Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpolations in the Pauline Letters

  • Chapter
The Pauline Canon

Part of the book series: Pauline Studies ((PS,volume 1))

Abstract

Victor Paul Furnish notes that ‘hypotheses about textual glosses and the presence of even longer interpolated units [in the Pauline letters] have long been a part of textual and literary criticism’.2 Indeed, some have asserted that the letters as a whole have been heavily interpolated. First advanced in nineteenth-century Germany and particularly the Netherlands,3 this view was revived in the 1920s and 1930s by such scholars as P.-L. Couchoud4 and Alfred F. Loisy5 and, in the United States in the 1940s, by Robert Martyr Hawkins.6 More recently, J.C. O’Neill has proposed that both Galatians and Romans contain numerous glosses and interpolations, some inadvertently included by copyists but many deliberately added,7 and Winsome Munro has argued for an extensive stratum of ‘Pastoral’ interpolations in the Pauline corpus as a whole (and in 1 Peter).8 Finally, Darrell J. Doughty has maintained that the letters ‘can only be understood as complex redactional compositions, that may include appropriations of early Pauline material, but most certainly include an abundance of later material as well’; thus, in his view, the burden of proof rests with the claim that any of the material in the letters is authentically Pauline.9

A later and expanded version of this paper has already appeared in my Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (JSNTSup 213; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 15–90. This version is being published with permission from T. & T. Clark International, which now includes Sheffield Academic Press.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. A later and expanded version of this paper has already appeared in my Interpolations in the Pauline Letters (JSNTSup 213; London: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 15–90. This version is being published with permission from T. and T. Clark International, which now includes Sheffield Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. V.P. Furnish, `Pauline Studies’, in E.J. Epp and G.W. MacRae (eds.), The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters ( The Bible and Its Modern Interpreters 3; Philadelphia: Fortress; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989 ), 324.

    Google Scholar 

  3. For a summary and critical evaluation, see C. Clemen, Die Einheitlichkeit der paulinischen Briefe an der Hand der bisher mit bezug auf die aufgestellten Interpolations- und Compilations-hypothesen ( Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1894 ).

    Google Scholar 

  4. P.-L. Couchoud, `Reconstitution et classement des Lettres de Saint Paul’, RHPR 87 (1923), 8–31; and `La première édition de Saint Paul’, RHR 94 (1926), 242–63.

    Google Scholar 

  5. A.F. Loisy, Remarques sur la littérature épistolaire du Nouveau Testament (Paris: Nourry, 1935), passim; and The Origins of the New Testament (Hyde Park, NY: University Books, 1962; French original, Paris: Nourry, 1936), passim.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R.M. Hawkins, The Recovery of the Historical Paul (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 1943), 14–20, 291–92, et passim; see also his `Romans: A Reinterpretation’, JBL 60 (1941), 129–40.

    Google Scholar 

  7. J.C. O’Neill, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians (London: SPCK, 1972), 1–15, 73–87, et passim; and Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Baltimore: Penguin, 1975), 11–22, 264–74, et passim.

    Google Scholar 

  8. W. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter: The Identification of a Pastoral Stratum in the Pauline Corpus and 1 Peter (SNTSMS 45; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983 ); cf. also D.R. MacDonald, The Legend and the Apostle: The Battle for Paul in Story and Canon ( Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983 ), 86.

    Google Scholar 

  9. D.J. Doughty, `Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authority’, Westar Institute Seminar Papers (Spring 1995), 85–102 (quotation from p. 85).

    Google Scholar 

  10. G. Strecker, History of New Testament Literature ( Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997 ), 40.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Furnish, `Pauline Studies’, 325.

    Google Scholar 

  12. J.A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary ( AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993 ), 65.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Furnish, `Pauline Studies’, 324.

    Google Scholar 

  14. W.O. Walker, Jr., `Romans 1.18–2:29: A Non-Pauline Interpolation?’, NTS 45 (1999), 533–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. P.N. Harrison, Paulines and Pastorals ( London: Villiers, 1964 ), 79–85.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Listed without documentation as a proposed `secondary gloss’ by Fitzmyer (Romans,65).

    Google Scholar 

  17. R. Bultmann, ‘Glossen im Römerbrief’, TLZ 7 (1947), 200.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Bultmann, ‘Glossen im Römerbrief’, 200–201.

    Google Scholar 

  19. J.C. O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, SE. VII. Papers Presented to the Fifth International Congress on Biblical Studies held at Oxford, 1973 (TU 126; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1982 ), 383–84.

    Google Scholar 

  20. C.H. Talbert, `A Non-Pauline Fragment at Romans 3:24–26’, JBL 85 (1966), 287–96.

    Google Scholar 

  21. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  25. L.E. Keck, `The Post-Pauline Interpretation of Jesus’ Death in Rom 5,6–7’, in C. Andresen and G. Klein (eds.), Theologia Crucis—Signum Crucis: Festschrift für Erich Dinkier zum 70. Geburtstag ( Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1979 ), 237–48.

    Google Scholar 

  26. O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, 384–85.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  28. W.H. Hagen, `Two Deutero-Pauline Glosses in Romans 6’, ExpTim 92 (1981), 364–67.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Bultmann, ‘Glossen im Römerbrief’, 202.

    Google Scholar 

  30. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Bultmann, ‘Glossen im Römerbrief’, 198–99.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Bultmann, ‘Glossen im Römerbrief’, 199.

