Interpolations in First Corinthians: Were Paul's Letters Altered? | Dr. Frank Hughes

In The Corinthian Correspondence, Frank W. Hughes and Robert Jewett argue that there were eight original letters by the Apostle Paul to the church in Corinth. In the first part of the book, they use literary and redaction criticism to show the reasons for the partition theory of 1 and 2 Corinthians. Analyzing each of the eight letters and letter-fragments using rhetorical criticism, they show how the original Corinthian letters were edited and reshaped into 1 and 2 Corinthians in the New Testament. After reflections on the rhetoric of these letters and the historical meaning of the reshaping of the images of Paul, a final chapter traces the consequences of the reshaping of the Corinthian correspondence and the adoption of the bound book (codex) instead of the original papyrus scrolls. Several figures help the reader understand the redactional process, and a new translation of the eight reconstructed Corinthian letters is provided.

[fwhughes]

Conventional terms: The Deutero-Pauline letters are Colossians, Ephesians, and 2 Thessalonians. The Pastoral Letters are 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus. For that matter, the Catholic Epistles / General Letters are James, 1 and 2 Peter, Jude, 1, 2, and 3 John.

[exoplanet]

Its amazing how many scholars there are who have spotted some little insertion, deletion, or change the Bible that probably is telling us something about how it all came together. It would be great if they all came together into a coherent picture, but that probably will never happen. Thanks to Jacob for bringing these scholars' work to light.

[Joseph_Ben_David]

I really enjoy your content and your delivery. I'll try to get on live. Do you ever talk in the chats and debate, ideology and eschatology.

[philadelphiyahhsmyrna]

I believe the context of the text of women remaining silent in church is teaching and asking questions. Prayer can be silent in your head and not out loud.

[djehutisundaka]

Romans 16:7 is an interpolation. In it, the writer refers to 'my fellowprisoner'. The only place Paul uses this term is in Philemon 1:23 at a time when he is a prisoner. Philemon and Philippians had been written when Paul had been a prisoner in Caesarea, awaiting judgement. In Romans, Paul is collecting tribute to take to Jerusalem and therefore has not yet become a prisoner.

There is also the interpolation of 1Corinthians 15:3-11 where the writer writes of Paul having delivered unto them that which he had also received. This can't be the gospel of 1Corinthians 15:1-2 as that gospel had been 'revealed' to Paul (Galatians 1:1, 1:11-12, 2:2) and rejected by the apostles (Galatians 2:6, 2:11-14, 2Corinthians 11:4-5, 11:12-15, 11:22-23). And then there's the fact that nowhere does Paul ever state that Iesus had been raised the third day. That is only mentioned in the gospel accounts to have been written a quarter century after Paul's death. Finally, there's the supposed sightings of 1Corinthians 15:5-7 that are also the product of the gospel accounts as none of the gospel writers had utilized such claimed sightings for their own accounts but had instead fabricated their own individual accounts of sightings.
This all indicates that the interpolations and therefore the collection of Paul's letters had taken place long after the gospel accounts had been written and had become a staple of the church probably c. 130 CE.

[christianmichael]

[updated] Dr. Hughes, I venture to disagree that the interpolation criteria are ‘met in spades’ for 1 Corinthians 14.33b-36

See first 1 Cor 10.31b-32 (Darby):
do all things to God's glory. Give no occasion to stumbling,
whether to Jews [~what the law says],
or Greeks [~what reason shows],
or the assembly of God [~ common praxis].

1 Cor 11.7-16 is an application of this model

[Note: verse 7-10 is an argument to avoid causing offense to Jews.
Verse 13 begins an argument from reason - a Greek argument, which continues into verse 15. At the end, the Jewish and Greek arguments are supplemented by an appeal to church-praxis]

1 Cor 11.15-16:
But woman, if she have long hair, [it is] glory to her; for the long hair is given [to her] in lieu of a veil. But if any one think to be contentious, *we* have no such custom, nor the assemblies of God.

[Comment: here Paul appeals to the written Jewish law, to Greek philosophy, and to the praxis in the assemblies of the saints, that belong to God.
He makes this appeal this in a matter relating to head covering for females during worship, and NOTE: Paul says that it is shameful for her to pray or prophesy with her head uncovered, and if she did, she would shame both herself and her husband, who is the ‘head’ of the married couple]

Observe 1 Cor 14.33b-35b

as in all the assemblies of the saints, let [your] women (or wives) be silent in the assemblies, for it is not permitted to them to speak; but to be in subjection, as the law also says…. (35b) for it is a shame for a woman(or wife) to speak in assembly”.

My comment:

Paul’s way of arguing seems similar to earlier in chapter 10.31b-32 - the recommended guideline for behaviour among believers, which Paul then exemplifies in 11:7-16

Then in the contested passage of Chapter 14, he appeals both to church praxis and to the Jewish written law - Genesis 3:16b - to avoid causing offense:

“for it is a shame for a wife/woman to speak in assembly” (14.35b)

The issue at hand seems to me to be the public evaluation (διακρινέτωσαν) of prophetic speech (λαλείτωσαν) when being called forth (παρακαλῶνται), one after another, to speak, which means that the prophet will be in subjection to the ones evaluating his or her speech (see verse 32!)

