First, a digression. Many of you are doubtless aware that some 5 or 6 years ago Carrier posted some essays on his blog about Jews before Christ having the idea of a dying Messiah; Thom Stark responded to these essays on his own blog (part 1, part 2). I apologize in advance for indulging in what Peter Kirby called "the metaphors of gladiatorial combat," but it is kind of necessary to my present point: basically, it was a blood bath, with little or none of the blood being Stark's. A couple of years later Carrier published his book, including sections on Jewish ideas about a dying Messiah; in his book he managed to avoid most if not all of the pitfalls into which he had stumbled on his blog. Lessons learned.
So what I am wondering is: what if this happened in antiquity, as well? Galatians 1.18-24 comes off as a concession; Paul is at pains to minimize the extent of his dealings with the Pillars in Jerusalem so as to demonstrate that his gospel comes directly from God. What if, in fact, he was at such pains in his original letter that he actually omitted a brief but real visit he had enjoyed with Cephas and James in his recounting of events to the Galatians? What if Paul made it seem like he had visited only the once, in 2.1-10? And what if the Galatians either knew or found out that Paul had fudged the data here and became even more upset with him than they already were? Mark Goodacre argues that Paul actually lost the Galatian church to his rivals sometime in between the penning of 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 9:
1 Corinthians 16.1-4: 1 Now concerning the collection for the saints: you should follow the directions I gave to the churches of Galatia. 2 On the first day of every week, each of you is to put aside and save whatever extra you earn, so that collections need not be taken when I come. 3 And when I arrive, I will send any whom you approve with letters to take your gift to Jerusalem. 4 If it seems advisable that I should go also, they will accompany me.
2 Corinthians 9.1-4: 1 Now it is superfluous for me to write to you about the offering for the saints, for I know your readiness, of which I boast about you to the people of Macedonia, saying that Achaea has been ready since last year; and your zeal has stirred up most of them. But I am sending the brethren so that our boasting about you may not prove vain in this case, so that you may be ready, as I said you would be; lest if some Macedonians come with me and find that you are not ready, we be humiliated, to say nothing of you, for being so confident. [Where is Galatia??]
And then, to complete the picture, what if Paul (as is argued by some scholars) published versions or even collections of his own epistles for circulation among other churches and at least sometimes made up deficiencies from the original epistles, in this case penning Galatians 1.18-24 himself and inserting it into the new edition (not to mention adding the word "again" to 2.1) so as no longer to stand accused of falsifying his back story? In this scenario there are two distinct editions of the epistle, both by Paul, and both differing from one another in the same basic way that Carrier's book differs from his blog posts: the shortcomings of the first edition that blew up in Paul's face have been rectified for posterity in the second.
I have no very strong feelings about this particular example, and if it does not work for you please feel free to substitute another. And the reasons for editing one's epistle collection differently than the original epistles were edited would not have to be limited to rectifying such grand mistakes. Paul could have added materials he found edifying, fleshed out arguments which had been a bit too bare the first time through, corrected turns of phrase, and waxed poetic in ways his original letters were not. I remember a scholar being interviewed on a TV special many years ago who was discussing Paul's letters; she called Paul's speech to Cephas in Galatians 2.14-21 l'esprit de l'escalier, "the wit of the stairs," or the comeback one should have thought of on the spot but really only thought of later (as one was already leaving by the stairs). Well, what if whole expository paragraphs in Paul are l'esprit de l'escalier, not with respect to his recounting of episodes in the epistles, but with respect to his very penning of the epistles themselves? In other words, maybe some of the theologically denser parts of Romans (for instance) are actually musings from after the sending of the original letter to Rome: still Paul, but after some reflection, wanting to leave a heavier impression for posterity than he originally made on the Romans themselves.
If both the original epistles and the versions found in the epistolary collection(s) circulated simultaneously for a while, then someone like Marcion might have found one exemplar of Galatians containing 1.18-24 and another lacking it, noticed that the additional material in the former made it look slightly worse for Paul vis-à-vis the Jerusalem apostles, and assumed that it had been added in order to subordinate Paul to the Pillars.
I do not wish to minimize the very real possibility of interpolations into the Pauline letters: far from it. We know that ancient letters could accumulate interpolations:
Eusebius, Church History 4.23.12: 12 The same writer [Dionysus of Corinth] also speaks as follows concerning his own epistles, alleging that they had been mutilated: "As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others. For them a woe is reserved. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings also, since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less account." There is extant, in addition to these, another epistle of Dionysius, written to Chrysophora, a most faithful sister. In it he writes what is suitable, and imparts to her also the proper spiritual food. So much concerning Dionysius.
But I wonder whether anything might be said for an author like Paul interpolating his own letters sometimes, so to speak. Are there any known examples of this from antiquity? Are there any arguments to be mounted in its favor?
Thanks in advance.
Ben.