Loading...In my previous post I indicated that among the five letters that may have been cut and pasted together to make up 2 Corinthians is one that some scholars suspect Paul did not write. If not, how did it get in 2 Corinthians with fragments of letters he did write?
To remind you: this is what I said about it there:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
This is prompted by your MJ podcast, but touches on what Paul wrote to the Corinthians: Do you think Paul’s development of the idea of an immortal resurrection body was a response to the objections of the Gentiles, who looked down on the idea of a physical resurrection? (Especially since he was working amongst the Gentiles.)
I think it’s a response to Christians who came out of gentile backgrounds who simply assumed the differentiation of soul and body and the superiority of soul (as in Plato etc). Paul’s attack here is on members of the Corinthians congregation (“How can some of *you* say there is no resurrection?”)
Could it also not be driven by Christians who are old and infirm? To paraphrase my Grandmother… what is heaven about a 70 year old living forever with 40 year old husband and a two year old baby?
I wonder whether interpolations should be considered inspired, if you go along with biblical inspiration. If the passage was added after the first edition but before the copy that all of our extant copies descend from, was that part of the divine inspiration “process”? The question probably has no answer but is interesting to think about.
Yup!
The connection between 2 Corinthians 6:13 and 7:2 is clear, and 6:14-7:1 is clearly an interruption! It’s hard to see how anyone could argue otherwise, given the smooth flow of thought between 6:13 and 7:2.
This disruption doesn’t inherently imply a value judgment on the passage; it simply highlights a compositional or editorial aspect of the text.
I like the dual imagery in 2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1, with contrasts between believers and unbelievers, light and darkness, and Christ and Belial (that’s interesting!). This echoes similar themes in the purification language we find in 1 Peter, such as:
– *Passing from death to life* (1 Peter 1:3)
– *Perishable and imperishable* (1 Peter 1:4, 18, 23)
– *Darkness and light* (1 Peter 2:9)
Just to name a few.
Both passages also compare believers to the temple:
– *2 Corinthians 6:16*: “We are the temple of the living God.”
– *1 Peter 2:5*: “You are being built into a spiritual house.”
Immediately after comparing believers to the temple, they both quote the Old Testament: 2 Corinthians 6:16-18 and 1 Peter 2:6.
I wonder if the author(s) behind the composition of 1 Peter was associated with whoever inserted this passage in 2 Corinthians?
I don’t recall ever seeing a detailed analysis of it. But it is quite clear that 1 Peter is replicating Paul’s thoughts, probably intentionally.
It has often been noted that if the name “Peter” had not been found in the opening of the book, most everyone wold probably assume it was written by Paul.
disabledupes{2f2d560e4c0547778b4319945345027a}disabledupes
Is this concept of a “glorified” or “resurrection” body Paul’s own contribution to eschatology? Did he come up with it himself? Was he the first?
Or did at least some other pre-Pauline Christians hold a similar view of the nature of resurrected bodies (physical, non-physical, something in between…)?
Did Jesus likely believe resurrection would be a straightforward restoration of otherwise ordinary physical bodies, residing in a perfectly physical earthly Kingdom of God, or did he expect to be raised in a more fundamentally and radically “transformed” body himself?
(Would the soon-to-arrive Kingdom be built of mundane gold and pearl, or some sort of ethereal, “glorified” construction materials?)
I gather some form of belief in post-mortem resurrection for the righteous was already common among many Jews during the late second Temple period, within a couple centuries prior to Jesus. Did apocalyptic-minded Jews in the pre-Jesus era believe in resurrected (and presumably physiologically restored and perfected) physical bodies, or in something a bit more exotic?
There seems to be a spectrum ranging from “reanimated corpses” to “subtle bodies”/”astral bodies”/”bodies of light [=glory?],” so I’m trying to sort out where apocalyptic Jews, Jesus, Paul, disciples, apostles, gospel writers, et cetera, may have variously positioned themselves along that spectrum.
I don’t know if he came up with it, but he’s the first who mentions it. Then again, we don’t have any Christian authors before him. I don’t know of any pre-Pauline Jewish texts that set for this view.
Maybe brackets aren’t right, but I would certainly appreciate some warning of some sort.
