Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ben C Smith · 04-10-2007, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

There appears little doubt that Homer's Iliad and Odyssey contain numerous interpolations. (Walker cites George M Bolling and Robert M Grant)

Interpolations are also found in Orpheus, Musaeus, Hippocrates, Aristophanes, Euripides and Thucydides. (Walker cites Grant and Maurer)

Also in the letters of the philosophers -- Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Seneca -- by their followers. (Citing Stanley Stowers)

Early Christians interpolated Jewish writings. (e.g. The Testimonium Flavianum or at least part thereof; Celsus said Christians added to the Sibylline Oracles to provide pagan support for X'y, and also other Jewish writings like the Synagogal Prayers, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah and 4 Ezra.) -- Citing Meier, Eva Sanford, Solomon Zeitlin, Wallace-Hadrill, K A Olson, Grant, James Charlesworth, E P Sanders and A I Baumgarten and Alan Mendelson)

Romans 3.13-18 was incorporated into most LXX manuscripts of Psalm 13 (Ps 14 in Hebrew bible) -- citing O'Neill

Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, claimed "heretics" had both added to and deleted from his letters. (Grant)

Irenaeus expressed fears his writings would be interpolated.

Rufinus claimed many Greek patristic writings had been interpolated (Grant)

Marcion believed the letters of Paul and gospel of Luke had been heavily interpolated.

Many scholars see both the Pentateuch and gospels as being built up layer by layer. (e.g. Genesis based on JE with P later added)

2 Peter is an expansion on Jude, and the longer recension of Epistles of Ignatius; ..... many other examples.... some more obvious well-known ones: the adulterous woman episode in gospel of John; the longer ending of Mark; perhaps final chapter of John; the Western text of the Gospels and Acts -- note the "western non-interpolations")

Neil Godfrey

That is an impressive list, Neil. Thanks for that. It would be interesting to see the original texts for each item.

A nitpick: Some of the items on the list are not the same thing as an interpolation. (Walker falls into some of the same confusion in the early going of his book.)

Let me define my terms here. An author modifies a source document in order to create a new text, which he then passes off in his own name (or under a pseudonym; but not in the name of the original author of the source document). An editor (or interpolator) modifies a source document in order to make changes to an existing text, which he then passes off in the name of the author of the original document.

On these terms, 2 Peter using Jude is not interpolation; a new text in a new authorial name has been created. The same probably applies to JEPD.

Ben.

Steven Avery · 04-10-2007, 06:56 PM

Hi Folks,

Conjectured interpolations are of two kinds.

Those that leave a birfurcated textline,
and those that are conjectured to replace an original text
"without a trace".

The former are the general discussion. You see a text in two
forms, one form includes and one form omits, and you have either
a dropping or an interpolation. Which one you see can depend
on a number of presups, worked through the specific evidences and analysis. Rarely do we have something of the evidentiary clarity as Augustine simply saying that a section was dropped. In most cases we have to simply analyze.

The latter ("without a trace") are very difficult in NT writings,
due to the early wide dissemination in geography and language.
That is why real scholarship basically does not have any such
theories.

e.g. To theorize that a interspersed mulitple post-Trinitarian doctrinal interpolations would take over the Greek and Latin and Syriac textlines 100%, without a trace, is a very, very difficult theory .. essentially absurdity. And that is the type of stuff we get on IIDB. Not scholarship, simply "interpolations of convenience" post-facto designed to fit some other personal pet theory. If it wasn't for the pet theory nobody would even remotely have theorized or dreamed of the interpolations. Clearly such interpolation theories are not real scholarship.

The list above is a bit circular, coming out of a modern textual scholarship realm that is a bit infatuated with "interpolation". And a realm that overlooks some major differences in the NT textual history. In biblical writings omissions would be far more likely and less noticeable than additions. They would not glare out at the reader and call for immediate correction and possibly even scribal discipline. Also omissions can occur easily from 'fatigue' or scribal errors of various types while an interpolation is a conscious effort and one very possibly subject to be noticed and censured.

The overwhelming textual preponderance of the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera, combined with various early references and internal evidences, strongly argues that they are limited omissions rather than interpolations. Surely any proposed evidentiary usage of those sections is assuming what the interpolater theorist is trying to demonstrate. And those are your two major proposed NT examples.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Nazaroo · 04-11-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

The overwhelming textual preponderance of the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera, combined with various early references and internal evidences, strongly argues that they are limited omissions rather than interpolations. Surely any proposed evidentiary usage of those sections is assuming what the interpolater theorist is trying to demonstrate. And those are your two major proposed NT examples.

And one of those, the Pericope de Adultera, doesn't hold up on internal evidence from John, including the version of John without the passage.

This brings one to a new distinction between types of 'interpolation':

(1) Those proposed to have taken place during copying and transmission.

