I think the grounds for treating it as non-Pauline are very weak.
Then we will just have to disagree on that. Given everything else that was apparently going on in the Corinthian church, it is not at all unlikely that this passage has been deliberately inserted. What is more, it is in exactly the same Pharisaical style, with the same 'purity ethic' and rule imposing attitude as the other interpolations that have been identified in 1 and 2 Corinthians. Its presence also fits well with the obvious difficulties Paul was having with those who adamantly opposed him in The Corinthian church, of which there is ample evidence to cause considerable suspicion.
IMHO the suggestion that the other passages are interpolations is just as weak, and as ill-supported by text critical evidence. ISTM that it springs from a combination of a flat, woodenly literalist reading of the text pulling in one direction along with a desire to present Paul as in tune with contemporary western values pulling in the other direction. The result seems to me to be hermeneutically very suspect.
IMHO the suggestion that the other passages are interpolations is just as weak, and as ill-supported by text critical evidence.
But what kind of 'text critical evidence' might you expect to find which might confirm beyond doubt that these were interpolations by person or persons unknown, but who (each?) had a very similar agenda going in the Corinthian church? (i.e anti female, pro Pharisaical 'purity ethic')
Given that it was written by a Christian. Probably by a Jewish Christian, using language deliberately similar to Paul's, in order to pose as genuine Paul, how might you expect, after all this time, to get definitive textual evidence for either its authenticity or its in-authenticity?
ISTM that it springs from a combination of a flat, woodenly literalist reading of the text pulling in one direction . .
The text simply says what it says. There is nothing 'woodenly literalist' about assuming that it has no allegorical application of metaphorical meaning and that it is a crude and quite literal command, imposed upon believers with an uncharacteristically legalistic, (for Paul), attitude.
. . along with a desire to present Paul as in tune with contemporary western values pulling in the other direction. The result seems to me to be hermeneutically very suspect.
As far as I am concerned, Paul was as much a man of his times as any other apostle, they were all 'learning on the job'. We can't expect everything they said or wrote to be universally applicable to every age. We can however, in general, trust that scripture itself, when taken in total, will present to us all the information we require to live the Christian Life in any age, right up until the coming again of The Christ.
The question for me is not whether the commands set forth by a possibly interpolative Christian/Jewish fanatic in the Corinthian church are in line with 'contemporary western values'. Clearly they will not be on such contentious issues such as silencing women in church (1 Cor.14:34-35) or whether the Godhead operates as a hierarchy with a definite chain of command and a strict adherence to regulations, such as is implied by the Jewish interpolator. (1 Cor.11:3-16). The question for me is do these interpolations conflict with an overview of Paul's other theological themes in such a way as to raise questions about the authenticity of the interpolations. I believe they do.
I think the interpolations, (if that is what they are), certainly raise questions concerning what we know of Paul, of his other letters and of the state of affairs in the Corinthian church.
Hermeneutically I don't expect there to be very much that particular discipline can contribute to solving the problem. If they are interpolations, (and they certainly all fit right into what appears to be pre-existing chains of thought, suddenly digressing or adding something new, then returning to the original subject), then they would have been carefully constructed to fool future hermeneutical sleuths, or at least to evade detection of their fraud by their own honest contemporaries.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
First class dialectic, HRB, B. And no, I've not read the book. Read the early blog. Gave up with Brian McLaren, who gives depth to the emergent, as he seems non-inclusive of conservatism. Which affects me partaking of Rob. Just discovered Jonathan Haight on moral psychology and that speaks to me where I live. Leicester! A Muslim city. My boss and colleagues are now 90% Muslim. I want to include. Which therefore means the other. Brexiteers and Trump supporters. Know what I mean? It's all in there. It's not enough to be merely liberal. Where did that come from? Later.
It just occurred to me that Rob Bells writing style is very Martinesque. Or is it that Martin is very Bellesque?
Regarding biblical interpolations being possible, and more numerous than biblical inerantists care to allow, here is an article on 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35.
Ironically though even this author assumes 1 Cor.11:3-16 is genuine Paul because 14:34-35 contradicts it. It has not occurred to him that 1 Cor.11:3-16 might be written by a not so clever Paul imitator.