    Google Scholar 

  33. F. Refoulé, `Unité de l’Epître aux Romains et histoire du salut’, RSPT 71 (1987), 219–42.

    Google Scholar 

  34. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Bultmann, ‘Glossen im Römerbrief’, 199.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  39. E.g., E. Barnikol, `Römer 13. Der nichtpaulinische Ursprung der absoluten Obrigkeitsbejahrung von Römer 13,1–7’, in Der Kommission für spätantike Religionsgeschichte (ed.), Studien zum Neuen Testament und zur Patristik. Erich Klostermann zum 90. Geburtstag dargebracht (TU 77; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1961), 65–133; J. Kallas, `Romans xiii.1–7: An Interpolation’, NTS 11 (1965), 365–74; W. Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem (SNT 9; Gütersloh: Mohn, 1975), 185–97; and W. Munro, `Romans 13:1–7: Apartheid’s Last Biblical Refuge’, BTB 20 (1990), 161–68.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Bultmann, `Glossen im Römerbrief’, 200.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  42. L.E. Keck, `Romans 15:4: An Interpolation?’, in J.T. Carroll, C.H. Cosgrove, and E.E. Johnson (eds.), Faith and History: Essays in Honor of Paul W. Meyer ( Scholars Press Homage Series; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990 ), 125–36.

    Google Scholar 

  43. J. Knox (`The Epistle to the Romans: Introduction and Exegesis’, IB 9.654) regards the interpolation theory as `the least difficult’ of the possibilities `and therefore the most likely to be true’; see the entire discussion, pp. 365–68.

    Google Scholar 

  44. See n. 16 above.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Romans 16:25–27 is widely regarded as an interpolation; for the evidence, see, e.g., E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 421–28 and Fitzmyer, Romans,48, 753–56. For more extensive interpolation hypotheses regarding Romans, see, e.g., Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem; and M. Widmann, `Der Israelit Paulus und sein antijüdischer Redaktor. Eine literarkritische Studie zu Rom. 9–11’, in E.L. Ehrlich and B. Klappert with U. Ast (eds.), Wie gut sind deine Zelte, Jaakow ’ Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Reinhold Mayer (Gerlingen: Bleicher, 1986), 150–58.

    Google Scholar 

  46. On 1 and 2 Corinthians, see, e.g., Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem, 202–209; and W. Schenk, `Korintherbriefe’, THE 19.62122. On 1 Corinthians, see, e.g., W. Schenk, `Der Erste Korintherbrief als Briefsammlung’, ZNW 60 (1969), 219–44; and J. Murphy-O’Connor, `Interpolations in 1 Corinthians’, CBQ 48 (1986), 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  47. M. Widmann, `1 Kor 2.6–16: Ein Einspruch gegen Paulus’, ZNW 70 (1979), 44–53; and W.O. Walker, Jr., `1 Corinthians 2.6–16: A Non-Pauline Interpolation?’, JSNT 47 (1992), 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Only the words Tò µr1 ú t p â yéypantat; J. Strugnell, `A Plea for Conjectural Emendation in the New Testament, with A Coda on 1 Cor 4:6’, CBQ 36 (1974), 555–58.

    Google Scholar 

  49. U. Schnelle, `1 Kor 6:14—Eine nachpaulinische Glosse’, NovT 25 (1983), 217–19.

    Google Scholar 

  50. O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St Paul’, 381–83.

    Google Scholar 

  51. L. Cope, `First Corinthians 8–10: Continuity or Contradiction?’, ATRSup Sup 11 (1990), 114–23.

    Google Scholar 

  52. W.O. Walker, Jr., `1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and Paul’s Views regarding Women’, JBL 94 (1975), 94–110; L. Cope, `1 Cor 11:2–16: One Step Further’, JBL 97 (1978), 435–36; G.W. Trompf, `On Attitudes toward Women in Paul and Paulinist Literature: 1 Corinthians 11:3–16 and Its Context’, CBQ 42 (1980), 196215; W.O. Walker, Jr., `The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3–16: Pauline or Non-Pauline?’, JSNT 35 (1989), 75–88.

    Google Scholar 

  53. J. Magne, `Les paroles sur la coupe’, in J. Delobel (ed.), Logia: Les paroles de Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens (BETL 59; Leuven: Peeters/Leuven University Press, 1982), 485–90; From Christianity to Gnosis and From Gnosis to Christianity: An Itinerary through the Texts to and from the Tree of Paradise (BJS 286; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993), 33; and `A Summary History of the Eucharist’ (unpublished paper, 1999 ) 3.

    Google Scholar 

  54. E.L. Titus, `Did Paul Write I Corinthians 13?’, JBR 27 (1959), 299–302; and W.O. Walker, Jr., `Is First Corinthians 13 a Non-Pauline Interpolation?’, CBQ 60 (1998), 484–99.

    Google Scholar 

  55. E.g., G. Fitzer, Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde. Ober den unpaulinischen Charakter der mulier-taceat Verse in 1. Korinther 14 (Theologische Existenz Heute n.s. 110; Munich: Kaiser, 1963); J. Murphy-O’Connor, ‘Interpolations in 1 Corinthians’, CBQ 48 (1986), 90–92; and G.D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 699–708.

    Google Scholar 

  56. R.M. Price, `Apocryphal Apparitions: 1 Corinthians 15:3–11 as a Post-Pauline Interpolation’, The Journal of Higher Criticism 2 (1995), 69–99.

    Google Scholar 

  57. O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, 384–85. Romans 16:25–27 is widely regarded as an interpolation; for the evidence, see, e.g., E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 421–28 and Fitzmyer, Romans, 48, 753–56. For more extensive interpolation hypotheses regarding Romans, see, e.g., Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem; and M. Widmann, `Der Israelit Paulus und sein antijüdischer Redaktor. Eine literarkritische Studie zu Rom. 9–11’, in E.L. Ehrlich and B. Klappert with U. Ast (eds.), Wie gut sind deine Zelte, Jaakow.’ Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Reinhold Mayer ( Gerlingen: Bleicher, 1986 ), 150–58.

