Toto

Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (or via: amazon.co.uk) by William O. Walker, Jr.

This is a book with a breathtaking list price ~$100 for a 270 page book, discounted by a third of that on Eisenbrauns. The economics of this escape me. I found an affordable copy, and would like to summarize Walker's discussion of methodology, since the issue of interpolations has come up in two separate threads and it doesn't look like most people here will have access to the book. My comments are in [square brackerts].

William O. Walker is (or was before his recent retirement) the Jennie Farris Railey King Professor of Religion at Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas.

In his preface, he states that there is no general scholarly agreement on the possibility or plausibility of interpolations in the Pauline letters. Scholars are more inclined to view entire epistles as pseudonymous than to pick out parts of a letter as later additions.

Walker spends some pages distinguishing glosses, interpolations and redactions, then decides that they are all basically the same phenomenon. A gloss in an explanatory note, generally written in the margin or between the lines by a reader, scribe, or even the author, meant to clarify, explain, or comment on an item in the text. At times, a scribe might copy a gloss into the text, where it would be reproduced in later copies. An interpolation is foreign material inserted deliberately and directly into the text of a document. Redactions are distinguished from interpolations in that interpolations leave evidence of the insertion, while redactions smooth over the transition, and are embedded into the fabric of the text.

Chapter 1: The A Priori Probability of Interpolations.

Interpolations were well known in a wide diversity of documents in the ancient world, and were not necessarily thought of as forgery. Educated people knew that there had been changes to most ancient poets and believed that it was possible for critics to recover the original text; Zenodatus, the first head of the library in Alexandria in the 3rd c. BCE was a famous textual critic, known for his ability to ferret out interpolations in the text of Homer, based on four criteria 1) a break in continuity 2) lack of art 3) errors about ancient events, and 4) stylistic differences. Interpolations have been detected in many other classical authors including, most relevant here, letters of philosophers (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Seneca), especially letters of exhortation meant to guide and mold the character of disciples - the classical form most analogous to Paul's letters.

In addition, there is ample evidence that early Christians themselves interpolated material in Jewish writings - e.g., the Testamonium of Josephus, also the Sibylline Oracles (the ancient Celsus charged these were interpolated, and it is confirmed by most modern scholars.) There is also general agreement that early Christians rewrote and expanded other ancient Jewish psuedepigraphical texts, including the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, the Testaments of the 12 Patriarchs, the Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah, and 4 Ezra.

It has been claimed that Christians would not interpolate Holy Scripture, but of course the Pauline letters were not accorded the status of Scripture until well after they were written - Scripture in early Christianity referred to the Jewish Scripture. However, in the 2nd c, Jewish writers claim to have been expunging Christian additions to the Septuagint, so there is no reason to believe that Paul's letters would have been less likely to be interpolated.

All of the talk of strata or layers in the gospels describes successive interpolations, common in both OT and NT. [Is there any reason to think that ancient writers would have interpolated the gospels but not Paul's letters?]

Walker states that the fact that there was wholesale forgery of Pauline letters is evidence that there might well be interpolations in the "genuine" ones. He also notes that Paul's letters are notably an odd literary form, not fitting into any clear category, perhaps because they contain so many interpolations.

So interpolations are to be expected.

Chapter 2 Text-critical Concerns

There is little or no text-critical evidence (meaning variant readings) for interpolations. But Walker argues that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Some critics take the lack of textual variants as a final word, but Walker says that all we know is the state of the manuscripts at the end of the 2nd century, not what was there for the century before that. (There are two exceptions where there are textual variants: Rom 16:25-27 and 1 Cor 14.34-35.)

In support of the possibility of interpolations, Walker cites Ehrman, who says that the early years of Christianity were a period of creativity, while later years tended towards strict reproduction. He also cites Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament: "until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely" and "this was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not yet attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves filled with the Spirit". Koestler apparently agrees.

In short, there was ample opportunity, means and motive for interpolations.

Why is there no surviving text critical evidence of variant readings? Walker replies with a question. Why are there no early texts of any Pauline letters? And no earlier collections? It is clear, he says that Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp and the author of 2 Peter were acquainted with more than one letter [unless, of course, those references were forged, something that should be considered, especially with Ignatius] and the early appearance of the pseudo-Paulines suggests that Paul's letters were known outside the communities they addressed. No earlier forms of any letters have survived, although 2 Cor is widely regarded as composite.

Walker lists two possibilities: the final edited version of the letters made all earlier versions obsolete, or Christians suppressed all earlier versions.

The idea that Christians suppressed all variant texts of Paul's letters is rejected by some as a conspiracy theory, but Walker points out that Marcion's version is missing. [If Marcion's version of Paul?s letters could be suppressed, so could other variant texts.]