(2) Those proposed to have taken place before 'publication' or serious distribution.

The only way to explain something like John 8:1-11 is to assume that it was a piece of tradition used by the author/compiler of John's Gospel, who carefully built around it and built into the rest of the Gospel 'failsafes' to prevent subsequent tampering and to convey important meaning content to readers.

Thus it becomes a moot point to ask naive questions like, "Is this passage in the style of John?" etc. which they did in the 19th century.

One must first sort out exactly what you want to explore or investigate, and distinguish between what an author may have used as source material, or deleted from his rough work, from what he intended for final publication.

The failure to distinguish the question of how an author went about composing or redacting his work from the question of what he finally intended, is exactly what is behind the foolish attempt to remove the Pericope de Adultera (John 7:53-8:11) from John's final edition of the Gospel.

Textual Criticism and reconstruction should sensibly STOP at the reconstruction of the final or intended publication of the work.

investigations into how a work is composed is an entirely separate field.

neilgodfrey · 04-11-2007, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Let me define my terms here. An author modifies a source document in order to create a new text, which he then passes off in his own name (or under a pseudonym; but not in the name of the original author of the source document). An editor (or interpolator) modifies a source document in order to make changes to an existing text, which he then passes off in the name of the author of the original document.

& not forgetting the culture where it was honorable for an author to publish under the name of another person (often a teacher) to whom he wanted to give credit. Most famous example, Plato writing as Socrates. Is it not equally likely for an editor to slip his own ideas in an existing text of another -- believing them to be inspired by, or the real intent of, that author -- or in an attempt to force that author over to the other side of the debate? (Plus the glosses accidentally brought in to the main text too.)

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

jgibson000 · 04-11-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

& not forgetting the culture where it was honorable for an author to publish under the name of another person (often a teacher) to whom he wanted to give credit. Most famous example, Plato writing as Socrates.

When did Plato publish any of his work under the pseudonym of Socrates? Which of Plato's works is attributed (by Plato himself) to Socrates?

JG

Doug Shaver · 04-11-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

I don't believe there is ever a reason to assume anything is an interpolation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

There appears little doubt that . . . .

. . . particularly in controversial religious literature.

And in each of those cases, we have evidence for an interpolation, right?

And so in each of those cases, we're not really just assuming an interpolation, right?

Doug Shaver · 04-11-2007, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

It would be naive to assume an absence of interpolations

It could be naive. More often, it's dogmatic. In any case, it's unscientific. Just as it is unscientific to assume that there is an interpolation.

Larsguy47 · 04-11-2007, 07:26 PM

I believe the correct understanding is that the "he" was JOHN who saw the heavens open up and a dove descending upon Jesus.

LG47

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-10-2007, 06:56 PM	#12
Steven Avery Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 2,293	Hi Folks, Conjectured interpolations are of two kinds. Those that leave a birfurcated textline, and those that are conjectured to replace an original text "without a trace". The former are the general discussion. You see a text in two forms, one form includes and one form omits, and you have either a dropping or an interpolation. Which one you see can depend on a number of presups, worked through the specific evidences and analysis. Rarely do we have something of the evidentiary clarity as Augustine simply saying that a section was dropped. In most cases we have to simply analyze. The latter ("without a trace") are very difficult in NT writings, due to the early wide dissemination in geography and language. That is why real scholarship basically does not have any such theories. e.g. To theorize that a interspersed mulitple post-Trinitarian doctrinal interpolations would take over the Greek and Latin and Syriac textlines 100%, without a trace, is a very, very difficult theory .. essentially absurdity. And that is the type of stuff we get on IIDB. Not scholarship, simply "interpolations of convenience" post-facto designed to fit some other personal pet theory. If it wasn't for the pet theory nobody would even remotely have theorized or dreamed of the interpolations. Clearly such interpolation theories are not real scholarship. The list above is a bit circular, coming out of a modern textual scholarship realm that is a bit infatuated with "interpolation". And a realm that overlooks some major differences in the NT textual history. In biblical writings omissions would be far more likely and less noticeable than additions. They would not glare out at the reader and call for immediate correction and possibly even scribal discipline. Also omissions can occur easily from 'fatigue' or scribal errors of various types while an interpolation is a conscious effort and one very possibly subject to be noticed and censured. The overwhelming textual preponderance of the ending of Mark and the Pericope Adultera, combined with various early references and internal evidences, strongly argues that they are limited omissions rather than interpolations. Surely any proposed evidentiary usage of those sections is assuming what the interpolater theorist is trying to demonstrate. And those are your two major proposed NT examples. Shalom, Steven Avery

04-11-2007, 07:26 PM	#18
Larsguy47 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Texas Posts: 976	I believe the correct understanding is that the "he" was JOHN who saw the heavens open up and a dove descending upon Jesus. LG47

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.