2014-09-08

List of scholars believing Paul’s letters were interpolated

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

sturdyWe know that forgery and interpolation of texts were very common in the ancient world so it is odd to hear some theologians insist that we should discount the possibility of any of Paul’s letters had been so doctored unless and until we find very compelling reasons — usually only by means of manuscript evidence — to think otherwise. Is this some hangover from the days when the Bible was supposed to be sacred and inerrant?

We do know not all biblical scholars take this advice, however. Here is a conveniently set out list of scholars who have argued that specific verses in the “authentic” Pauline letters were added by Christian scribes after Paul had departed the scene. The list is compiled from John Sturdy’s notes and published in 2007. Sturdy died in 1996 so the list includes no scholars who have added arguments for interpolations since then.

The publication, Redrawing the Boundaries: The Date of Early Christian Literature, was from a manuscript that Sturdy had been working on but never finished. His intent was to refute the early dating that had been published by in 1976 by John Robinson: Redating the New Testament. “This is simply mischief!”, said Sturdy more than once of Robinson’s book.

Here’s the list. Some of the names included are quite interesting. It’s also a good guide to see which verses have had most arguments for spuriousness pointed at them. (One passage I have suspected of being a scribal addition is Romans 1:3ff. Herman Detering roused my suspicions about those verses and others have also suspected it to be an attempt to “rewrite” Paul. See Another Possible Intepolation. But I see in this list the verses attract only one other scholar: Loisy.)

66                                  Redrawing the Boundaries

Appendix: List of Scholars Who  Have Deemed Various  Parts of the Corpus Paulinum Inauthentic

Romans

1:3-4 Loisy (1935: 9).

1:18-32, parts by Michelsen  (1876); Couchoud (1926); Harrison (1936:298f.); Carrington (1939); Hawkins (1941); O’Neill (1975: 40-45, continues until Rom. 2:29); Munro  (1983: 112f).

2:1, Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal  note).

2:13, Schmithals (1975, marginal  note).

2:14f., Weiss sees as a gloss.

2:15b-16, Sahlin (1953).

2:16, Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal  note); Koester.

3:9-20, Hawkins (1941).

3:10-18, Weisse (1833); Pierson  and Naber  (1886); Michelsen  (1887); van Manen  (1880); Schenke  and Fischer (1978: 142f.); O’Neill  (1975, vv. 12-18).

3:23-26, Hawkins  (1941).

3:24/25-26, Talbert (1966).

4:1 and 4:17b, Schenke  and Fischer (1978: 144) make the complicated suggestion that 4:17b really belongs at the end of 4:1. Weisse omits4:1.

5:1, Schmithals (1975, probably redactional).

5:5-10, Sahlin (1953) accepts in order 5, 8, 6, 9, 10; Schenke and Fischer (1978: 144) agree.

5:6-7, Keck (1979: 237-38); Schmithals (1975, marginal note).

5:7 Semler  (1810) thinks added  later.

5:12-21, Barnes (1947: 239); O’Neill (1975: 96-107).

6:17b, Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal  note).

7:25b, Bultmann; Schmithals (1975, marginal  note).

8:1. Weisse omits; Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal note).

10:17, Bultmann (1947); Schmithals (1975, marginal  note).

13:1-7, Pallis (1920); Loisy (1922: 104, 128; 1935: 30-31; 1936: 287); Windisch (1931); cf. Barnikol (1931b); Eggenberger (1945); Barnes (1947: 302, possibly); Kallas (1964-65); Munro (1983: 56f., 65-67); Sahlin (1953); Bultmann (1947).

15 and 16 together,  Baur (1836b; 1849; 1845); Schwegler  (1846: I, 296); Zeller (1854: 488); Volkmar (1856; 1875: xvff., 129ff.); Lucht (1871); Ryder (1898); Smith (1901); Scholten  (1876); Davidson (1882: 125-28; 1894: 126-31).

15:4b, Schmithals (1975, redactional).

16 as a whole, Weiss (1872); Hawkins  (1941); Knox (1954); Friedrich (1961).

16:17-20, Volkmar (1875); Pfleiderer  (1887: 145).