ISTM that there are only a few options when faced with a contradiction like that:
1 Paul idiotically contradicted himself
2 Some other person inserted the text without realising that it makes Paul idiotically contradict himself
3 There's something else about this that I haven't understood properly, and if I get to the bottom of it then I will understand what Paul is getting at
On the whole my preference is to explore the third of those options first before going to either of the other two. I prefer not to assume that Paul, or possible interpolators (working in their native language and context) failed to notice something which is so obvious to us nearly two millennia later.
Option 3 should always be the default position, I agree but when that fails to satisfy or when it is obviously problematic, (as is the case of 1 Cor.14:34-35 and 1 Cor.11:3-16), other possibilities must be given due consideration. Especially if there are extant earlier manuscripts with 14:34-35 completely missing and later manuscripts with the passage in a number of different places.
The exegetical problems these two passages generate, (particularly 11:3-16), are enough to raise suspicions, and the fact that the BOTH appear to be digressions into unrelated subjects, which if removed, restore the remaining text to sane subject continuity, is powerful evidence that the passages were never there at the origin of the document.
Host hat on
Biblical inerrancy is a Dead Horse topic. I have been reading BroJames posts for years, and I'm sure he's not an inerrantist. If you are annoyed by his style of arguing, you can call him to Hell.
Option 3 should always be the default position, I agree but when that fails to satisfy or when it is obviously problematic, (as is the case of 1 Cor.14:34-35 and 1 Cor.11:3-16)
This is where I disagree with you. I have seen readings which do not interpret the text as we have it in the way that you seem to read it, and do not need to resort to major surgery in it either. Because they need to take seriously the cultural as well as the textual context they are not really reproducible in the space of this kind of online discussion. On 1Cor 11 I was able to access online examples. In relation to this passage I’ve not found an in-depth online resource, but if you have it you might look at Ralph P Martin’s Word Biblicsl Commentary on 2 Corinthians where he considers in depth both the case for interpolation by Paul or by others, and ways of reading the text which don’t require it.
As you are fully entitled to because neither of us have access to any overwhelming substantiating facts confirming our viewpoints.
I have seen readings which do not interpret the text as we have it in the way that you seem to read it, and do not need to resort to major surgery in it either.
If by removing the text to see if it substantially alters the meaning of what's left is 'major surgery' then almost any alternative interpretation of the possibly inserted text will be appealing and seem plausible, surely? If the text is actually missing from the most ancient manuscripts, an explanation is necessary and however plausible the interpretations become it does not obviate the fact that something has been probably added which was not previously there. In the case of 1 Cor.14:34-35 the case is pretty well irrefutable. All that needs to be 'explained' is how it got there and what was the probable reason for it being inserted into an already sensible sentence.
The Corinthian situation would adequately account for that or the growing opposition to the equality of gender preached elsewhere by Paul could account for it as a conservative male backlash, seeking to redress what was considered to be abhorrent by some alienated pharisaical misogynists.
On 1Cor 11 I was able to access online examples. In relation to this passage I’ve not found an in-depth online resource, but if you have it you might look at Ralph P Martin’s Word Biblical Commentary on 2 Corinthians where he considers in depth both the case for interpolation by Paul or by others, and ways of reading the text which don’t require it.
I'm sorry I don't have that volume, Ralph P. Martins's was I think a fairly conservative evangelical approach though, and though not averse to considering the possibility of non Pauline authorship of Ephesians for instance, he was dubious of entering into contemplation of the possibilities of 'tampering of the text' by person or persons unknown, on the grounds that it might interfere with the veracity of scripture from an evangelical point of view. He did however postulate the theory that Luke wrote Ephesians, not Paul.
I have "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" edited by Gerald F. Hawthorn, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, and it is, let's say, 'restrained' in its exegesis of some difficult/suspect interpolations, not wishing to go 'out on a limb' and declare them outright non Pauline. I find Peake's Commentary, though considerably older, far less reticent in calling a spade, a spade, when it comes to suspect Pauline texts. Perhaps because it has no evangelical axe to grind, or am I being too cynical?
