jesus . . .