Translators won’t give them because they are translating the texts that are available rather than ones that aren’t (if you see what I mean)
Dr Ehrman, now that Christians are remembering the death of Jesus, do you have any idea why Luke wrote that the disciples and apostles would wait for him in Jerusalem when Mark and Matthew said in Galilee? Thank you
It appears to be because of Luke’s heavy emphasis on Jerusalem (seen repeatedly: notice chs. 1-2; and the third temptatoin of Jesus which Luke puts in the Jerusalem temple; etc.) The point is that salvation came to jerusalem with Jesus and it moved out from Jerusalem with his disciples. So Jerusalem, the capital and holy city of the Jews, first benefits from salvation, and then it goes to the world. To the Jew first and also to the Greeks!
Dr. Ehrman,
As far as manuscript evidence: does the location of where the document was found factor in its value? For example, one might be dated a bit earlier than another, but the other may have been found closer to Corinth (again, just as an example).
Not really. Virgtually all our surviving old manuscripts come from Egypt.
Bart – Am I correct that a “textual variant” is a deletion, addition, or change of wording that can be proven because TEXTS that VARY have survived?
And that an “interpolation” is a suspected addition that scholars can’t definitively prove because ALL surviving manuscripts contain it? (I.e. there are no variant texts.)
If so, I think one reason people can’t seem to get interpolations and variants straight is that you use a somewhat confusing statement as part of your argument.
You say it twice in this post:
1 “In other words, by definition an interpolation CANNOT BE FOUND IN ANY of our surviving manuscripts.” and
2 [Interpolations are] “(hypothetical) changes found in precisely NONE of our surviving manuscripts.”
I think the all-caps words above should be “IS FOUND IN ALL” and is “found in precisely ALL of our surviving manuscripts.” I believe your thought is that “proof of its really being an addition” cannot be found in any extant manuscripts, but as stated, you are literally saying the opposite of what you mean to communicate.
Do you think I’m right that this may have been confusing your readers and listeners?
Ah, good point.disabledupes{34fc571c42e7f7177ccf1e27639c3cab}disabledupes
I am interested in hearing more about some of the non-Pauline epistles James, Peter John 1,2,&3, Jude. I just discovered that the Confession of Sins is attributed to James 5: 16. The Catholic church holds confession as one of the basic sacraments and elevates it right up there with baptism, communion confirmation, last rites and marriage. Is this actually where it comes from and how reliable is James?
I don’t know the history of the doctrine but I suppose that’s one of the places they appeal(ed) to.
I’ve often heard the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53-8:11) referred to as an interpolation, but you pretty clearly state that “an interpolation cannot be found in any of our surviving manuscripts”, which makes it seem that this pericope doesn’t qualify as an interpolation since there are surviving manuscripts that show that it wasn’t in earlier versions of the text. The Pericope Adulterae is called an interpolation in Wikipedia (I know – not exactly an authoritative source), and a quick search on Google scholar shows scholarly articles with the same association.
Can the Pericope Adulterae be one of the overlaps, both a textual variation and an interpolation (does your definition have some wiggle room)?
No, it’s definitely a texgtual variant. By definition. (Since there are mss that have it)
I’m interested in what conclusions we can draw from the state of the text as it survives.
1. Whoever collected the texts that make up what came to be called 2 Cor probably only had fragments available to them and pieced them together as best they could. Right? The fragmentation occured prior to the collection? Was deliberate mutilation at all likely?
2. There are probably interpolations present in the NT of which we are unaware because we have no surviving manuscripts that lack the passages (and they don’t draw attention to themselves in an overt way).
1. It’s usually thought he had full texts that he cut up. 2. I’m not sure what would make that “probable,” but it’s certainly possible.
The idea that some editor possessed a copy of the Corinthian correspondence and then proceeded to mutilate it and reassemble it out of order surprises me. On the other hand the idea of a later editor possessing surviving fragmentary copies and who assembled them as best he could for copying seems much more reasonable a view. Given Paul’s status why do you think someone would cut up complete letters and reassemble them?
Thanks
I suppose they thought they were keeping the most important parts. Just as today, millions of people claim the entire Bible is the word of God, but they are really only interested in a few parts of it.