All in all though, I am only interested in getting at the truth of whether such possible interpolations are plausible, not what possible effect the fact of it might have on whatever theological edifices rest on the belief that they are truly, irrefutably Pauline and therefore come with the full weight of Apostolic authority for church praxis.
The way I see it is, if there is any doubt at all that these passages are Pauline, then we should at least not require compliance to whatever edicts they claim to be enforcing. To do so might entail outright opposition to the actual apostolic advice of Paul and therefore constitute a dereliction of Christian duty to live by apostolic advice, the life of the Spirit. In themselves they hardly constitute key Christian doctrines. Most are almost irrelevant to any modern Christian church context.
If by ignoring them we genuinely think we are left with a deficient form of Christianity, (as some undoubtedly seem to think), then let those who wish to apply the advice they contain to regulate their own behaviour, do so. Otherwise let the church get on with more important matters of practice.
In any event the texts should remain in place, (perhaps with an official church warning that blind obedience to them can seriously damage your church ). There is no excuse for even further tampering with the scripture we now have by redacting them, however adulterated it may actually be, here and there.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
There was a judge in "The Good Wife" who insisted that the lawyers in her court must say "in my opinion" when making any assertions about the meaning of the facts. Which has always struck me as a good way to approach Kerygmania discussions.
I am keenly aware that I am way overdue on a promise to incorporate some comparisons with Ephesians 5 as a personal contribution to this thread. A combination of greatly increased posting levels in Purgatory (and a corresponding increase in Hosting time), plus lots of RL stuff, has got in the way. Next week!
Comments
Then we will just have to disagree on that. Given everything else that was apparently going on in the Corinthian church, it is not at all unlikely that this passage has been deliberately inserted. What is more, it is in exactly the same Pharisaical style, with the same 'purity ethic' and rule imposing attitude as the other interpolations that have been identified in 1 and 2 Corinthians. Its presence also fits well with the obvious difficulties Paul was having with those who adamantly opposed him in The Corinthian church, of which there is ample evidence to cause considerable suspicion.
But what kind of 'text critical evidence' might you expect to find which might confirm beyond doubt that these were interpolations by person or persons unknown, but who (each?) had a very similar agenda going in the Corinthian church? (i.e anti female, pro Pharisaical 'purity ethic')
Given that it was written by a Christian. Probably by a Jewish Christian, using language deliberately similar to Paul's, in order to pose as genuine Paul, how might you expect, after all this time, to get definitive textual evidence for either its authenticity or its in-authenticity?
The text simply says what it says. There is nothing 'woodenly literalist' about assuming that it has no allegorical application of metaphorical meaning and that it is a crude and quite literal command, imposed upon believers with an uncharacteristically legalistic, (for Paul), attitude.
As far as I am concerned, Paul was as much a man of his times as any other apostle, they were all 'learning on the job'. We can't expect everything they said or wrote to be universally applicable to every age. We can however, in general, trust that scripture itself, when taken in total, will present to us all the information we require to live the Christian Life in any age, right up until the coming again of The Christ.
The question for me is not whether the commands set forth by a possibly interpolative Christian/Jewish fanatic in the Corinthian church are in line with 'contemporary western values'. Clearly they will not be on such contentious issues such as silencing women in church (1 Cor.14:34-35) or whether the Godhead operates as a hierarchy with a definite chain of command and a strict adherence to regulations, such as is implied by the Jewish interpolator. (1 Cor.11:3-16). The question for me is do these interpolations conflict with an overview of Paul's other theological themes in such a way as to raise questions about the authenticity of the interpolations. I believe they do.
I think the interpolations, (if that is what they are), certainly raise questions concerning what we know of Paul, of his other letters and of the state of affairs in the Corinthian church.
Hermeneutically I don't expect there to be very much that particular discipline can contribute to solving the problem. If they are interpolations, (and they certainly all fit right into what appears to be pre-existing chains of thought, suddenly digressing or adding something new, then returning to the original subject), then they would have been carefully constructed to fool future hermeneutical sleuths, or at least to evade detection of their fraud by their own honest contemporaries.
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
It just occurred to me that Rob Bells writing style is very Martinesque. Or is it that Martin is very Bellesque?
