Re: tc-list Phil 2:6 and 1:1 (textual integrity of Phil)
- Sorry for late reply, Robert.
On Sun, 28 Mar 1999, Robert B. Waltz wrote:
> On 3/28/99, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote, in part:
> >Let me ask you this, Dave. Do you feel uncomfortable when questions about
> >interpolations in Pauline epistles are raised? If so, then you're probably
> >not alone. But I'm afraid, such questions need to be asked.
> Theological questions are not the point. Not on this list. In fact,
> the matter ought not to be discussed, because they interfere with
> our ability to work together.
I agree completely.
While my original post was not intended to be concerned with theological
issues, I regret that it could have been interpreted as such. My fault. I
should have expressed myself more clearly.
> As best I can tell, you are proposing a conjectural emendation to
> Phil. 1:1.
> Now conjectural emendations are a legitimate topic for
> discussion on this list, as some critics allow them. However, I
> think it safe to say that, in New Testament criticism, *no*
> scholar will allow conjectural emendation unless the passage
> involves a crux -- some sort of difficulty in understanding.
> You need to establish the existence of that crux.
But it has already been established for a long time.
> And if you need this much argument to establish its existence, that
> proves on its very face that you have *not* established it.
You misunderstand. So far, I gave no argument to establish its existence.
Nevertheless, many scholars argued that this is an interpolation.
Here's this from the article on the Philippians in ANCHOR BD (1992) 5:319
"Critics frequently have viewed the reference to "bishops and deacons"
(1:1), for insance, as an ecclesiastical anachronism and dismissed it as
an ancient gloss (so, e.g., Riddle and Hutson 1946: 123; Schmithals 1971:
89-90 n. 14; Schenke and Fisher 1978: 126; Schenk 1984: 78-82, 334)."
Also, according to the article, the earliest ms of Phil is P46, one of the
three Chester Beatty papyri of the NT that dates from ca ad 200. It's only
missing a few insignificant verses. Generally, the article says that,
based only on mss, there are no significant textual problems with Phil.
> So your conjectural emendation is not allowed.
> You may still argue that the passage has been edited. But it
> was edited in a primitive way (presumably before the Pauline
> corpus was assembled).
I agree with you here.
There's actuallly very little textual mss evidence for later
interpolations in Pauline epistles. Existing mss of Pauline epistles are
remarkably consistent, and show very little variation, compared even to
the mss of the gospels. Two conclusions can be drawn from this.
a) there are no later interpolations in Pauline epistles, or
b) epistles were standartised at a very early stage by some centralized
authority, and only "approved" versions were preserved for posterity.
Myself, I incline to version b).
While apparently textual criticism can do little to clarify this matter,
still the question needs to be asked. Because there's more than enough
evidence from other directions that the Pauline epistles had been
labouriously edited, collated from various much shorter epistles, and
heavily interpolated with later material. The scholar who has done more
than anyone else to analyse this subject was Alfred Loisy, but
unfortunately his work in this area is basically unknown the the current
generation of scholars.
> This is not the field of textual criticism; it is indeed a matter for
> form criticism or some other discipline.
Fine. But I think I was entitled to ask the question. Now it seems to be
answered, so I'm happy.
> Hence I agree with the call for taking the matter off-list.
Fine with me.
> And note that I express no theological opinions in so
> saying. :-)
Thank you. :-)
Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto
The goal proposed by Cynic philosophy is apathy, which is
equivalent to becoming God -=O=- Julian