16:17-18, Loisy (1935: 29).

16:24, Cranfield; Mangold  (1884).

16:25-27, Reiche (1833); Krehl (1845); Delitzsch (1849); Davidson (1868:134-37; 1882:118-21; 1894:120-23); Lucht (1871); Hilgenfeld (1872: 469ff.; 1875:326f.); Pfleiderer (1873: 314); Seyerlen (1874); Volkmar (1875); Schultz (1876); Mangold  (1884: 44-81); Bruckner; Lipsius; von Weizsacker (1886: 334); Ji.ilicher (1894: 71); Corssen (1909: 1-45); Lake (1914: 359f.); Wendland (1912: 351); Weiss (1917: 534); Burton  (1921: 509); Loisy(1922: 106, 134); Harnack (1931); Barnikol (1931a; 1933:116-48); Dodd (1932: 245); Manson (1948); Gaugler  (1945); Zuntz  (1953); Michel  (1955: 19f.); Barrett  (1958: 10-13,  286); Friedrich  in RGG3    V, 1138; Beare (1962b: 112f.); Marxsen (1964); Fuller (1966: 56); Fitzmyer in Brown, Fitzmyer  and Murphy (eds) (1990: 292); Bornkamm (1969); Lohse (1972); Kasemann (1973); Cranfield (1975:6-9); Schmithals (1975); Vielhauer (1975: 187f.); Gamble (1977: 107-10, 123f.); Schenke  and Fischer (1978: I, 136f.); Elliot (1981); Dunn  (1988: 912f.); Ziesler (1989: 25); Donfried  (1970); Kamiah (1956).

1 Corinthians

As a whole Bauer; Pierson; Loman

1:2, Weiss (1917: 534); Gilmour  (1962: 688).

1:2b, Weiss (1910: xli, 3f.); Dinkier  in RGG3;  Schmithals (1965: 188f; 197  258);Schenke(1978:92f).

1:12, Weiss; Heinrici (1880); Pearce in Bowyer (1812); Goguel (1926: IV, 2); Michaelis.

1:16, Holsten  (1880: 461 n.9, not asserted absolutely).

2:6-16, Widmann (1979).

4:6, Straatman; van de Sande Bakhuyzen (1880).

4:17, Weiss (1910: xli, 120); Gilmour; Dinkier.

6:3, Holsten.

7:8, Holsten.

7:11ab, Holsten.

7:14, Holsten.

7:17, Weiss (1910: xli); Gilmour; Dinkier.

7:17-24, Munro  (1983: 80f.).

7:36-38, Holsten; Barnes (1947: 229).

8, as a whole, Munro  (1983).

10, as a whole, Barnes (1947).

10:4b, Holsten.

10:13, Clemen;  Pierson and Naber (1886: 81f.).

10:17, Clemen.

10:23-11:1, Munro 1983: 75-79).

10:29b-30,  Hitzig; Zuntz.

11:2-16, Loisy (1935: 60f., 73f.,); Walker (1975; 1983; 1989); Cope (1978); Trompf  (1980); Munro (1983: 69-75).

11:5b-6, Holsten.

11:10, Holsten; Lang; Wassenbergh (1815: 66); Straatman; Baljon; Owen; Lotze; Neander;  Baur (1845: 636).

11:11, Straatman.

11:11f., Weiss (1910: xli).

11:13-15, Holsten.

11:16, Straatman; Prins; Baljon; Weiss (1910: xli, 276f.); Gilmour; Dinkier.

11:23-28,  Straatman; Bruins;  Lehman  and  Fridrichsen (1922); Loisy (1922: 43, 67; 1935: 69-74).

11:30, Prins.

13, in entirety,  Lehmann and  Fridrichsen;  Loisy (1922: 43, 67); (1935: 69-74); Barnes (1947: 230); Titus (1959); Schenke  (1978).

14:33-38, Munro (1983: 68f.).

14:33, Weiss (1910: xli); Gilmour; Dinkier; Loisy (1935: 73).