You should read the book
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/pauline-interpolations.html
Ironically though even this author assumes 1 Cor.11:3-16 is genuine Paul because 14:34-35 contradicts it. It has not occurred to him that 1 Cor.11:3-16 might be written by a not so clever Paul imitator.
1 Paul idiotically contradicted himself
2 Some other person inserted the text without realising that it makes Paul idiotically contradict himself
3 There's something else about this that I haven't understood properly, and if I get to the bottom of it then I will understand what Paul is getting at
On the whole my preference is to explore the third of those options first before going to either of the other two. I prefer not to assume that Paul, or possible interpolators (working in their native language and context) failed to notice something which is so obvious to us nearly two millennia later.
The exegetical problems these two passages generate, (particularly 11:3-16), are enough to raise suspicions, and the fact that the BOTH appear to be digressions into unrelated subjects, which if removed, restore the remaining text to sane subject continuity, is powerful evidence that the passages were never there at the origin of the document.
Biblical inerrancy is a Dead Horse topic. I have been reading BroJames posts for years, and I'm sure he's not an inerrantist. If you are annoyed by his style of arguing, you can call him to Hell.
Host hat off
As you are fully entitled to because neither of us have access to any overwhelming substantiating facts confirming our viewpoints.
If by removing the text to see if it substantially alters the meaning of what's left is 'major surgery' then almost any alternative interpretation of the possibly inserted text will be appealing and seem plausible, surely? If the text is actually missing from the most ancient manuscripts, an explanation is necessary and however plausible the interpretations become it does not obviate the fact that something has been probably added which was not previously there. In the case of 1 Cor.14:34-35 the case is pretty well irrefutable. All that needs to be 'explained' is how it got there and what was the probable reason for it being inserted into an already sensible sentence.
The Corinthian situation would adequately account for that or the growing opposition to the equality of gender preached elsewhere by Paul could account for it as a conservative male backlash, seeking to redress what was considered to be abhorrent by some alienated pharisaical misogynists.
I'm sorry I don't have that volume, Ralph P. Martins's was I think a fairly conservative evangelical approach though, and though not averse to considering the possibility of non Pauline authorship of Ephesians for instance, he was dubious of entering into contemplation of the possibilities of 'tampering of the text' by person or persons unknown, on the grounds that it might interfere with the veracity of scripture from an evangelical point of view. He did however postulate the theory that Luke wrote Ephesians, not Paul.
I have "Dictionary of Paul and his Letters" edited by Gerald F. Hawthorn, Ralph P. Martin and Daniel G. Reid, and it is, let's say, 'restrained' in its exegesis of some difficult/suspect interpolations, not wishing to go 'out on a limb' and declare them outright non Pauline. I find Peake's Commentary, though considerably older, far less reticent in calling a spade, a spade, when it comes to suspect Pauline texts. Perhaps because it has no evangelical axe to grind, or am I being too cynical?
All in all though, I am only interested in getting at the truth of whether such possible interpolations are plausible, not what possible effect the fact of it might have on whatever theological edifices rest on the belief that they are truly, irrefutably Pauline and therefore come with the full weight of Apostolic authority for church praxis.
The way I see it is, if there is any doubt at all that these passages are Pauline, then we should at least not require compliance to whatever edicts they claim to be enforcing. To do so might entail outright opposition to the actual apostolic advice of Paul and therefore constitute a dereliction of Christian duty to live by apostolic advice, the life of the Spirit. In themselves they hardly constitute key Christian doctrines. Most are almost irrelevant to any modern Christian church context.
If by ignoring them we genuinely think we are left with a deficient form of Christianity, (as some undoubtedly seem to think), then let those who wish to apply the advice they contain to regulate their own behaviour, do so. Otherwise let the church get on with more important matters of practice.
In any event the texts should remain in place, (perhaps with an official church warning that blind obedience to them can seriously damage your church
____________________________________
In Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us. 2 Cor. 5:19. Love covers a multitude of sins. 1 Pet. 4:8.
I am keenly aware that I am way overdue on a promise to incorporate some comparisons with Ephesians 5 as a personal contribution to this thread. A combination of greatly increased posting levels in Purgatory (and a corresponding increase in Hosting time), plus lots of RL stuff, has got in the way. Next week!