    Google Scholar 

  58. D.R. MacDonald, `A Conjectural Emendation of 1 Cor 15:31–32: Or the Case of the Misplaced Lion Fight’, HTR 73 (1980), 265–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Widmann, 1 Kor 2.6–16’, 47–48. Romans 16:25–27 is widely regarded as an interpolation; for the evidence, see, e.g., E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 421–28 and Fitzmyer, Romans, 48, 753–56. For more extensive interpolation hypotheses regarding Romans, see, e.g., Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem; and M. Widmann, `Der Israelit Paulus und sein antijüdischer Redaktor. Eine literarkritische Studie zu Rom. 9–11’, in E.L. Ehrlich and B. Klappert with U. Ast (eds.), Wie gut sind deine Zelte, Jaakow ’ Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Reinhold Mayer ( Gerlingen: Bleicher, 1986 ), 150–58.

    Google Scholar 

  60. F.W. Horn, `1 Korinther 15,56—Ein exegetischer Stachel’, ZNW 82 (1991), 88–105. Romans 16:25–27 is widely regarded as an interpolation; for the evidence, see, e.g., E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 421–28 and Fitzmyer, Romans, 48, 753–56. For more extensive interpolation hypotheses regarding Romans, see, e.g., Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem; and M. Widmann, `Der Israelit Paulus und sein antijüdischer Redaktor. Eine literarkritische Studie zu Rom. 9–11’, in E.L. Ehrlich and B. Klappert with U. Ast (eds.), Wie gut sind deine Zelte, Jaakow’ Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Reinhold Mayer ( Gerlingen: Bleicher, 1986 ), 150–58.

    Google Scholar 

  61. E.g., W.K.M. Grossouw, `Over de echtheid van 2 Cor 6:14–7:1’, Studia Catholica 26 (1951), 203–206; J.A. Fitzmyer, `Qumran and the Interpolated Paragraph in 2 Cor. 6:14–7:1’, CBQ 23 (1961), 271–80; J. Gnilka, `2 Cor 6:14–7:1 in the Light of the Qumran Texts and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, in J. Murphy-O’Connor (ed.), Paul and Qumran (London: Chapman, 1968), 48–68; H.D. Betz, `2 Cor 6:14–7:1: An Anti-Pauline Fragment?’, JBL 92 (1973), 88–108.

    Google Scholar 

  62. E. Barnikol, `The Non-Pauline Origin of the Parallelism of the Apostles Peter and Paul. Galatians 2:7–8’, The Journal of Higher Criticism 5 (1998), 285300 (German original 1931 ).

    Google Scholar 

  63. W. Schenk, Der Philipperbrief des Paulus. Kommentar (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1984 ), 78–82, 334.

    Google Scholar 

  64. E. Barnikol, Philipper 2. Der marcionistische Ursprung des Mythos-Satzes Phil. 2,6–7 (Prolegomena zur neutestamentlichen Dogmengeschichte 2; Forschungen zur Entstehung des Urchristentums des Neuen Testaments und der Kirche 7; Kiel: Mühlau, 1932 ).

    Google Scholar 

  65. E.g., B.A. Pearson, `1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation’, HTR 64 (1971), 79–94; D. Schmidt, `1 Thess 2:13–16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation’, JBL 102 (1983), 269–79.

    Google Scholar 

  66. G. Friedrich, ‘1. Thessalonischer 5,1–11, der apologetische Einschub eines Späteren’, ZTK70 (1973), 288–315.

    Google Scholar 

  67. On 1 Thess 2:13–16; 4:1–8; 4:10b-12; 4:18; 5:12–22; and 5:27, K.-G. Eckart, `Der zweite echte Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Thessalonischer’, ZTK 58 (1961), 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Furnish, `Pauline Studies’, 325. Romans 16:25–27 is widely regarded as an interpolation; for the evidence, see, e.g., E. Käsemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 421–28 and Fitzmyer, Romans, 48, 753–56. For more extensive interpolation hypotheses regarding Romans, see, e.g., Schmithals, Der Römerbrief als historisches Problem; and M. Widmann, `Der Israelit Paulus und sein antijüdischer Redaktor. Eine literarkritische Studie zu Rom. 9–11’, in E.L. Ehrlich and B. Klappert with U. Ast (eds.), Wie gut sind deine Zelte, Jaakow ’ Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Reinhold Mayer ( Gerlingen: Bleicher, 1986 ), 150–58.