14:33b-35, Kiimmel; Straatman;  van  de  Sande  Bakhuyzen (1880); Holsten  (1880: 495-97);  van Manen  (1880: 284-85);  Genootsch (1880: 259f.); Schmiedel  (1891); Weinel; Weiss (1910: 342); Allworthy (1917: 95-97); Dinkier; Loisy (1922: 43; 1933: 20 n.6; 1948: 363; 1961: 287); Leipoldt (1952); Zuntz  (1953); Wendland (1954); Conzelmann (1969: 289f.); Ruef (1971: 154f.); Scroggs (1972); Munro (1973; 1983: 15f.); Jewett (1978); Perrin and Duling (1982: 180).

14:34-35, only Heinrici;  Pfleiderer (1887: 169n); Easton (1947); Fascher (1953); Leipoldt (1954); Schweizer (1959: 152); Fitzer (1963); Bittlinger (1967); Barrett (1987: 699-708); Murphy-O’Connor (1979: 81-84). Cf. also Clemen  (1894: 49f., as displaced  but not therefore ungenuine).

15, as a whole, Barnes (1947: 228).

15:3-11, Straatman, van Manen, Teylers.

15:5b, Holsten.

15:2lf., 42-49, O’Neill (1975: 96).

16:22, Schmiedel;  Baljon (1884); Holsten  (1880: 450f.); Rovers; Bruins.

2 Corinthians

1:1b, Schmithals; Schenke and Fischer (1978: 112).

3:12-18 and 4:3, 4, 6, Halmel (1904).

3:17, 18b, Schmithals (1958; 1969: 286ff.).

4:4, Baljon; Wassenbergh.

5:16, Schmithals; Giittgemanns (1966: 290ff.).

6:14-7:1, Schrader (1835: IV, 300f.); Ewald (1857: 12, 282f.); Straatman (1863: I, 138-46);  Baljon; Holsten  (1868: 386); Michelsen  (1873); Rovers (1874: I, 137); van de Sande Bakhuyzen  (1880: 266f.); Davidson (1882: 60; 1894: 63); Krenke!(1890: 332); Halmel (1904: 115-29); Jiilicher and Fascher (1931: 87f.); Groussow (1951a, 1951b); Dinkier in RGG 3 IV, 18, 22; Fitzmyer (1961); Gnilka  (1968); Georgi  (1986/7:  21-22);  Marxsen  (1964); Braun (1966: 201-204);  Fuller (1966: 41-42); Wendland (1968); Rissi (1969: 79-80); Klinzing (1971: 172-82); Dahl (1972: 62-69); Betz (1973); Gunther (1973: 308-13); Perrin and Duling (1982: 182); Vielhauer  (1975: 153); Bultmann (1976: 169); Schenke and  Fischer  (1978:  llOf.,  117f.); Lang; Findeis (1983: 66); Klauck (1988: 60-61); Wiirzburg (1988: 60-61); Kuhn (1951-52; 1954); Jewett (1978: 433 n.4).

11:32-12:1, Michelsen  (1873).

12:2, Matthes; Rovers (1870); Scholten  (1876).

13:13, Burton  (1921: 509); Goodspeed (1945; 57); Furnish  (1984: 587); Barrett.

Galatians

Burton  (1921: lxix-lxx) notes those who doubt  the epistle as a whole. They include (NOT Evanson), Bauer (1850-52); Loman (1882); Pierson (1878); Pierson and Naber (1886: 26f.); Steck (1888); van Manen; Friedrich (1891); Kalthoff (1904); Johnson  (1887); and Robertson.

O’Neill (1972) suggests extensive interpolations: see Murphy-O’Connor in RB 82 (1975: 143f.).

2:3-8, Warner (1951).

2:7b-8, Straatman, van Manen (1890: 513ff.); Volter (1890: 90); Barnikol (1931a); Schenke and Fischer (1978: 79-81); O’Neill  (1972).

2:18, Schmithals (1973).

3:16b, Burton  (1921: 509f.).

3:19a, not in text of P46; it contradicts the context, and can be explained from Romans 5:20. See Gaston (1982); Eshbaugh (1979); and Walker (1988).

