First 📜
After a discussion of the validity of the methodology normally used to determine interpolations, i.e. additions to a text after it had left its author’s hands, the chapter passes in review thirteen passages in 1 Cor, which various authors have suggested were interpolations. Only 1 Cor 4: 6 and 1 Cor 14: 34–35 are accepted as post‐Pauline additions. 1 Cor 7: 29–31 is more likely to be Paul’s citation of a formed apocalyptic tradition similar to 6 Ezra 16: 41–45 than an interpolation. It is entirely probable that 1 Cor 15: 56 is an embryonic articulation of an insight which Paul developed fully only several years later in writing Romans.
https://academic.oup.com/book/8618/chapter-abstract/154590110?redirectedFrom=fulltext
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43719287
━━━
1 Corinthians 2.6-16 as an interpolation. 📜
In chapter 6 of Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, William O. Walker, Junior, argues that 1 Corinthians 2.6-16 constitutes an interpolation into the text of Paul:
Walker goes on to observe that the tenses change from aorist (past tense) to present at precisely the same time. In conjunction with the change of pronouns, this argument may carry more weight, as it casts 2.6-16 in a different light than its context:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 132: The immediately preceding and following verses represent ‘the living forms of an epistolary discourse with the Corinthian community’. On the contrary, 2.6-16 consists of ‘the a-historical assertions of the “we” about their pneumatic status’. Indeed, Widmann suggests that ‘the self-affirmations of the pneumatics [in 2.6-16] belong to the same type of pneumatic eulogy with which 1 John debates.’ In short, the smoothly connected autobiographical summary of 2.1-5, 3.1-4, is interrupted by 2.6-16 with its panegyric to Wisdom and its possessors.
The spiritual language with which 2.6-16 speaks is so distinctive and so charged that scholars often argue that Paul has taken over the language of his opponents in Corinth, to which Walker responds:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 134: Yet another contextual consideration is suggested by Murphy- O’Connor’s view that in 1 Cor. 2.6-16 ‘Paul deliberately takes over the terminology and ideas of his adversaries.’ I find this view highly problematic. As Conzelmann has noted, the passage, taken on its own terms, is not really polemical in nature: the ‘we’ in 2.6-16 are the pneumatics as opposed to ‘the powers of this world’ and the non-pneumatics, and ‘the character of direct polemic against the Corinthians attaches to the “we” only through its being placed between 2.1-5 and 3.Iff.
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 135: To carry the point a step further, it is far from clear to me why Paul would at this point choose to adopt in polemical fashion the terminology and ideas of ‘opponents’. Indeed, he has yet to intimate that there are any ‘opponents’ as such. In 1.10-11 he indicates that the source of the difficulty in Corinth is ‘dissensions’ or ‘quarreling among you’ (not between Paul and his opponents), and he returns to the same idea at 3.3 (‘jealousy and strife among you’). Only at 1.17 does he first suggest that ‘wisdom’ might be a part of the problem, and even here there is no mention of ‘opponents’.
It is true that in 2.1-5 Paul seems to eschew wisdom entirely before embracing it in 2.6-16. This rhetorical strategy requires some explanation, and Walker does not buy the usual offerings.
Next comes a contextual consideration:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 136: Observing the apparent logical contrast between 2.6-16 and 3.1-4, the RSV translates the καί in κἀγώ as ‘but’ and a number of other versions simply leave it untranslated. The NRSV and some other versions, however, correctly render the καί as ‘and’. The removal of 2.6-16, of course, would eliminate the contrast between 2.6-16 and 3.1-4 and thus call for the correct translation of καί as ‘and’.
And we always need our arguments from vocabulary:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, pages 137-138: Further support for regarding 1 Cor. 2.6-16 as an interpolation is based on linguistic peculiarities of the passage. Most of these have been set forth by Ellis and Widmann. Ellis notes the following phrases not found elsewhere in Paul’s letters: οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου (vv. 6, 8), πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων (v. 7), ὁ κύριος τῆς δόξης (v. 8), τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (v. 11), τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ κόσμου ( v. 12), τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ (v. 12), ψυχικὸς ἄνθρωπος (v. 14), and νοῦς Χριστοῦ (v. 16). To these can be added οἱ τέλειοι (v. 6) and τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεου (v. 10). Ellis also notes one word not found elsewhere in Paul’s letters — διδακτός (v. 13) — another is the adverb πνευματικῶς (v. 14).