Catholic’s have the Vulgate etc. they are all about tradition and being the oldest and authoritative etc. Why do you think they choose to use the NRSV for example? What don’t they just use the same stuff they had for centuries?
Because like most Christians they realize the NT was written in Greek and that Latin is not the holy language of Scripture.
Michael Goulder pointed out that 2 Cor 6–7 has the same sequence of thought as 1 Cor 4–6. They deal with the same problem, albeit at slightly different stages. Paul had written to the Corinthians, telling them not to associate with any sexually immoral church members. However, the Corinthians thought he was telling them not to associate with ANY sexually immoral person (1 Cor 5:9–13). Thus, they concluded that Paul was out of his mind (2 Cor 5:13) and rejected his authority (1 Cor 4:17–21). Having misunderstood Paul’s earlier letter, the Corinthians stopped boasting in him (2 Cor 1:13–14). Paul urges them to open their hearts to him (2 Cor 6:13; 7:12). In this context Paul urges them again to not associate with unfaithful church members (2 Cor 6:14–7:1). Thus 2 Cor 6:14–7:1 DOES fit the context. Here ἄπιστοι refers to unfaithful people within the church. If we take it to refer to those outside the church, we make the same mistake that the Corinthians made earlier.
I don’t understand your voting “no” on placing interpolations in brackets, given both interpolations and variants are text not written by the supposed original author. What would make an interpolation more theologically reliable than a variant?
It’s not more reliable. It’s more debatable.
Is there another way to interpret the meaning of
ἀφορίσθητε that does not literally mean to shun?
Imperative mood Passive voice plural 2nd person
2 Corinthians 6:17
Are they to be non-argumentative and passive towards the pagans in a way that agrees with 2 Corinthians 7:2 ? Or perhaps Paul was commanding them not to participate in the pagan temple orgy rituals?
It’s a quotation of Scripture and is in poetic lines, wehere “come out from their midst” is parallel and therefore of the same meaning as “be separate from them” The idea is to keep away from their impurity and to put a boundary between them and you. that’s the literal meaning of aphorizo — to “put a boundary between”
thank you,
I’m struggling to comprehend how there can be a separation since that the Church still exists within Corinth. There is not a literal Ablative sense of separation between two locations.
It means kicking them out of the church, not expelling them from the city.
I MADE A MISTAKE PAYING FOR MEMBERSHIP HERE. THERE IS NO ENGAGEMENT TO BE HAD HERE.
If you mean that I haven’t responded, I’m sorry to say that I’m not able to reply to comments every day or even every other day. But I do my best! Also, I typically respond only to questions, since other wise this would be a full-time job. If you’re not satisfied with the blog, we’re happy to provide you a refund. for that, don’t reply here but click on Help. disabledupes{58d9d9f33aa96d07bb2e95f378753a86}disabledupes
I want to express my admiration for the way you interact with your audience. Scrolling through the comments, I’m impressed by how thoroughly you respond to questions and engage with your members. It’s clear that you value their input and are dedicated to fostering a community of learners. Your commitment to engagement is truly exceptional, especially compared to other scholars I’ve reached out to in the past. Moreover, the quality of content on your blog and in your books is outstanding. As someone with a background in Biblical Studies, I can attest that your resources have significantly deepened my understanding of the Bible. The value I’ve received from your materials far exceeds the cost, and it’s remarkable to think that I’ve gained more insight from your work than I did from spending tens of thousands of dollars on my degree.
Thanks.
Dr. Ehrman,
I was wondering if you think this is an accurate, perhaps even clearer translation of the Gal. 1:15-16 text?
It’s a translation found in a Jesus Seminar publication. Of particular note is how they deal with the controversy over the “in me” vs. “to me” debate…
“When the One who designated me before I was born and commissioned me to be an envoy, surprising all human expectations, chose to make his son known through me with the intent that I would proclaim God’s world-transforming news to “the nations,” I did not rush off to consult with anyone.”