Marcion accused his opponents of interpolating material; his opponents accused him of deleting material. "As a matter of historical principle, we cannot simply reject the word of Marcion about this." P-L Couchoud argued that Marcion preserved the original text. It seems at least possible that Marcion deleted some material, and his orthodox opponents added some.

All we know is that the surviving text is the text promoted and perhaps produced by the winners in the struggles of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The capacity of Christians to suppress manuscripts is shown by the example of Tatian's Diatesseron, which the Syrian episcopate made a determined effort to put an end to, so that no copy has survived except for a single leaf of vellum.

An additional factor supporting the possibility that orthodox Christians successfully eliminated any variant copies of Paul's letters is that the church of 180 was more centralized and united that it had been before or after, so the emerging orthodox leadership was in a position to standardize texts.

For those who reject anything like a conspiracy theory, Robert Price has proposed that scribes would try to err on the side of inclusiveness and always copy the longer version, so as not to lose anything precious. This would lead eventually to the longest versions surviving, with all interpolations.

Chapter 3 Burden of Proof

It would appear that the burden of proof is on those who would claim that the Pauline letters do not contain any interpolations. The burden of proof as to whether any particular passage is interpolated is another matter. Darrell J. Doughty maintains that the burden of proof lies with anyone claiming the authenticity of any passage. Walker decides to accept that anyone arguing that any particular passage is an interpolation bears the burden of proof on that passage. However, he argues that the burden should not be onerous, it should not be so high that no one can ever prove interpolations. The question is not "is this passage an interpolation" but "is this passage one of the interpolations that are likely to be found in the Pauline letters?" And once one interpolation is identified, it is more likely that there are others.

[Walker does not use the differing standards of proof in civil and criminal trials, but this seems analogous to proof by the preponderance of evidence versus proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The level of proof demanded can determine the result, so that OJ was found not guilty in a criminal trial but liable in a civil trial.]

[It should be noted that JP Holding, in commenting on an article by Sid Green that uses Walker's framework, is misleading <to be diplomatic, *cough*> when he quotes Walker's work..

Holding states:

You can see from my summary above how Holding misrepresents Walker's analysis. In addition, the quoted material, which is not cited to any particular page, does not appear to be from Walker's book, and does not represent his conclusion, only some mythical "consensus" (which Walker says does not exist.)]

Chapter 4 Evidence for Interpolation

While the ultimate test may come down to the reviewer's intuition or feel for the text, Walker discusses Winsome Munroe's nine criteria for interpolation. There are five initial indicators of interpolation: direct textual, ideological, stylistic/linguistic, contextual, the criteria of literary dependence; plus four confirming factors: literary/historical coherence, omission in external attestation, contextual plausibility, and historical plausibility.)

Walker, however, prefers to speak of types of evidence rather than criteria, since "criteria" might imply a greater degree of certainty than is warranted. He takes Munro's criteria, but does not include literary dependence (which is virtually impossible to establish and might serve as evidence of common authorship). He subsumes "omission in external attestation" under text-critical evidence. He then reorganizes the criteria into eight "types of evidence" that might indicate the presence of an interpolation. No one type of evidence can stand by itself.

1. Text-Critical Evidence There are three types of evidence in this category.

1. The absence of a passage from one or more ancient witnesses. Only the doxology of Rom. 16.25-27 is missing from any of the witnesses.
2. The appearance of the passage at different locations.
3. Inexplicable failure of an early Christian writer to cite a passage.

2. Contextual evidence for Interpolation. There are a number of passages that exhibit little or no relationship to their immediate contexts. They interrupt the context and sometimes even contradict them, and when these passages are removed, the structure of the remaining text or flow of thought is improved. These passages can often stand alone as independent units. These are also often marked by one or both of these phenomena: a repetition of a significant word or phrase from the verse immediately preceding the apparent interpolation, and/or the presence of one or more apparently insignificant textual variants. Both of these phenomena could be attempts to improve the otherwise rough transition between the two sections of text.

3. Linguistic evidence would be the presence of what appear to be non-Pauline vocabulary and/or stylistic features: grammar, genre, syntax, rhetorical devices. This evidence is always problematic. The strongest case for interpolation is made when the linguistic features are distinctively post-Pauline, (making it difficult to argue that Paul quotes from another writer) so that language characteristic of the Pastorals or the gospels/Acts indicates interpolation. But even here, these later works may include pre-Pauline material. Linguistic features that are characteristic of Paul do not necessarily prove Pauline authorship, as the interpolator may have copied Paul's style expertly. The danger here is circularity. To determine which linguistic characteristics pertain to a certain writer, a prior judgment is required as to what that writer has in fact written. And there may be other reasons for a writer to adopt a different vocabulary or style for a different audience. But this evidence may strengthen the possibility that the text contains interpolations.

