Ben C Smith

On an older thread Toto reviewed W. O. Walker, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters. I have now finally read this book, and have a couple of comments or questions.

One of the posters on that original thread, Gawen, asked why Walker would shoot down Paul:

Several other comments seemed to imply that his view of interpolations would help Doherty out.

But these comments highlight what, for me, is actually an obstacle to accepting a lot of the arguments that Walker puts forward. Far from shooting Paul down, and far from making things more difficult for Christianity at large, most of the interpolations that Walker identifies tend to remove longstanding difficulties.

Granted, Walker argues that 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16 is an interpolation, and these verses, if genuine, would single-handedly knock down certain brands of mythicism. But these verses are also quite commonly viewed as an interpolation already. The modern scholar is already accustomed to making his or her arguments about Paul without recourse to them.

Besides, if these verses are removed from Paul, the good apostle no longer condones a form of anti-Semitism.

The rest of the alleged interpolations, too, seem to turn Paul into an easier figure to accept, almost without side effect:

1. Romans 13.1-7: If these verses are interpolated, then there is no longer any tension in the Pauline corpus between the fact that various authorities persecuted Paul and the fact that this passage seems fairly positive about the authorities. And one of the Top Twenty silences that Doherty adduces falls to the ground, since now it is no longer the staunch apocalypticist Paul but rather a later scribe, presumably writing with pro-Roman motivations similar to those of the author of Acts, who is making it easier to be both Roman and Christian. Paul himself now remains compatible with liberation theology.

2. Romans 16.25-27: If these verses are interpolated (and in this case I was already persuaded of the interpolation by Gamble, before reading Walker), then one of the two pillars of Pauline hidden-but-now-revealed mysticism tumbles.

3. 1 Corinthians 2.6-16: If these verses are interpolated, then the other of the two pillars of Pauline hidden-but-now-revealed mysticism tumbles. Now the only authentic Pauline mysticism is kerygmatic and eschatological, centering in solely on Jesus and his work on the cross, whereas the more gnostic mysticism of the mystery of God, hidden for ages but now revealed, is reserved for interpolators and for the deutero-Pauline epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians. Simultaneously, one verse that gets a lot of mileage in some mythicist circles, 1 Corinthians 2.8, no longer belongs to Paul.

4. 1 Corinthians 10.1-22: If these verses are interpolated, then another of the more mystical references to Christ (in verse 4) disappears from the authentic Pauline corpus. Also gone is the tension between the apparent argument against eating idol-meat in this passage and the apparent argument that eating idol-meat does not really matter very much in 8.1-13 and 10.23-11.1. (I would note that another of the Top Twenty silences is affected, but, on the one hand, the argument for that silence rests on more than 1 Corinthians 10.11 and, on the other, the argument misunderstands Pauline eschatology on a profound level to begin with.)

5. 1 Corinthians 14.34-35: If these verses are interpolated, then one of the Pauline passages putting women in their place is gone. I was, however, already inclined to see this particular passage as an interpolation before reading Walker.

6. 1 Corinthians 11.3-16: If these verses are interpolated, then the other principal Pauline passage putting women in their place is gone.

7. Romans 1.18-2.29: If these verses are interpolated, then the clearest Pauline condemnation of homosexuality, in Romans 1.26-27, disappears.

8. 2 Corinthians 6.14-7.1: If these verses are interpolated, then the Pauline command to stay away from unbelievers is gone, along with any tension between this concept and the easier one in 1 Corinthians 5.9-10.

9. 1 Corinthians 13.1-13: Not much is really at stake in this passage, at least for me. The love chapter is beautiful, but hardly a repository of hard historical Pauline dogma.

Thus, if we follow Walker in viewing these passages as interpolations, Paul becomes far less mystical and gnostic, no longer subjects women to men, becomes a better example for liberation theology, no longer flirts with anti-Semitism, and no longer condemns homosexuality in so many words. Paul, in short, starts to look like a rather modern fellow.

Make no mistake; I think this book is very well written (especially for a scholar who favors the Greisbach solution to the synoptic problem! ), and his arguments are very good. Trouble is, I find myself constantly having to separate the validity of the arguments from the congeniality of the conclusions. I would like to think I am able to do so in the long run, but it makes me wonder how much of the congeniality went into finding this particular list of passages in the first place. Did Walker (and those before him who questioned some of these passages) notice how nice Paul was turning out while he was pegging these verses as interpolations? Or was that just a happy coincidence after the fact?

I honestly do not know the answers to those questions. But it may not be entirely coincidental that a liberal Christian like Walker discovers that, say, 1 Corinthians 11.3-16 is an interpolation while an agnostic like Robert Price discovers that, say, 1 Corinthians 15.3-11 is an interpolation. Is it my imagination, or do most people arguing for interpolations somehow wind up with a text more congenial to their own viewpoints than before?

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Unless you have manuscript evidence for a particular interpolation, they have to be found by developing a psychological profile of the author (here, Paul) and then identifying those parts, according to the profile, the author cannot have written.

Unfortunately, it is rather difficult to develop such a profile, and without being careful about it (or even gifted at it) people's natural egocentrism tends to result in projecting what is congenial them into the author.

Stephen

Tigers!

The technical term for that occurence is bias.

andrewcriddle

On the general question of interpolations in Paul, I think we should distinguish between very very early interpolations and later ones.

It is possible (though IMHO unlkely) that the original collectors and distributors of thr Pauline epistles c 85 CE substantally interpolated them. If so there would be no variant readings, all manuscripts going back to an interpolated archtype.

In order for this to be likely in a given case one has to have passages that are much more plausible in 85 CE than 55 CE. 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 is IMO among the strongest cases for very very early interpolation.

However, many of the suggestions by Walker are, if interpolations, probably 2nd century. eg if 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 is an interpolation (IMHO unlikely) it is probably an interpolation based on the Pastorals. Other suggested interpolations are argued to fit a general 2nd century context better than a 1st ceentury one.

I find it surprising that no external evidence survives of such 2nd century interpolations, if they occurred.

Andrew Criddle