William O. Walker

The Burden of proof in Identifying Interpolations in the Pauline Letters

The question of interpolations in the Pauline letters continues to provoke debate. Recent years have seen numerous attempts to identify particular passages as non-Pauline and occasional arguments for extensive interpolating throughout the letters. Nevertheless, as Victor Paul Furnish has pointed out, ‘no general scholarly agreement’ has emerged ‘on the probability, or even the plausibility, of any of these hypotheses about … interpolations’. A major problem is the fact that most of the discussion has focused directly upon individual passages, with little or no systematic attention to such preliminary matters as the burden of proof in the identification of interpolations or specific techniques or criteria that might aid in identifying interpolations. Although the burden-of-proof question and the question of criteria are clearly related, and both are crucial, it is possible to separate them for purposes of discussion, and it can even be argued that the former question is, at least logically, prior to the latter. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to raise only the burden-of-proof question; that of criteria must be reserved for treatment in a different context.

ROMANS 1.18–2.29: A NON-PAULINE INTERPOLATION?

Considerations of language, context, and ideational content suggest that Rom 1.18–2.29 is a non-Pauline interpolation: (1) the language of 1.18–32 and, to a lesser extent, that of chap. 2 is not typically Pauline; (2) it is difficult to relate Rom 1.18–2.29 convincingly to Rom 1.1–17, and its relation to chap. 3 is at best strained; and (3) much of the ideational content of chap. 2 and, to a somewhat lesser extent, that of 1.18–32 is non-Pauline and even anti-Pauline. In addition, it is possible that the text of Romans used by Marcion did not contain 1.19–2.1.

Acts and the Pauline Corpus Reconsidered

It is the ’nearly universal judgment’ of contemporary New Testament scholarship, according to Wemer Georg Kummel, that the author of Acts did not know the letters of Paul.l The reasoning that supports this judgment is relatively simple and straightforward: If this author (hereafter to be referred to as ’Luke’)’ had known Paul’s letters, he surely would have used them in the composition of his own narrative about Paul (Paul is, after all, the hero of the entire second half of Acts), or, at the very least, he would have given some indication that

The Portrayal of Aquila and Priscilla in Acts: The Question of Sources

This study argues in three stages that virtually everything the Book of Acts says about Aquila and Priscilla can be derived or inferred from materials in the Pauline letters or can plausibly be attributed to the authors own literary, theological, and/or apologetic agenda. The argument supports the following propositions: (a) that the author of Acts knew and used at least some of the Pauline letters, (b) that Acts reflects a distinctly anti-feminist bias, (c) that the authors agenda included an anti-Marcionite component, and (d) that Acts is to be dated in the second century and perhaps as late as the middle of the century.

2 Cor 6.14–7.1 and the Chiastic Structure of 6.11–13; 7.2–3

New Testament scholars have long debated whether 2 Cor 6.14–7.1 originally stood at its present location in 2 Corinthians and, indeed, whether the passage should even be attributed to Paul. The verses have variously been viewed as (a) composed by Paul specifically for inclusion at their present location, (b) composed by Paul for some other occasion Perhaps as part of the earlier letter mentioned in 1 Cor 5.9–11. but subsequently included at their present location either by Paul or by someone else, (c) composed by someone other than Paul but included at their present location by Paul, or (d) both composed by someone other than Paul and included at their present location by someone other than Paul (not necessarily the same person). For a good summary of scholarship since the Reformation, see William J. Webb, Returning Home: New Covenant and Second Exodus as the Context for 2 Corinthians 6.14–7.1 (JSNTSup 85; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993) 16–30; see also, e.g., Victor Paul Furnish, II Corinthians: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Commentary (AB 32A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1984) 375–83. It is not my intention in this brief study to address the question of authorship; rather, I propose simply to look at one aspect of the question whether this passage originally stood at its present location in 2 Corinthians – that is, at the relation between 2 Cor 6.14–7.1 and its immediate context (6.11–13 and 7.2–3).

The Vocabulary of 1 Corinthians 11.3-16 Pauline or Non-Pauline?

interpolationl (subsequently, I was persuaded that the interpolation begins with v. 3, not with v. 2).2 My arguments involved considerations of literary history, text, context, content, vocabulary, and style. Responses to this suggestion have been mixed.3 Even scholars who agree that the passage is non-Pauline, however, have noted the need for additional argumentation.’ It appears, for example, that adequate attention has not yet been devoted to the question of vocabulary. 5