It’s a pretty loose translation, as is the Seminar’s wont. That’s fine, but it does mean that — as with all such idiomatic translations — the translator’s intepretation comes through much stronger than in a more literal translation. That is especially clear when they say that God “chose to make his son knowinbg thorugh me.” “Through”?? It’s a difficult passage in many ways, including this preposition. It is a very common one “en” which normally means “in” but has a range of meanings (“within” “in my inner being” so meaning something like either “reveal his son inside me” or even “to me”) but it’s a bit hard to get “through” from it.
Dr. Ehrman,
What do you think of this translation?: “to reveal his Son by me.” Meaning “to reveal his Son to others, by means of me.”
My inclination is that Paul is speaking more about the effects of his experience here including his vigor to preach to the Gentiles, rather than the experience itself.
It’s no light issue though, because there are a few scholars who love to pounce all over this verse to say that Paul only thought his experience of Jesus was internal.
It’s not what the word means; at least I’ve never seen or heard of it mean that. to make that the likely meaning you’d have to give instances where it ever is used that way in Greek literature at the time. Otherwise… disabledupes{0df236b72e2ec7092ddc781da4d91d79}disabledupes
“Brackets, in my opinion, should indicate passages that are highly dubious based on a study of the manuscripts, i.e., textual corruptions, not passages that scholars have argued are interpolations.”
If I understand correctly, if an early manuscript of either 1 Corinthians or 2 Corinthians is found, these passages can cease to be interpolations and become textual corruptions. That would be very impressive, like finding a new planet at the predicted position.
What I don’t get is the bracket thing. If scholars are sufficiently convinced that Paul (or whoever is the original author) did not write the passages, is not that what the reader needs to be warned about? Could you elaborate, please?
Yup, that’s right. The problem is that scholars are not unified on these issues of interpolation. They *are* unified that textual variants occur when some manuscripts are worded differently than others.
Here’s a theory: In 1 Corinthians 5:9, Paul acknowledges that if Christians tried to avoid all immoral people, they’d have to leave the world entirely. His point, rather, was that believers should separate themselves only from those who claim to be Christians yet live immorally. Paul emphasizes that we are to judge those inside the church, not outsiders.
But then, in 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:2, there’s a stark contrast. That passage urges believers not to associate with unbelievers at all, and it condemns many of the same sins that Paul seems to tolerate in 1 Corinthians 5.
Here’s my take: 2 Corinthians 6:14–7:2 wasn’t written by Paul at all. It was part of a letter by the so-called “Super Apostles” after hearing Paul’s earlier stance on not cutting ties with immoral nonbelievers. The Corinthian church may have mistakenly mixed this independent letter from the Super Apostles in with Paul’s conciliatory letter. Wouldn’t that be amazing if we had something from Paul’s interlocutors!?
Yup, that would be amazing and worth knowing. But it’d be hard to establish as probable, I should think. (The super-apostles were on site, not writing letters, for one thing)
Forgive me for belaboring this point.
Paul does indicate that they were on site with the church in Corinth. Interestingly, he doesn’t mention them in 1 Corinthians.
In his encounter with “false brothers” in Galatians, he indicates they were outsiders sent to spy on the church, yet held “considerable repute.” This description parallels Paul’s sarcastic label “super-apostles,” suggesting a connection between the two groups.
Given the context, it’s likely these “Super Apostles” were affiliated with Jerusalem, sent by James.
Maybe Paul doesn’t mention the Super Apostles in 1 Corinthians because they hadn’t arrived in Corinth yet.
After learning of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians, James may have dispatched the Super Apostles to Corinth, accompanied by a letter intended to counter or correct Paul’s teachings (2 Corinthians 6:14-7:1).
This interference upset Paul and prompted him to write his “painful letter,” a stern rebuke aimed directly at the Super Apostles, who were now physically present in Corinth and challenging his authority.
While this theory may be difficult to prove conclusively, I wonder if it could be considered as a potential explanation and added to the pool of possibilities for understanding the dynamics between Paul and the Super Apostles?
Most any human being living at the time is among the possibilities. In easch case the issue is what makes it a probability.
Dr. Ehrman,
I have a question that I would only trust you to answer. Among other things, I know you are a top expert on Textual criticism.
I was in a discussion with someone about the key 1 Cor. 15:3-7 tradition. He told me that in P46 we don’t actually have the appearance to the 12 or the 500 at once. (See Below). Should this be of substantial concern?