3:20, Burton  (1921: 190-92. “possibly”).

4:25a, Schmithals (1973); Schenke; O’Neill (1975); Bentley (1962); Mace (1729, who  omits  it from  Sinaiticus);  Mill; Schott;  Prins  (1872); Naber (1878, “insertion work  of an ass”); Holsten  (1880: 17lf.);  van de Sande Bakhuyzen {1880}; Baljon {1889: 185}; Thijm  (1890}; Cramer {1890}; Clemen;  Burton {1921: 259f.).

5:7, whole verse Scott.

5:7b, Semler; Koppe; Holsten {1880: 175}.

5:16-24, [Sturdy asks how Pauline this really sounds].

Philippians

Baur and Schwegler held the whole epistle non-Pauline; as apparently did Volkmar and Hitzig

Davidson  {1882: 164)  refers  to early division  theories. For  the early attempt to exclude parts of the epistle see Volter (1892}; Clemen {1894).

1:1b, Bruckner;  Volter {1892}; Schmiedel  {1902}; Moffatt {1918: 171}; Riddle and Hutson (1946: 123); Marxsen {1964: 57}; Fischer{1973}; Schenke and Fischer (1978: 126}.

2:6-11, Loisy {1935: 91f.; 1948: 364}; Bruckner  (1885; 1890: xix, 219ff.}; but cp. Marxsen  (1969: 22-37}; Holsten {1876}; Barnikol {1932b}; Barnes (1947: 244, “perhaps open to some doubt; it might be a development at the end of the first century of our  era”}; Berlage {1880: 80ff.}; Schmiedel  {in part).

3:1-4.9 Schrader apud Davidson {1882: 158).

3:1, Clemen.

3:2, 5, Weisse.

3:9, Wassenbergh.

3:10f., Schmiedel.

3:18, Laurent.

3:20, Bruckner; Clemen.

4:2f., Ewald.

4:3, Schenke {1978: 128).

1 Thessalonians

Queried  in whole by Schrader {1836}; Baur {1845: 480ff.}; Noack {1857}; Volkmar (1867: 114ff.}; van der Vies (1865}; Holsten {1877).

1:2-10, Fuchs {1963-64).

1:9-10, Friedrich (1965}.

2:1-16, Loisy (1935: 85).

2:13, Wassenbergh.

2:14-16  van der  Vies; Ritschl {1847}; Rodrigues  {1876}; Pierson  and Naber;  Spitta  (1889: 501; 1901: 190}; Schmiedel  {1891: 17}; Pfleiderer; Teichmann (1896}; Mansfield;  Drummond; Loisy {1922: 135, 139; 1935: 85}; Goguel; Bammel (1959}; Eckhart {1961}; Schmithals {1965: 89ff.).

2:15f., Koster {1980}; Schmidt  (1983}.

3:2b-5a, Loisy (1922:135, 139f.).

3:5, Clemen; von Dobschiitz; Eckhart.

4:1-8, 10b-12, Eckhart.

4:1-12, Munro {1983: 86-88).

4:1, Schenke  and  Fischer (1978: 70); Friedrich  {1973; 1976}; Harnisch {1973}; Eckhart {1961}; Hitzig (1856}; Schmiedel (1891: 34}; Weiss; Schenke and Fischer {1978: I, 70).

Philemon

Queried by Baur and Holtzmann.

5-6, Bruckner.

19a, Zuntz.

Jiilicher and Fascher (1931: 23f.) lists scholars  who find interpolations in Philemon.  These include  Clemen;  Paulus (1904}; and Hagge {1876}.

6 Comments

  • 2014-09-09 12:40:02 UTC - 12:40 | Permalink

    Why do such a huge number of theologians consider Romans 16:25-27 to be interpolated? It sounds the same as undisputed passages.

