"Paul" What's Bullshit and What Isn't?

[vulcanlogician]

The logic (so to speak) in the article boils down to:

1. We know how to identify interpolations, e.g. these texts.

2. We haven't identified interpolations in Paul's letters.

3. Therefore, Paul's letters contain interpolations.

Scholars have identified numerous interpolations in other ancient texts — “Homeric, Classical, Hellenistic, Jewish and Christian.” We know of interpolations in letters by ancient philosophers to their followers. Even in the Gospel of Mark we have the little disputed interpolation of the final chapter, 16:9-20; and in the Gospel of John there is the episode of the woman taken in adultery found in 7:53 – 8:11. And in the gospels of Matthew and Luke we find that huge chunks have been interpolated into the gospel of Mark. So if we know for a fact that texts were very often expanded with inserted material then we should surely be surprised if Paul’s letters proved to be the exception.

I'll grant you that the article doesn't deliver rock solid evidence for interpolations. But, all it's arguing is that interpolations are likely given what we know about treatment of other ancient texts, including those found in the Bible.