The last line on that same page contains the first 5 words of 1 Cor 15:5 (“And that he appeared to Cephas, then …”). The end of that line is frayed away, as are the lines above, but there should have been more words (now not visible, as we discussed earlier). [There are missing words at the ends of each of the preceding lines as well.]
The first line on the next page (which is the back of this shame sheet of papyrus, p. # 111) contains the last 6 words of 1 Cor 15:6, starting with ΜΕΝΟΥϹΙΝ (thus, … “remain (alive) until now, some having fallen asleep.”
Sorry, it’s a great question, but I’m afraid I haven’t studied the photograph of the manuscript, and wouldn’t be able to comment unless I did.disabledupes{344d10fa0c5c792916da73625c669e7d}disabledupes
Bart, I am curious about your thoughts on the story of Jesus cursing the fig tree. From what I’ve been able to acquire from online sources, it seems that the fig tree has been used in the Old Testament as a metaphor for the spiritual fruitfulness of Israel or the temple. Mark’s gospel intersperses Jesus cursing the fig tree, and the response of his disciples to it, with driving out of merchants from the temple and temple authorities later questioning Jesus about it. I don’t know if the fig tree plays a role in apocalyptic Judaism, but it seems to me that Mark is using the fig tree story to mean that Israel, the temple and Judaism is being cursed, and therefore abandoned, in order to be replaced by the Jesus movement among gentiles. To me that suggests that the fig tree story is not historical since the historical Jesus never intended such a replacement. What are your thoughts on this whole issue?
Yes, it’s usually taken to mean that since Israel is not bearing fruit, it will be cursed/withered/destroyed. That’s partly suggestive of Mark’s post-70 CE date.
Dr. Ehrman,
Links to these manuscripts included…
I was in a discussion with someone about the key 1 Cor. 15:3-7 tradition. He told me that in P46 we don’t actually have the appearance to the 12 or the 500 at once. (See Below). Should this be of substantial concern?
The last line on that same page contains the first 5 words of 1 Cor 15:5 (“And that he appeared to Cephas, then …”). The end of that line is frayed away, as are the lines above, but there should have been more words (now not visible, as we discussed earlier). [There are missing words at the ends of each of the preceding lines as well.]
The first line on the next page (which is the back of this shame sheet of papyrus, p. # 111) contains the last 6 words of 1 Cor 15:6, starting with ΜΕΝΟΥϹΙΝ (thus, … “remain (alive) until now, some having fallen asleep.”
https://viewer.cbl.ie/viewer/image/BP_II_f_57/1/
https://viewer.cbl.ie/viewer/image/BP_II_f_57/2/
P46 is one of the three NT apapyri found among the “Chester Beatty” Papyri, announced in 1931 and published by F. Kenyon in a series of volumes; it gives us the oldest chunk of text from the Pauline epistles. (One side of) the bottoms of most pages are missing (worn out) with most pages missing portions of 2-3 lines. There are different numbers of lines on each page, (26 or more). To determine whether a “verse” would be missing papyrologists determine what could be fit within the lines that are missing. In this case, since the bottom of the page is missing the words that follow from 15:5 but top of the next page continues in mid 15:6, it seems almost certain that the appearnce to the 5000 was originally there. I don’t know of any dispute about this among papyriologists, but maybe someone can correct me.
Dr. Ehrman,
Thank you for addressing this.
I take it from your comments that there’s nothing to be concerned about per P46 for those of us who consider the resurrection appearances to the 12 and to the 500 at once to be among the most important parts of the New Testament?
Moreover, do you agree that we can also infer some things? For example: Circumstantially, it seems that if this were a substantial concern it would be reflected i.e. in scholarly translations of the Bible such as the landmark NRSV, which was released in 1989; over 50 years after P46 was published/known about. About 30 noted scholars worked on that 1989 translation, and furthermore, I know that certainly not all of them were conservatives either, i.e. William A. Beardslee was from the Jesus Seminar and Robert A. Kraft was someone I’ve communicated with personally, and he was a liberal as well.
Yes, the passage is found in all extant mss and is not an issue of discussion among scholars of any sort that I’m aware of.