stephan huller

Since everyone seems to be talking about Pauline interpolations I thought I would start a thread on William O. Walker, Jr's Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 213. Sheffield Academic Press 2001). Robert Price has a review of this book here:

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.c...rpolations.htm

A Google preview exists here: http://books.google.com/books?id=_f7...page&q&f=false

Toto

I started a thread on this book in 2003.

http://www.freeratio.org/thearchives...ad.php?t=72218

aa5874

So, in effect, the Pauline writings may all be inauthentic.

Doug Shaver

That is a possibility, and other evidence may support it, but not the interpolations. The fact that some of a text is inauthentic does not by itself entail any likelihood that none of it is.

Solo

That is true, Doug, but it is also true that to you cannot talk of interpolation without admiting that some of the base text is authentic. The idea that all Pauline writings are fake cannot be substantiated by any evidence for someone who accepts these texts were 'interpolated'.

The fact of the matter is that there is an inner core of Paul's corpus (whether the Hauptbriefe of the Tuebingen school or the traditional 'seven') that has been observed to present a coherent body of thought, writing style, and personal characteristics of a single author. It is against these standard features that claims of genuinness of letters and passages in those letters have been tested.

It makes no sense, to my way of thinking, to posit a fake Paul at the centre of other fakes, because clearly the idea of 'faking Paul' itself presumes some authority that this name had to have to begin with. (I am leaving aside the possibility that the name Paul was a pseudonym, that the corpus was written by Marcion, etc.). What was this authority ? We do not know. But evidently it was the writing of this one author which became agreed on as a scriptural authority at some point. This finding makes the 'all-Paul-is-fake' argument explicitly or implicitly tautological. Let's not waste time with it.

Best,
Jiri

dog-on

Agreed.

However, here is where I start.

All ancient texts are suspect, barring an actual autograph (even more problems...) and, being suspect, any argument made regarding any specific wording can only be tentative, at best.

Regarding Paul, we have evidence of argument over the content of the corpus which predates any manuscript evidence we have.

Solo

Yes, that is a good point.

We should be thankful that the "manufacturing consent" of the author to the abduction of his ideas is not a product showing overall great skills in artful deception.

Best,
Jiri

aa5874

Please I NEVER EVER made such a claim.

Please read, "The Pauline writings MAY ALL BE inauthentic".

You must understand that a manipulated writing can be inauthentic.

Please state exactly how you would be able to show that a manipulated writing is AUTHENTIC?

aa5874

Your claim is completely ERRONEOUS, BLATANTLY wrong. WE have ZERO credible evidence from antiquity regarding "Paul".

The history of "Paul" is found in Acts of the Apostles a book regarded as a source of Fiction. The conversion of Paul in Acts is FICTION.

The Pauline writer, the Pauline GOSPEL and the Pauline Jesus are completely UNCORROBORATED in the 1st century before the Fall of the Jewish Temple.

WE HAVE EVIDENCE of argument that the Pauline writings are COMPATIBLE with the LATER gJohn and NOT the EARLIER Synoptics.

spin

This is not necessarily the case. The admission of interpolation is an admission that the text has layered sourcing, ie that some parts are later than others. It does not imply that there was an authentic original, though there may have been. A text may be still a fake and receive interpolations. If we consider the redacted materials added to Mark to form a later gospel as interpolations, then we find interpolations in that material, so we have at least three layers in the material.