4. Ideational evidence for interpolation would be content that is not Pauline, or is anti-Pauline. An example is 1 Cor 14.34-35, forbidding women from speaking in church, which contradicts many of Paul?s other statements and presumed practices.

5. Comparative evidence for interpolation would be data suggesting that significant features of a passage - linguistic, ideational, and/or situational - are closer to known non-Pauline works, especially post-Pauline and pseudo-Pauline works ? than to the authentic Pauline letters.

6. Situational evidence for interpolation would be data suggesting that a passage reflects a different situation, occasion, or circumstance that the remainder of the letter. Caution must be used with this evidence, as it is speculative to reconstruct the situations of Paul's letters.

7. Motivational evidence - why would someone want to add this passage to Paul's letters? This is also highly speculative and is of value primarily as corroboration. There is also the possibility that Paul added the material to the letter himself.

8. Locational evidence - why would this passage be inserted in this location? This is also speculative.

In summary, the attempt to identify non-Pauline interpolations must be satisfied with probabilities, not certainties.

In the next chapters, Walker uses the above framework to consider 1 Cor 11.3-16 (calling on women to cover their hair and be dependent on a man), 1 Cor 2.6-16 (wisdom of this age, the rulers of this age crucified the Lord), 1 Cor 13 (Faith Hope and Love), Rom 1.18-2.29 (the wrath of God is being revealed), Rom 16.25-27 (revelation of the mystery hidden in long ages past now revealed through the prophetic writings), 2 Cor 6.14-7.1 (do not be equally yoked with unbelievers), 1 Thess 2.13-16 (the Jews killed Jesus) , Rom 13.1-7 (There is no authority except that which God has established.)

In an epilogue, Walker tries to sooth the feelings of those who think he is attacking the Bible's authority, or advocating eliminating passages from Scripture. This is worth reading to realize the social pressure even now against scholarship that is in any way critical of Christianity's narrative of its early history.

My own comments:

This framework throws a different light on a number of questions. At first it seems to make Doherty's job a lot easier. Instead of invoking a strange worldview with layers of mystical reality that even he admits is hard to keep in mind, the few references to a human Jesus in Paul's letters might be described as interpolations by the victorious orthodox. The more concrete references to the crucifixion show up in the list of interpolations. On the other hand, it makes the dating of Paul's letters to around 50 CE to be much more speculative. Since Paul's letters are virtually the only Christian documents dated to well before 70 CE, it is not so obvious that there was any Christianity before that year.

Harold Leidner, on the other hand, had argued that Paul lived well past 70 CE. But his evidence appears to be a passage that Walker shows is likely to be interpolated.

In any case, early Christianity now seems even murkier than it had before.

Amaleq13

Very interesting review of a (at least for me) prohibitively expensive book!

Would you mind elaborating on this point? Specifically, what is "odd" about Paul's letters that prevents it from being easily categorized?


Thanks in advance.

Toto

Walker mentions the oddness of Paul's letters because other scholars have mentioned it. It has been claimed that Paul's letters are not like other documents, so the processes observed regarding the gospels might not have applied. Walker rejects this.

For letters, Paul's letters are very long, verging on treatises. On the other hand, they are not as long or as well crafted as essay-letters from Hellenistic writers of the highest level of culture, education and rhetorical training. They occupy a middle ground.

Gawen

Unless I misunderstood, it seems as if Walker has shot down his own Gospels including Paul's. He agrees with interpolations, redactions and glossing. He just wants the burden of proof switched to the other side? But biblio-historians have all the evidence they need, so why confirm them and then seek proof elsewhere? I don't get it, unless there was so much double-talk that I missed it.

Toto

All the evidence of what?

Gawen

Of interpolations, glosses and redactions. Isn't that generally thought true?

Toto

Not generally.

Gawen

I wish I were better at this...

Toto

Hi Gawen - what were you trying to say? That interpolations are obviously to be expected, so why write a book about it?

Gawen

Yes. If he's a Professor of Religion why write something that would or could refute or at the very least bring doubt of the inerrancy or rather, inspired word of the bible? As a professor at Trinity, I can't imagine this went well. And, I was under the assumption the interpolations, glosses and redactions were 'generally' known, however argued over.

This quote means Walker wants to shift the proof. I can't seem to grasp what Walker is saying. It seems he says, "Yeah, I believe there are discrepencies, but you have to prove it". What's to prove if he already agrees?

But then, if he changes or omits parts of Munroe's nine criteria for interpolation, how can he make Doherty's job any easier? If Munroe's criteria are scholarly accepted, Walkers ideas should be wrong. It seems that Walker has only made early Christianity murky for himself until someone can back him up. I'd like to know what you (Toto) think.