    Google Scholar 

  69. W. Munro, ‘A Paradigmatic Shift in Pauline Studies?’ (unpublished paper presented at the 1983 Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Dallas, Texas), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Doughty, `Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authenticity’, 95–96. See, e.g., Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,626 n. 6, for the characterization of Titus’s interpolation hypothesis regarding 1 Corinthians 13 as `criticism run amok’; Fitzmyer, Romans,65, for the dismissive assertion that `short shrift’ should be given to J.C. O’Neill’s argument for numerous interpolations and glosses in Romans; and F.W. Wisse, ‘Textual Limits to Redactional Theory in the Pauline Corpus’, in J.E. Goehring, C.W. Hedrick, and J.T. Sanders with H.D. Betz (eds.), Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M. Robinson (Forum Fascicles 1; Sonomo, CA: Polebridge, 1990), 167–78, for the argument that `redactional theory [including interpolation hypotheses] that steps outside the bounds of textual evidence and minimizes the burden of proof is counterproductive and a hindrance to Pauline studies’ (quotation from p. 178).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Munro, `A Paradigmatic Shift in Pauline Studies?’, 4–5. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  72. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  73. E.g., Metzger (The Text of the New Testament,194) suggests that that the clause gh uaTà acípxa rzeptnatovaty dXXà xatà nve to (`who walk not according to the flesh but according to the spirit’) found in some manuscripts at Rom 8:1 `was originally an explanatory note (perhaps derived from vs. 4) defining “those who are in Christ Jesus”’. As an example of an absurdity resulting from `heedlessness that passes comprehension’, Metzger cites 2 Cor 8:4: after eiç Toùç àyiovç a good many minuscule manuscripts have added the gloss 8É4aaeat i pµ ç. It appears that a scribe of one of these manuscripts wrote in the margin beside 8d4aaeat tjµäç the comment ry To J oiç Twy àvttypcíctov oiitwç süpiTat (“it is found thus in many of the copies”). Then the scribe of a subsequent manuscript incorporated this comment on the gloss directly in his text as though it were part of the apostle Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians!’

    Google Scholar 

  74. L.E. Keck, Paul and His Letters (Proclamation Commentaries; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 2nd edn, 1988), 18.

    Google Scholar 

  75. J.H. Charlesworth, `Reflections on the SNTS Pseudepigrapha Seminar at Duke on the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs’, NTS 23 (1977), 303.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Munro, `A Paradigmatic Shift in Pauline Studies?’, 7. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  77. W. Munro, `Interpolation in the Epistles: Weighing Probability’, NTS 36 (1990), 432.

    Google Scholar 

  78. See, e.g., F.W. Wisse, `The Nature and Purpose of Redactional Changes in Early Christian Texts: The Canonical Gospels’, in W.L. Petersen (ed.), Gospel Traditions in the Second Century: Origins, Recensions, Text, and Transmission (Notre Dame and London: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 41: `Before we can argue for a specific interpolation we must first establish the probability that early Christian texts were extensively redacted.’

    Google Scholar 

  79. See, e.g., Wisse, `Textual Limits to Redactional Theory in the Pauline Corpus’, 173: `Although certainty about the reality of redactional changes in the Pauline letters has no obvious bearing on the burden of proof in individual cases, still it will inevitably influence the researcher’s attitude towards the text.’

    Google Scholar 

  80. E.H. Lovering, Jr., The Collection, Redaction, and Early Circulation of the Corpus Paulinum (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation; Southern Methodist University, 1988 ), 109.

    Google Scholar 

  81. K. Maurer, Interpolation in Thucydides ( Mnemosyne: Biblica Classica Batava 150; Leiden: Brill, 1995 ), 181.

    Google Scholar 

  82. G.M. Bolling, The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer ( Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925 ).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Regarding Orpheus, Musaeus, and Hippocrates, see, e.g., R.M. Grant, Heresy and Criticism: The Search for Authenticity in Early Christian Literature (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1993), 21–22, 61–66; regarding Aristophanes and Euripedes, see, e.g., Maurer, Interpolation in Thucydides,181.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Maurer, Interpolation in Thucydides,xi; for a review of the evidence, see the entire book.

    Google Scholar 

  85. S.K. Stowers, `Greek and Latin Letters’, ABD 4 (1992), 292.

    Google Scholar 

  86. According to Stowers (`Greek and Latin Letters’, 292), these `show marked similarities to pseudonymous Christian letters such as the Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus)’.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Stowers, `Greek and Latin Letters’, 292. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Josephus, Ant 18.3.3. For judicious reviews of the evidence, see, e.g., L.H. Feldman, `Josephus’, ABD 3 (1992), 990–91; and J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesu. I. The Roots of the Problem and the Person (ABRL; New York: Doubleday, 1991), 56–88; for a treatment of the matter by a classicist, see, e.g., E.M. Sanford, `Propaganda and Censorship in the Transmission of Josephus’, TAPA 66 (1935), 127–45.

    Google Scholar 

  89. E.g., S. Zeitlin, `The Christ Passage in Josephus’, JQR 18 (1927–1928), 237–40. For a contrary view, see, e.g., D.S. Wallace-Hadrill, `Eusebius of Caesaria and the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus, Antiquities,XVIII, 63f.)’, JEH 25 (1974), 361. In the most recent contribution to the debate, K.A. Olson (’Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum’, CBQ 61 [19991, 305–22) concludes: `Complete certainty is unattainable, but we have very good reasons to suppose that Eusebius wrote the Testimonium.’

    Google Scholar 

  90. See, e.g., J.H. Charlesworth, `Christian and Jewish Self-Definition in Light of the Christian Additions to the Apocryphal Writings’, in E.P. Sanders with A.I. Baumgarten and A. Mendelson (eds.), Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. II. Aspects of Judaism in the Greco-Roman Period ( Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981 ), 27–55.

    Google Scholar 

  91. See, e.g., M.K.H. Peters, `Septuagint’, ABD 5 (1992), 1097; H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (rev. R.R. Ottley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 423–24; and O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, 384.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Grant, Heresy and Criticism,12. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  93. W. Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity (ed. R.A. Kraft and G. Krodel; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971 ), 166.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Grant, Heresy and Criticism,111. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  95. See, e.g., Grant, Heresy and Criticism, 33–47; and R.M. Grant, `Marcion and the Critical Method’, in P. Richardson and J.C. Hurd (eds.), From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honour of Francis Wright Beare ( Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984 ), 207–15.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Grant, Heresy and Criticism,34; cf. Grant, `Marcion and the Critical Method’. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Munro, `Interpolation in the Epistles’, 432. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Munro, `A Paradigmatic Shift in Pauline Studies?’, 2–3. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  99. O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, 379–80. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  100. For a summary of the evidence, see, e.g., C.K. Barrett, The Gospel According to John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 2nd edn, 1978 ), 589–90.