The women (or perhaps better: the wives) should not take part in this public evaluation of prophetic utterance, and thus appear to exercise authority over their own husbands or other men, when these men/husbands, who are the ‘head’ of the couple, speak prophetically.
The women/wives do not have license from Paul to partake in this evaluation of prophetic utterance from husbands.

Unlike the male (and possibly unmarried female) prophets, the wives should not be called forth (παρακαλῶνται) to speak (λαλεῖν) on matters of teaching, and thus assume a position of autjority over their husbands, but ought instead interrogate (ἐπερωτάτωσαν) their own husbands at home, when they desire to learn (μαθεῖν). To learn is the same as to be discipled.

In verse 32 we read that Paul expects prophets to subject themselves to other prophets, and refrain from speaking when (verse 31:) it is their turn to be discipled (μανθάνωσιν) in the church gathering.

Such mutual subjection would create a problem between husband and wife, where the husband was considered the ‘head’ and the one held accountable for both of them - see what Paul said about this theee chapters earlier.

Therefore, Paul must assert that husband-prophets should not subject themselves to wife-prophets, but rather the reverse - so that nobody will cause offense / give reason for stumbling to Jews (what the law says) or to the assembly of the saints, which belongs to the God of peace.

The key to my reading is my interpretation of what Paul communicates in 14:29-32, here on the basis of YLT:

“And prophets -- let two or three speak, and let the other [prophets] evaluate,
and if to another [of the discerning prophets] sitting anything may be unveiled, let the first [prophet] be silent; for ye are able, one by one, all to prophesy, so that all may be discipled, and all may be called forth [to speak]: also the spiritual gift of prophets is in subjection to [other] prophets.

What is the implication of mutual subjection to evaluation in the case of a married couple, where Paul has taken as axiomatic that the husband is the ‘head’ of the couple?

He must address that the Corinthians are at risk of causing offense, and I think that he does address this issue of unintended offense/shame in 33b-36.

It was a delicate balancing act, which is, I think, the reason why Paul appears to us moderns to be contradicting himself within 1 Corinthians.

Kind Regards, Christian

[Stonefalconetti]

05:06 .... Pieces don't fit. That's Schism by Tool.... 😅

[David-jvp]

The story that Paul wrote on in his letter he wouldn't have written unless he found out from the other's what had happened before he found out about it

[StephanieSoressi]

When you switch the sound to yourself, Jacob, it about blows out my speakers with a dissonant hum. :(

[richardfellows]

These partition theories have long since been discredited. I have pointed this out to Frank Hughes, and it is disappointing to see that he is still promoting them. I bought his book, but do not recommend it. However, Frank's discussion of interpolations was good. He is right, of course, to endorse Brooten's discovery that Julia was female. There is new manuscript evidence that Jewett was right that Rom 16:17–20a was an interpolation. See my "The Interpolation of 1 Cor. 14.34–35 and the Reversal of the Name Order of Prisca and Aquila at 1 Cor. 16.19" JSNT (2024). This article also shows that a copy of 1 Corinthians was sent by Fortunatus to Rome to appeal to Rome for support after Fortunatus had been kicked out of leadership of the church of Corinth. He did not send 2 Corinthians because it does not mention him.

[komaichan]

Irenaeus's the against heresies book5 contains many Paul's words before Paul's epistles.

[antonius]

The most famous interpolation is the text of the entire chapter 11. It is clearly not Pauline but from somebody who claims to be Paul. Paul did never ever get instructions about the Last Supper of Jesus himself.

[David-jvp]

There is a contradiction on in 1 Thessalonians if Paul is where he is today.

[conkergemini]

You should travel one of this days Jacob, you fit for archeology.

[David-jvp]

Tertius never wrote what he wrote until he found out about he could from Paul's letter's if he ever took and found out about them seeing what was written on in them. If Paul had Tertius write Romans then he would have copied what Paul wrote in Philipans letter

[gideonopyotuadebo]

WHOEVER IS CONTRADICTING YEHOVAH THE TRUE GOD IS LYING, DECEIVING AND VAIN

[davidcrane]

The Lord promises us HE will not let man corrupt HIS WORD....EVER-->psalms 12:6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

[gideonopyotuadebo]

YEHOVAH ALONE IS THE TRUE GOD
GOD YEHOVAH ALONE IS INFALLIBLE

WHOEVER AND WHATEVER IS CONTRADICTING THE WORD, LAW, COMMANDMENTS, ORDINANCES, COUNSEL AND COVENANT IF GOD YEHOVAH IN THE TESTIMONY OF GOD YEHOVAH BY HIS SPIRIT THROUGH HIS PROPHETS IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS OF GOD YEHOVAH IS A LIAR, DECEIVER AND VAIN