Walker also draws attention on page 138, continuing to cite Widmann, to the “use of ‘solemn mystery-language’ to characterize Christian proclamation rather than Paul’s usual kerygmatic, eschatological terminology,” the “portrayal of Jesus’ crucifixion not in kerygmatic terms but rather as a crime perpetrated by οἱ ἄρχοντες τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου,” the “‘completely unique development of the word-group πνεῦμα, πνευματικός,’ in which πνεῦμα serves not, as for Paul, ‘as a designation for the heilsgeschichtlich presence of Christ in the community’ but rather ‘as organ of knowledge and… as divine self-consciousness,’” and the “non-Pauline use of ‘the dualistic anthropological conceptual pair Psychic-Pneumatic, originating from Gnostic speech,’ to differentiate humankind into two classes of people.” Still following Widmann, he remarks in a footnote that this latter distinction (psychic/pneumatic) is also present in 1 Corinthians 15.44b-48, but notes that Widmann tags that passage as a possible interpolation, as well, probably by the same interpolator. I have deliberately omitted one particular item from Walker’s list, to wit, the presence of an apocryphal citation in verse 9; I see no reason to assume that an interpolator would appeal to an apocryphon but that Paul would not.
He continues:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 140: Finally, it must be noted that much of the terminology (as well as much of the ideational content) in 2.6-16 is remarkably similar to what is found later in Gnosticism.
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 140: Schmithals notes that ‘there suddenly appears [in 1 Cor. 2.6-3.1] a doctrine of wisdom which — formally, at any rate — is genuinely Gnostic and against which in the preceding section Paul emphatically set himself. Indeed, ‘what is found in 2.6—3.1 could be the precise exposition of a Gnostic’.
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, pages 141-142: Widmann cites eight significant ideational differences between 1 Cor. 2.6-16 and its immediate context:
Christian speech is viewed as the mysterious hidden divine Wisdom or ‘the deep things of God’ rather than as the openly proclaimed word of the cross.
Crucifixion is seen as an act committed in ignorance by ‘archons of this aeon’ rather than as the ‘ground of salvation established by God in Christ’.
A positive evaluation of wisdom is made rather than rejecting wisdom and, paradoxically, identifying the preaching of the cross as wisdom.
A maturity of pneumatics is exalted rather than such ‘maturity’ being depicted as arrogance and the inferior position and earthly weakness of both preachers and members of the community being emphasized.
A distinction between psychics and pneumatics is made, both with predetermined destinies, rather than between Jews and Greeks, both with equal need of and access to salvation in Christ.
An elaborate understanding is shown of the Spirit as the means of access to ‘the depths of God’ and supernatural wisdom rather than more primitively as the ‘strange miraculous power’ and eschatological gift work in the ‘difficult, weak, all-too-human task of mission’ and the ‘daily practice of faith’.
Preaching is understood as ‘esoteric mystery-speech’ rather than as the community’s intelligible human ‘missionary and catechetical work’.
An attitude of ‘superiority over all criticism’ is displayed rather than the realization of being weak, fearful, earthly beings, far from self-honor, far from the goal, and ‘therefore ready to submit to every criticism’.
Possibly the strongest argument, relatively speaking, is that the kind of language found in 2.6-16 is more typical of the pseudo-Pauline epistles than of the rest of Paul:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, pages 143-144: A final point regarding ideational considerations in 1 Cor. 2.6-16 is suggested by Conzelmann, who notes that the passage contains “traces of a certain theological schema, the revelation schema: the ‘mystery’ had been decreed by God from eternal ages, but remained hidden, and now is revealed.” According to Conzelmann, this schema, “in its established form,” first is found in the deutero-Pauline epistles “and their neighborhood.” Arguing that the schema “is not gnostically conceived” and that it “evolved within the internal life of the Pauline school,” Conzelmann then suggests that “Paul himself is here [in 1 Cor. 2.6-16] developing the beginnings of the schema which was then further developed by his disciples.” My own judgment is that Conzelmann’s earlier point should be pursued to its logical conclusion: with only two possible exceptions, the schema appears only in the pseudo-Pauline, never in the Pauline, writings. The two possible exceptions are Rom. 16.25-27 (widely regarded as an interpolation) and 1 Cor. 2.6-16 (the passage under present consideration). I regard this as a strong indication of non-Pauline, and indeed post-Pauline, authorship of the latter.
Finally, it is always good to suggest why someone may have interpolated a passage:
William O. Walker, Junior, Interpolations in the Pauline Letters, page 145: As regards the situation and the motivation underlying the possible interpolation, …my own guess is that the verses would most likely have been added after Paul’s death, when the prevalence and popularity of Gnostic-like notions of ‘wisdom’ made it desirable (at least to someone) to bring Paul into the fold of the “pneumatikoi.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0142064X9201504705
━━━
The Non-Pauline Character of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16
https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/sblpress/jbl/article-abstract/95/4/615/186325/The-Non-Pauline-Character-of-1-Corinthians-11-2-16?redirectedFrom=PDF
Leave a Reply