    Google Scholar 

  101. For a summary of the evidence and the conclusion that the verses represent a later addition to the text, see, e.g., C.S. Mann, Mark: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 27; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1986), 672–76. For an extensive review followed by the cautious conclusion that the verses are likely original, see W.R. Farmer, The Last Twelve Verses of Mark (SNTSMS 25; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974). For the conclusion that the question is `still open and perhaps “insoluble at present”’, see K.W. Clark, `The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament’, JBL 85 (1966), 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  102. See, e.g., E.J. Epp, `Western Text’, ABD 6 (1992), 909–12. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  103. H. Eshbaugh (Theological Variants in the Western Text of the Pauline Corpus [unpublished Ph.D. dissertation: Case Western Reserve University, 1975], 202) suggests that what he terms `theological variants’ in the Western text of the Pauline letters `show the fluidity of the text in the early church’.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Munro, `Interpolation in the Epistles’, 432. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Munro, `Interpolation in the Epistles’, 432; and O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, 380.

    Google Scholar 

  106. O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, 380. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  107. J.L. White, Light from Ancient Letters (FFNT; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 19. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  108. J.L. White, `Letter’, HCBD,601; cf. White, Light from Ancient Letters, For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  109. W.G. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity ( GBS; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973 ), 42.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Doty, Letters in Primitive Christianity,42. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  111. S.K. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity ( LEC; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986 ), 25.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Indeed, in recent private conversations with me, two of my colleagues in the Trinity University Department of Classical Studies, Professors Colin M. Wells and Joan B. Burton, have independently stated that they would be very surprised if there were no interpolations in the letters of Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  113. D. Schmidt, `Identifying Seams in Authentic Pauline Letters: Evidence for Letter Fragments and Interpolations’ (unpublished paper prepared for the Paul Seminar of the Westar Institute, 1998), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  114. To my knowledge, the most comprehensive survey is Lovering’s Ph.D. dissertation, The Collection, Redaction, and Early Circulation of the Corpus Paulinum.

    Google Scholar 

  115. See, e.g., J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills (GNS; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1995), 41 114–18, for a discussion of `The Evolutionary Theory’ and `The Big Bang Theory’; for a somewhat similar but more detailed discussion of `theories of sudden collection’ and `theories of gradual growth’, see Lovering, The Collection, Redaction, and Early Circulation of the Corpus Paulinum,283–345. For a more elaborate taxonomy that categorizes the various hypotheses `according to the distance they posit between the career of the Apostle Paul and the collection of his letters’, see R.M. Price, `The Evolution of the Pauline Canon’ (unpublished paper prepared for the Spring 1995 Meeting of the Paul Seminar of the Westar Institute). See also, e.g., H.Y. Gamble, `The Canon of the New Testament’, in Epp and MacRae (eds.), The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters,205–208.

    Google Scholar 

  116. L.E. Keck and V.P. Furnish, The Pauline Letters ( Interpreting Biblical Texts; Nashville: Abingdon, 1984 ), 50.

    Google Scholar 

  117. One could assume a priori that some of Paul’s letters almost certainly would not have survived. In addition, there are apparent references in 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:4; 7:8; 10:10 to letters that are no longer extant, at least in their entirety and as separate documents (note also the reference in Col 4:16 to `the letter from Laodicea’).

    Google Scholar 

  118. All of the earliest extant manuscripts—T, century), and B (fourth century), and A and C (fifth century)—originally included not only the seven letters now generally regarded as authentically Pauline (Philemon is missing from i)46) but also the letters whose Pauline authorship is disputed: 2 Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, and Hebrews. For discussion of the authorship of the latter four, see, e.g., R.F. Collins, Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews and the Pauline Pseudepigrapha (GNS 28; Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988 ).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Keck, Paul and His Letters,18. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  120. For a summary of the evidence, see, e.g., V.P. Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984), 30–32, 35–41. As Furnish notes (pp. 32–33), however, other scholars have argued for as many as six original letters.

    Google Scholar 

  121. See, e.g., F.W. Beare, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians ( HNTC; San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1959 ), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  122. For discussion, see, e.g., R.F. Collins, First Corinthians ( SP 7; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1999 ), 10–14.

    Google Scholar 

  123. For discussion, see, e.g., Fitzmyer, Romans,55–67. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Keck, Paul and His Letters, 17. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  125. H. Koester, History and Literature of Early Christianity. I. Introduction to the New Testament (Hermeneia: Foundations and Facets; Philadelphia: Fortress Press; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1982 ), 54.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter,19.

    Google Scholar 

  127. For a distinction between a `reading’ (`any textual difference or any varying text formulation in a ms found by comparison with the same passage in any other ms’) and a `variant’ (a textual difference that is “`significant” or meaningful in the major tasks of NT textual criticism’ such as `determining ms relationships, locating mss within NT textual history and transmission, and in establishing the original or earliest possible NT text’), see E.J. Epp, `Textual Criticism: New Testament’, ABD 6 (1992), 413–14.

    Google Scholar 

  128. For a discussion of the various types of alterations, see Metzger, The Text of the New Testament,186–206.

    Google Scholar 

  129. See, e.g., O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, 379: `We all accept that Paul’s letters have been glossed, for we all use an edition of the New Testament [i.e., `Nestle or one of its derivatives’] in which, in effect, a systematic attempt has been made to eliminate glosses’ (i.e., either by suppressing or by moving to the foot of the page `the numerous glosses which appeared in the Textus Receptus’).

    Google Scholar 

  130. United Bible Societies3 = Nestle-Aland26. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Lloyd Gaston, Letter to W.O. Walker, Jr. (September 6, 1985 ). For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  132. L. Gaston, `Angels and Gentiles in early Judaism and in Paul’, SR 11 (1982), p. 74 n. 43; see also H. Eshbaugh, `Textual Variants and Theology: A Study of the Galatians Text of Papyrus 46’, JSNT 3 (1979), 62–63.

    Google Scholar 

  133. H. Koester, `The Text of 1 Thessalonians’, in D.E. Groh and R. Jewett (eds.), The Living Text: Essays in Honor of Ernest W. Saunders (Lanham: University Press of America, 1985), 220–22 (quotation from p. 227).

    Google Scholar 

  134. D. Schmidt, `Response’ to G.D. Kilpatrick, `A Textus Receptus Redivivus?’, Protocol of the Colloquy of the Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture 32 (1978), 26.

    Google Scholar 

  135. K.D. Clarke, Textual Optimisn: A Critique of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (JSNTSup 138; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), quotation from p. 183.

    Google Scholar 

  136. O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, 379. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  137. Munro, `Interpolation in the Epistles’, 431: For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  138. H.Y. Gamble, `The Redaction of the Pauline Letters and the Formation of the Pauline Corpus’, JBL 92 (1975), 418; cf., e.g., K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981; 2nd edn, 1989 ), 295.

    Google Scholar 

  139. See, e.g., Wisse, `Textual Limits to Redactional Theory in the Pauline Corpus’; E.E. Ellis, `The Silenced Wives of Corinth (I Cor. 14:34–5)’, in E.J. Epp and G.D. Fee (eds.), New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 220; and E.E. Ellis, `Traditions in I Corinthians’, NTS 32 (1986), 488 and 498 n. 58.

    Google Scholar 

  140. The verses are missing from a few witnesses; in others, they appear variously after 14:23, after 15:33, after 16:23(24), after both 14:23 and 15:33, and after both 14:23 and 16:23(24).

    Google Scholar 

  141. Corinthians 14:34–35, however, is located after v. 40 in the texts of the `Western’ tradition.

    Google Scholar 

  142. C.K. Barrett, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians (HNTC; New York and Evanston: Harper and Row, 1968), 14; see also, e.g., Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament,297.

    Google Scholar 

  143. To be sure, citations in second-century Christian writers can sometimes shed light on the early text of the letters, but this would be of little direct help in identifying possible interpolations.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Various dates have been suggested for the oldest extant manuscript, ranging from late first century to the first half of the third century; for discussion, see, e.g., P.W. Comfort and D.P. Barrett (eds.), The Complete Text of the Earliest New Testament Manuscripts (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 18 and 194–97. Although Comfort and Barrett (p. 196) suggest a date `sometime after 125’, most scholars have settled on a date of approximately 200 CE; see, e.g., Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament,87; and Metzger, The Text of the New Testament,37. Both Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (M) date from the fourth century, and Codex Alexandrinus (A) and Codex Ephraemi (C) from the fifth century.

    Google Scholar 

  145. B.D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993 ), 3, 24.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,25, 26. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,29. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  148. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture,44 n. 112, 28. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament,68. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Clark, `The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament’, 7.

    Google Scholar 

  151. H. Koester, `The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century’, in Petersen (ed.), Gospel Traditions in the Second Century,19–20.

    Google Scholar 

  152. Koester, `The Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century’, 37.

    Google Scholar 

  153. Clark, `The Theological Relevance of Textual Variation in Current Criticism of the Greek New Testament’, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Even Wisse (`Textual Limits to Redactional Theory in the Pauline Corpus’, 175) agrees that `the strongest argument in favour of setting the early history of transmission of the text apart from the later periods is the fact that it took some time for the Pauline corpus to gain full canonical status’; thus, `Christian scribes would have been very reluctant to tamper with the text of a canonical writing but would have felt free to introduce changes before a text was recognized as apostolic and authoritative’. For a discussion of this issue as it relates to the Gospels and more particularly to the Synoptic Problem, see W.O. Walker, Jr., ‘An Unexamined Presupposition in Studies of the Synoptic Problem’, Religion in Life (1979), 41–52.

    Google Scholar 

  155. See, e.g., L. Mowry, `The Early Circulation of Paul’s Letters’, JBL 63 (1944), 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  156. Gamble, `The Canon of the New Testament’, 205–208; and H.Y. Gamble, `Canon: New Testament’, ABD 1 (1992), 853–54.

    Google Scholar 

  157. See, e.g., Metzger, The Text of the New Testament,p. 201 n. 1: `Their early loss is not surprising, for during persecutions the toll taken by imperial edicts aiming to destroy all copies of the sacred books of Christians must have been heavy. Furthermore, simply the ordinary wear and tear of the fragile papyrus, on which at least the shorter Epistles of the New Testament had been written, would account for their early dissolution. It is not difficult to imagine what would happen in the course of time to one much-handled manuscript, passing from reader to reader, perhaps from church to church (see Col. iv.16), and suffering damage from the fingers of eager if devout readers as well as from climatic changes.’

    Google Scholar 

  158. See, e.g., W.A. Meeks (ed.), The Writings of St. Paul: Annotated Text, Criticism (Norton Critical Edition; New York: Norton, 1972), 149–213, and, for a short summary, 149–50.

    Google Scholar 

  159. See, e.g., M.F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), esp. the `Epilogue’.

    Google Scholar 

  160. On the difficulties involved in reconstructing Marcion’s text of the Pauline letters, see J. Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of the Canon ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942 ), 46–53.

    Google Scholar 

  161. See, e.g., H. Detering, `The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles’, The Journal of Higher Criticism 3 (1966), 177: `There is no excuse in an unprejudiced investigation for excluding from the outset the possibility of the Marcionite edition of the Paulina being older and more original than the canonical, even if only for methodological reasons. It would seem that the general opinion still is that only Marcion could have had a Tendenz. It seems to remain inconceivable that the Catholic Church, too, which, like the Marcionite Church, constituted itself in the second century, might have had a strong interest in finding its theological interests already represented in the documents of the apostolic time. But the possibility that the Catholic Church of the second century introduced its theological tendency into the Pauline Epistles cannot be a priori precluded.’

    Google Scholar 

  162. See, e.g., M. Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 1–2; E. Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels (New York: Random House, 1979), xvii-xix; and A. Vööbus, `Syriac Versions’, IDBSup 851.

    Google Scholar 

  163. Beare, `Canon of the NT’, IDB 1.532. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  164. See, e.g., Bauer, Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity,147–94 and esp. 160–67.

    Google Scholar 

  165. Wisse, `Textual Limits to Redactional Theory in the Pauline Corpus’, 174.

    Google Scholar 

  166. See, e.g., O’Neill, Paul’s Letter to the Romans,14: `Admittedly it is hard to see how various additions made to different manuscripts at different times should have produced such a uniformly attested text. How do a paragraph added in one manuscript and an explanatory note added in another come together in the one recognized text? The answer must be that at various stages in the transmission of the text powerful editors collected together as many manuscripts as possible and made a standard edition which became the one uniformly copied thereafter in that part of the church.’

    Google Scholar 

  167. See, e.g., Price, `The Evolution of the Pauline Canon’, 20: `interpolations were made and then gradually permeated the text tradition of each letter until final canonization of the Pauline edition (and concurrent burning of its rivals) put a stop to that’.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Wisse, `Textual Limits to Redactional Theory in the Pauline Corpus’, 177. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Assuming, to be sure, that the longer readings were not judged to be heretical or otherwise unacceptable.

    Google Scholar 

  170. Price, `The Evolution of the Pauline Canon’, 19; cf. e.g., Mowry, `The Early Circulation of Paul’s Letters’, p. 86 n. 28: the `textual additions’ in various early copies of Paul’s letters `survived’, but `their omissions tended to disappear’.

    Google Scholar 

  171. Doughty, `Pauline Paradigms and Pauline Authority’, 102. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  172. Furnish, `Pauline Studies’, 325. of criteria for the identification of interpolations.179 She identifies nine

    Google Scholar 

  173. Maurer, Interpolations in Thucydides,187. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Munro, `Interpolation in the Epistles’, 433. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  175. Hawkins, The Recovery of the Historical Paul; see also his `Romans: A Reinterpretation’, JBL 60 (1941), 129–40.

    Google Scholar 

  176. O’Neill, The Recovery of Paul’s Letter to the Galatians and Paul’s Letter to the Romans.

    Google Scholar 

  177. O’Neill, `Glosses and Interpolations in the Letters of St. Paul’, 380. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  178. Lovering, The Collection, Redaction, and Early Circulation of the Corpus Paulinum,66–81.

    Google Scholar 

  179. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter,21–25; `Interpolation in the Epistles’, 431–43; and `Criteria for Determining the Authenticity of Pauline Letters: A Modest Proposal’, Westar Institute Program 2–6 March 1994,78–80, esp. 79–80.

    Google Scholar 

  180. Munro, `Interpolation in the Epistles’, 440. For the most part, my list of types of evidence for interpolation corresponds to Munro’s list of `criteria’ for the identification of interpolations.

    Google Scholar 

  181. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter,21, 23, 24–25.

    Google Scholar 

  182. This principle has to do with what a copyist is `likely’ to have done.

    Google Scholar 

  183. In the case of i Cor 14:34–35, E.E. Ellis (`The Silenced Wives of Corinth’, 213–20) suggests that the passage was originally a marginal gloss inserted either by Paul himself or at his direction and later copied into the text; see also, e.g., E.E. Ellis, `Paul’s Sense of Place: An Anthropological Approach to Community Formation in Corinth’, NTS 32 (1986), 229–30.

    Google Scholar 

  184. By `tone’ is meant the emotional or atmospheric quality of the discourse (e.g., `a happy tone of voice’, `a sad tone of voice’, or ‘an angry tone of voice’; `the tone of the debate was hostile’, `the tone of the statement was threatening’, or `the tone of the question was friendly’).

    Google Scholar 

  185. In some cases, however, an interpolator or a later copyist, seeking to smooth out an otherwise rough transition between the passage in question and its immediate context, may have made slight modifications in the material immediately preceding and/or following the passage; in such cases, the removal of the passage in question might result in a less smooth transition from the material preceding to that immediately following the passage.

    Google Scholar 

  186. Charlesworth, `Christian and Jewish Self-Definition in Light of the Christian Additions to the Apocryphal Writings’, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  187. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter,22. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  188. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter,22. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  189. Munro, Authority in Paul and Peter,24. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  190. For full discussion of evidence that this passage is a non-Pauline interpolation, see, e.g., Fitzer, Das Weib schweige in der Gemeinde; for a summary, see, e.g., Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,699–708.

    Google Scholar 

  191. G46 (late second or early third century), B (fourth century), It (fourth century), A (fifth century), D (sixth century), etc.

    Google Scholar 

  192. Including D (sixth century) and `the Western tradition’ generally. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  193. See P.B. Payne, `Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus, and 1 Cor 14.34–5’, NTS 41 (1995), 240–62; and `MS. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor. 14.34–5’, NTS 44 (1998), 152–58. For an opposing view, however, see C. Niccum, `The Voice of the Manuscripts on the Silence of Women: The External Evidence’, NTS 43 (1997), 242–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  194. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,699. Ellis (`The Silenced Wives of Corinth’) suggests, however, that the gloss was added to the autograph of 1 Corinthians either by Paul himself or at his instruction.

    Google Scholar 

  195. Payne, `MS. 88 as Evidence for a Text without 1 Cor 14.34–5’, 155–56; and `Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus and 1 Cor 14.34–5’, 247–48.

    Google Scholar 

  196. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,701–702. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  197. For the same idea and the same verb as in 1 Cor 14:34, however, see the pseudo-Pauline 1 Tim 2:12.

    Google Scholar 

  198. Cor 15:28. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  199. Cor 15:27, 28; Phil 3:21. For a distinction among `glosses’ (`brief explanations of difficult words or phrases’), `scholia’ (random `interpretive remarks’ intended `to instruct the reader’), `commentaries’ (`systematically developed’ comments intended `to elucidate’ an entire passage), ‘catenae’ (`chains’ of comments extracted from older ecclesiastical writers), and ’onomastica’ (`philological aids’ purporting `to give the meaning and etymology of proper names’), see B.M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 1992), 27–28. In this study, however, `gloss’ refers to any type of explanatory note or comment originally written in the margin or between the lines of a manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  200. Rom 8:7.

    Google Scholar 

  201. Rom 10:3.

    Google Scholar 

  202. Rom 8:20.

    Google Scholar 

  203. In the Pseudo-Pauline writings, however, the verb almost always refers to submission to humans: husbands (Eph 5:24; Col 3:18; Titus 2:5; cf. 1 Pet 3:1, 5), masters (Titus 2:9; cf. 1 Pet 2:18), and governing authorities (Titus 3:1; cf. 1 Pet 2:13). The only exception is Eph 1:22, where it refers to Christ.

    Google Scholar 

  204. See also, however, the pseudo-Pauline Titus 1:11.

    Google Scholar 

  205. Collins, First Corinthians,515 (note, however, that Collins regards 1 Cor 14:34–35 as Pauline). To be sure, 1 Cor 9:8 reads, il xaì ó ?.óyoç 7.Éyst (`does not even the law say? ’), but Paul then cites the appropriate scriptural passage. 206 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,702.

    Google Scholar 

  206. Collins, First Corinthians,515 (note, however, that Collins regards 1 Cor 14:34–35 as Pauline). To be sure, 1 Cor 9:8 reads, il xaì ó ?.óyoç 7.Éyst (`does not even the law say? ’), but Paul then cites the appropriate scriptural passage. 206 Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,702.

    Google Scholar 

  207. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,702.

    Google Scholar 

  208. E.g., 1 Cor 16:19; Rom 16:1–2, 3–5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15; Phil 4:2–3; Phlm 1.

    Google Scholar 

  209. Col 3:18; Eph 5:24; Titus 2:5; cf. also 1 Pet 3:1, 5 (all using the verb i)7toviaoEty).

    Google Scholar 

  210. Elsewhere in the Pauline corpus (and indeed in the entire New Testament), aiaxpóç appears only at the pseudo-Pauline Eph 5:12 and Titus 1:11.

    Google Scholar 

  211. Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:22–33; 1 Tim 2:9–15; Titus 2:3–5; cf. also 1 Pet 3:1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  212. As already noted, some manuscripts place vv. 34–35 at the end of ch. 14, not after v. 33. This, however, does not significantly affect the locational evidence for interpolation.

    Google Scholar 

  213. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians,702.

    Google Scholar 

  214. Murphy-O’Connor (Interpolations in 1 Corinthians’, 90) has argued convincingly that the interpolation does not include vv. 33b and 36.

    Google Scholar 

  215. MacDonald, `A Conjectural Emendation’, 267.

    Google Scholar 

  216. Walker, `Romans 1.18–2.29’.

    Google Scholar 

  217. I have not written regarding this passage but have been convinced by the arguments of others.

    Google Scholar 

  218. See n. 217 above.

    Google Scholar 

  219. Walker, `1 Corinthians 2.6–16’.

    Google Scholar 

  220. See n. 217 above.

    Google Scholar 

  221. Walker, `1 Corinthians 11:2–16 and Paul’s Views Regarding Women’.

    Google Scholar 

  222. Walker, `Is First Corinthians 13 a Non-Pauline Interpolation?’.

    Google Scholar 

  223. See n. 217 above.

    Google Scholar 

  224. See n. 217 above.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Trinity University, San Antonio, Texas, USA

    William O. Walker Jr.

Authors
  1. William O. Walker Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. McMaster Divinity College, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

    Stanley E. Porter (Professor of New Testament) (Professor of New Testament)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Walker, W.O. (2004). Interpolations in the Pauline Letters. In: Porter, S.E. (eds) The Pauline Canon. Pauline Studies, vol 1. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-41228-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-41228-2_9

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-04-13891-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-41228-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation