Rick Sumner

The first passage was from an article, the second from his book. Which should have been clear from the fact that I cited both. By name.

You're abusing him here. Or rather quote-mining him. What Walker "specifically rejects" is the impossibly high standard that is so often set. Walker's problem is with a burden of proof that is almost impossible to meet. A "beyond reasonable doubt" burden of proof.

See chapter 4, where he outlines various evidences for interpolation, and stresses the need to try and remove subjectivity as much as possible.

He suggests the burden is lighter because where there is one interpolation, there is likely to be more. He makes no comment here on the evidential requirements to raise the suspicion a passage is interpolated in the first place. He addresses that later.

He also gives specific reason for rejection of Doughty, and elaborates at some length on why he thinks Doughty is wrong. He sympathizes because he recognizes the plight, not because he feels Doughty's suggestion is right.

Implying, as you have, that Walker rejects Doughty because he is being concilliatory is reading your own thoughts into him. It's not what he opines.

We can rephrase "heavy" to "rigorous" if you prefer. That one is Walker's term. But that's neither here nor there, because what I stated he agrees with me on is why we need to be rigorous. He recognizes the slippery slope that escaped you not once but twice.

And I wonder if you actually read all of Chapter 4. Or any of the proceeding chapters. You know, the ones where he employs rigorous argument to demonstrate interpolations. That sort of pesky, actual evidence approach that you seem to be avoiding.

I still welcome the opportunity to look at what you would consider interpolated. Unless your conviction really begins and ends with waving your hands mysteriously and declaring a scholar too tightly entwined with a Christian institution to entertain it.

And it wasn't a rhetorical question before, what do you see as being such a potential contribution to Paul's context in the original excerpt from the book? My suspicion is that you really don't know, that you really don't follow Pauline scholarship terribly much, and that you just thought the title was catchy. I'll be glad to be corrected.

Toto

And how do you differentiate between your "heavy, heavy burdern of proof" and one beyond a reasonable doubt? Why do you think that your description is compatible with Walker's description of the burden of proof as "considerably lighter?"

And remember the context of this thread - this is about a book that does not even discuss the issues of interpolations.

I don't know what you are basing this on. Here's an extended quote:

So Doughty is right, but he doesn't go that far, for reasons not listed. How am I wrong?

OK - rigorous, although google books says "No results found in this book for rigorous." But academics like to be rigorous, as opposed to arbitrary, and Walker has a very nice set of criteria for identifying interpolations. This still doesn't translate into a heavy burden of proof.

May I remind you that there are no interpolations under consideration here - just the issue of whether interpolations exist in general, and whether a book on Paul should acknowledge that interpolations are to be expected?

I read Walker's book some years ago, in the context of some Christian apologists who based some arguments on Paul's letters in conjunction with the Book of Acts. I wrote up an extensive summary of the book which you can find in the archives. I stand by that.

I only dabble in "Pauline scholarship" - most if it seems theological and related to issues that I don't care much about. I primarily take notice when people make historical claims based on the Pauline Epistles, as the book which is the subject of this thread does - where the author apparently spends a lot of time trying to reconcile various statements in Paul's letters without even considering the possibility that some of them are not Paul's. How is this sort of analysis going to lead to a reasonable view of history?

Iskander

Christianity is what Christians say it is.

Who are the non-Christians to say who is a Christian and who is not?

Rick Sumner

I don't think Walker and I have the same description. I do think Walker and I encourage some measure of caution, and do so for precisely the same reason.

You would do well to review what I've said. I spelled it out explicitly.

Indeed. And your disdain at its failure to do so was expressed in the OP.

How about you look back, on the same page, no less, to see where Walker cites Sanders to the effect that the burden of proof rests on the person making a claim. As he notes, both in his book and in articles--articles spanning his entire academic career--the prima facie case puts the burden on the dissenter. You would do well to familiarize himself with some of his work, he's been on the same hobby horse, with very little variation, for almost 4 decades.

Are you actually reading what Walker has written? What, specifically, is he saying Doughty is right about, and what, specifically, did you suggest he agrees with Doughty about in regards to his "sympathy?"

The two are not the same topic.

The fundamental difference between Walker and Doughty is that Doughty thinks it necessarily follows that there are more interpolations where one finds one interpolation. Walker only thinks it is more reasonable to suggest that where we find one we will find more than it is to suggest we won't.

Though even that is nowhere near as certain as Walker thinks it is. See, for example, the poignant criticisms of Murphy O'Connor in JBL 95,4 as well as the further discussion of Cope in JBL 97,3.

But that's neither here nor there, at the moment. The question at present isn't whether or not Walker is right (though he isn't) it's whether or not Walker says what you suggest he does (he doesn't).

Certainly they do. He sets a clear standard of evidence, which he details at great length. He suggests that they do not all need to be as bedrock certain, so long as some are, but he certainly doesn't suggest that we don't need to establish clear and unambiguous reason to think it is more likely a passage is an interpolation than to think it isn't. Indeed, he's made his entire career out of that premise.

I don't think anyone denies that interpolations exist in general. You won't find much contention, for example, in suggesting that 1Thess 2.14 is not Pauline. The issue isn't whether or not specific problems relating to the question of Paul's Jewish should be resolved by way of identifying interpolations. Since the excerpt in question doesn't mention any specific passages to lead you on your way, I can only assume that you had specific passages in mind.

Otherwise you're just spouting emptiness. Since I'm confident you wouldn't do so, I can only conclude that you did, in fact, have specific interpolations in mind to rectify issues relating to Paul's Jewish/Gentile worldview.

So, again, I eagerly seek to know what they are. See, the NPP fascinates me, and I would delight to have new ways to rectify difficulties. So please, quit holding out and share your knowledge.

What do you think this book is about if not Pauline theology?

If you had familiarized yourself at all with the paradigm the book is operating in, at least ostensibly from the excerpt, you would be aware that one of the fundamental principles of it is that Paul is not as contradictory as he seems.

In other words, we don't need to seek interpolations to make sense of it. It makes perfect sense, and always did. It was the modern exegete, writing through the eyes of Luther's reformation (though Augustine played a large role as well) that couldn't see what was right in front of us.

So perhaps, before you begin criticizing a scholar's failure to address a possibility and attributing it to affiliations with a Christian institution, you should take the time to familiarize yourself a bit with the subject matter. You might find out your criticisms are unjustified.

spamandham

If someone were to ask me about the theological utility of Christian traditions, I would probably bust a gut laughing about the question. From this, they might conclude I had not been raised as a Christian. They would be wrong.

When I read Paul, I read someone who has abandoned the religion of his childhood in favor of what he has come to believe to be the real meaning of it all.

aa5874

But, it must be noted that Christians may call each other non-Christian or of the Devil.

Justin and Marcion appear to be both Christians, they believed in Jesus, yet Justin thought Marcion was of the Devil.

dog-on

Things like dietary restrictions, etc. make this a very different issue. I know this first hand.

Toto

I have to ask the same of you. You argue for a "heavy burden of proof" which Walker explicitly rejects, but claim that you mean the same thing. Perhaps you are confusing his attention to methodology with the burden of proof?

I've read Walker several times, and I don't see anything to support your claims. So I see no point in continuing this discussion.

dog-on

Walker shifts the burden to those that would deny interpolations.


He is correect in doing so, imo.

Iskander

So? Christianity is what Christians say it is. They like a bit of banter with a chalice of wine.

Some of the freethinkers seem obsessed with the devil and Christian curios