    25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

    26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

    27 To God only wise, be glory through Jesus Christ for ever. Amen.

    • Neil Godfrey
      2014-09-09 20:11:00 UTC - 20:11 | Permalink

      From The Text of the New Testament, 2nd ed, Kurt and Barbara Aland, pp. 295-296:

      Major disturbances in the transmission of the New Testament text can always be identified with confidence, even if they occurred during the second century or at its beginning. For example, about A.D. 140 Marcion dealt radically with the ending of Romans, breaking it off with chapter 14. This bold stroke, together with the two different endings (Rom. 16:24 and 16:25-27) which were then added, despite the presence of the solemn epistolary conclusion at 16:20 (because its function was obscured by the greetings appended at 16:21-23), all resulted in a proliferation of readings in the tradition.

      Kurt Aland has enumerated no fewer than fifteen different forms here in his Neutestamentliche Entwürfe (Munich: 1979), without counting the further varieties represented by the subgroups of the fifteen forms. (Considerations of space preclude more than a reference here to this essay or to the chapter in the same volume on the ending of Mark; the facts can only be mentioned in their broadest outlines. The discussion of the endings of Mark on pp. 292f. deals only with the external evidence; for the internal criteria the reader is referred to this essay.)

      This confirms the tenacity of the tradition, but it also shows something else (which is new for the beginner, although it is a familiar fact for the experienced textual critic — or at least it should be): the limitless variety and complexity of the New Testament textual tradition serves the function of a seismograph because the higher it registers the greater the earthquake, or in the present context the greater the disruption of the New Testament textual tradition. The textual tradition for the conclusion of Romans is so complicated that it can be dealt with only by analyzing the text into four units: 1:1-14:23 = A, 15:1-16:23 = B, 16:24 = C, 16:25-27 = D. The earliest surviving form of the tradition appears as follows:

      1. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, 048, important minuscue, the Coptic tradition, and important Vulgate manuscripts:

      1:1-16.23 + 16:25-27 (A + B + D)

      2. Bezae Claromonatanus 06, Utrecht 010, Boerneriaus 012, and others

      1:1-16:23 + 16:24 (A + B + C)

      Evidently 16:25-27 (D) represents the ending of Romans found commonly in the East and 16:24 (C) the dominant form in the West. Each was added to Romans quite independently (as were also the Marcan endings). The result was utter chaos: C was added to manuscripts with the D ending, and D to those with the C ending, either after chapter 14 (as in manuscripts with chs. 14-15 deleted following Marcion, whose influence also survived in the manuscript tradition) or after chapter 16. Not only did the sequence A-B-C-D and A-B-D-C occur, but also A-D-B, A-D-B-C, and even A-D-B-D (i.e., with 16:25-27 repeated), A-D-B-C-D, and A-D-B-D-C, in splendid profusion! In our view this demonstrates two reliable principles: (1) when the text of the New Testament has been tampered with in its transmission, the readings scatter like a flock of chickens attacked by a hawk, or even by a dog; and (2) every reading ever occurring in the New Testament textual tradition is stubbornly preserved, even if the result is nonsense. The scribe who already has the (secondary) ending 16:24 adds to it the (equally secondary) ending 16:25-27, sometimes even twice, with less concern for the possibility of repetition than for the danger of losing a part of the text. What we observed in the conflate reading is repeated here on a larger scale. This confirms the conclusion that any reading ever occurring in the New Testament textual tradition, from the original reading onward, has been preserved in the tradition and needs only to be identified. Any interference with the regular process of transmission (according to the rules described above on pp. 282f.) is signaled by a profusion of variants. This leads to a further conclusion which we believe to be both logical and compelling, that where such a profusion of readings does not exist the text has not been disturbed but has developed according to the normal rules. None of the composition theories advanced today in various forms with regard to the Pauline letters, for example, has any support in the manuscript tradition, whether in Greek, in the early versions, or in the patristic quotations from the New Testament. At no place where a break has been posited in the Pauline letters does the critical apparatus show even a suspicion of any interference with the inevitable deposit of telltale variants. In other words, from the beginning of their history as a manuscript tradition the Pauline letters have always had the same form that they have today.

  • Pingback: Vridar » What Did Paul Know About Jesus?

  • Pingback: Vridar » Jesus the Seed of David: One More Case for Interpolation

  • Pingback: Vridar » What a bizarre profession!

  • Pingback: Vridar » Biblical Scholar Watch

  • Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *