Vinnie

You have to show that it is inconsistent with Pauline thought, not that he didn't mention it elsewhere to argue it is an interpolation. Paul is teeming with statements that Jesus was crucified precisely because the death and Rez of Jesus was the all important event(s) for Paul.

Rather than this single referenc to the Jews being an argument for interpolation, it suggests that the tradition was well known. It argues for its historicity.

That we would "expect" Paul to mention Jewish involvement more often is your "conclusion", its not an argument. The fact that Paul knows of it but doesn't tells me your conclusion is dead wrong! Its simply a bad argument from silence.

And maybe this is precisely why Jesus was thought to be the END of the law. Thats the whole idea, Jesus fulfills the verse.

Paul is the little picture. The point is that the theology (for a wide array of people including Jews who found it scandalous) makes better sense if we accept Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus. The DT reference supports this argument as best as I can tell!

Start with the Thessalonian community up above. Rlogan asked me a question about this already to which I responded to. Its not complete but its a start. We can work from there.

Reread the point. The issue is Paul's use of "the Jews". It is argud its an hostile reference to the Jews. Paul uses "the Jews" in the other undoubtedly genuine passage I mentioned.

Notice the objection I was critiquing:

"""1) Paul's use of "the Jews" is hostile and inconsistent. """

I was discussing Paul's terminology here. The rest of your comments were based upon this misunderstanding on your part so I will not respond to them.

As I stated I am not sure what Paul meant by the wrath of God. If you had read my article you will see I stated that the flexible language does not even make it certain Paul had actual historic//contemporary events in mind.

I also referenced a study which believes Paul's comments here were very restrictive. I have not read it. I reccomend taking a peek at it if this question interests you.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

The aspect of your earlier post that did not seem apparent from a common sense standpoint was your assertion that it was not possible for a non-interpolated copy of a document to survive 100 years beyond the earliest evidence of the interpolation. Because the truth of the claim was not apparent to me nor consistent with my understanding of how texts come to incorporate interpolations nor how those interpolated texts become the only copies extant, I asked if this was based on any relevant theories published or otherwise written about by scholars. Absent that support, I see no reason to accept this speculative assertion as likely true.

How does my saying I had assumed too much to be historical without sufficient substantiation become "claiming to have no idea what happened"? What I am refusing to do anymore is assume Gospel details can be used to understand Paul’s thinking.

I wrote:
[i]I don't think it is credible to suggest that Paul would accuse "the Jews" of murdering Jesus. I do think it is credible that a later Christian might allow his apparent anti-semitism to overwhelm his awareness of the Gospel stories.

First, it is odd that someone who apparently rejects the personal opinions of others wants his own (i.e. 100 year limit, Egyptian-Roman system = Judean-Roman system) to be accepted. Second, I did not merely assert the opinion but provided the general reasoning which lead to the opinion. I don’t find Paul condemning the Jews anywhere else. He certainly criticizes them for a general failing to accept the gospel but, except for this disputed passage, where is there any evidence he considered them to be responsible for the death of the Savior? I think Steven Carr has done an excellent job of presenting the evidence is his post.

Layman continued:
I don’t have a problem dating the interpolation to around the time Luke’s Gospel was probably written (i.e. c.80-90CE). The author has placed his views into the mouth of Peter just as the interpolator has placed his views into the “pen” of Paul.

The Sanhedrin plays a role in the eventual execution of Jesus in the Gospel stories. How are the thoughts of the Gospel authors relevant to understanding if this passage is genuine to Paul?
I thought the passage was written at a time when the Jews were getting a taste of God’s final wrath? The persecution in the passage is in the past just like the murder of Jesus and the killing of the prophets.

The interpolation isn’t the result of persecution but of a growing anti-semitism and desire to distance Christianity from its predecessor.

None of this is in Paul. This is what I meant about making the mistake of granting too many assumptions for the sake of the argument. You are understanding Paul through the later Gospels and I am trying to understand Paul through what else Paul says.

Amaleq13

Considering all of Cyprian is not about establishing an “overwhelming need” to cite Paul’s alleged accusation but establishing any existing pattern of relying on Paul’s letters in addition to OT references. You claimed that Cyprian would have no reason to quote from Paul after he had already quoted from the OT. I think that is a credible point but it only suggests that more needs to be known about Cyprian, not that we can ignore him.

Needs must be overwhelming and every possible verse must be referrenced. You just can’t avoid interpolating extremes, can you?

You initially weakened the argument from silence by questioning why we should assume Cyprian would refer to Paul after he had already referred to the OT. I acknowledged that this was a credible point but added that I would need to know more about Cyprian to consider it conclusive. This brings us back to what I would be looking for while reading and that would be examples of Cyprian referring to Paul in addition to OT references.

While this is an entirely inaccurate way of describing my approach, it is a very interesting projection from a psychological point of view.

My only “hope” is that I will find something in Cyprian’s work or written about Cyprian that will help me to determine if the apparent flaw you have pointed out is legitimate. You will, I trust, forgive me if I don’t take your assertions about Cyprian as sufficient.

While this fact is given, the speculative assertion you based on it is not.

What do you mean by “publicized”?

I wonder if Cyprian comments on the controversy?

Amaleq13

rlogan,


Thanks for the Sanhedrin references.

Can you confirm or deny the claim that there was a prohibition against convening the Sanhedrin at night?

Layman

Then we disagree. I think it is unlikely that Cyprian would have a copy of 1 Thess. without 2:15-16 when there were multiple manuscript traditions extant over a hundred years prior to his writing and they had been cited by friend and foe alike of orthodoxy.

Actually, you started out by assuming that very thing. It's getting harder and harder to follow you.

I've explained my rationales. You have yet to respond to them.

Well, Paul speaks often of them rejecting the gospel and mentions how they killed the prophets of old. Paul also notes Jewish opposition to the gospel and to himself personally: 2Co 11:24 Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes.

There is nothing here that is precluded by the rest of Paul.

It is not sound methodology to elimanate statements made by Paul simply because they were not mentioned elsewhere in the limited number of letters we have.

You are ignoring the point. You started by assuming the gospels provided an accurate historical backdrop and said that no one familiar with that backdrop could blame the Jews. I then point out that an author of those very Gospels directly says the Jewish leaders crucified Jesus. Please let me know what your current position is. It's not fair to change it and not let the rest of us know.

Like I said, you were the one claiming that no one familiar with those facts, as you assumed Paul was, could blame the Jewish leaders for killing Jesus.

Many of my versions say "at last." It's far from clear that "final wrath" is the best understanding of the term.

The massacre in Jerusalem and the expulsion from Rome were pretty recent events.

You are simply making assumptions here. That the Church and Paul personally were being persecuted by Jews provides credence to the idea that Paul would have seen the bad events that befell them as God's judgment.

First you assumed that Paul knew the gospel stories and could not have said this. Now you say that Paul did not know the gospels stories so he could not have said this.

Neither position makes any sense. Unless you assume there is no Jewish involvement in Jesus' death--a very unlikely proposition unless you are a Jesus Myther--it's simply implausible to assert that Paul could not have put blame on them for Jesus' death.

Layman

I know what you think. You don't have to keep telling me.

It's called a logical extension of your argument. And it does show the underlying weakness of your argument.

If you find anything let us know. Until then it's just wishful thinking.

Feel free to study Cyprian as much as you want. I've seen nothing to indicate further study will produce any evidence for an interpolation.

I already demonstated that Marcion was aware of it and that the "orthodox" church had its own manuscript tradition at the time.

Marcionite caused a storm within the church and without it by presenting his mutilated version of the Bible, including his revising the languate in 1 Thess. 2:16. This is why Tertullian was attacking him in second century.

You can ofind out quite easily here at earlychristianwritings.com.

rlogan

Can't say one way or the other, Amaleq13 - I wasn't looking for that. I would have missed the point if i wasn't paying attention.

But I'd say that the odds are they went to the strip club, ordered depth chargers and had lap dances most nights...

Steven Carr

I was pointing out your false analogy between mentioning the Lord's Supper once and mentioning Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus once. The situations are not analogous, as Paul mentions the death of Jesus often.


Ditto your statement that we would 'expect' Paul to mention Jewish involvement only once is not an argument, it is a conclusion.

At least my 'conclusion' is based on Paul mentioning the death of jesus lots of times, while your conclusion is based on an analogy of Paul's mentioning the death of Jesus only once to Paul mentioning the Last Supper ritual only once, which is a false analogy.

Paul mentions the death of Jesus and the Jewish killing of prophets often.

As Layman points out , Paul often mentions Jewish killing of prophets, yet he never thinks of linking the Jews to the recent killing of the greatest prophet of all.

(apart from a passage where you say there may be no historical events for context)

I was pointing out that your analogy is false. It is your reasoning which needs to be defended, not mine.

You write 'You have to show that it is inconsistent with Pauline thought...'.


As the whole point of your analogy with Paul mentioning things rarely is to get around the fact that this thought is rare in Paul, then it is you who must show it is consistent with the rest of Paul's thinking.

If Paul did not mention the death of Jesus often, then a comparison between other rare things would be a good analogy.

But he does mention the death of Jesus often, so the fact that he makes this connection rarely is prima facie evidence that it is inconsistent.

Simply stating that the usage is consistent in the two passages is not enough. You need to put forward evidence, and analyse the passages, not just point out that two words are the same.

It is blatantly inconsistent. Where is the hostility in 2 Cor., any mention that the wrath of God is upon the Jews? Or any mention that the Jew's sins included killing the Messiah? There is no condemnation of Jews whatsoever in 2 Cor. 22. There is far more condemnation of Christians.

I shall repeat the passage from 2 Cor. 22

What anyone else dares to boast about--I am speaking as a fool--I also dare to boast about. Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one.

Paul goes on to say that he was also in danger from Gentiles.

Paul three times stresses his own Jewishness. Hardly a condemnation of Jews, or a claim that Abraham's descendants are now facing the wrath of God. Indeed, he thinks it is something to boast about - that you are part of the group of people who killed the Messiah. (Simply writing that last sentence shows are hard it is to fit the two thoughts together consistently in one Pauline mind)

And here is the Thessalonian passage

14For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, 15who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men 16in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

An entirely different tone of voice. Simply pointing out that 2 words are the same does not suffice to show that they are consistent.



As you admit have no historical context for Paul's comments for the wrath of God, it is hard to argue that it is Pauline. As you know we certainly have a historical context for Christian linkage of the wrath of God on the Jews and the destruction of Jerusalem.

Where is the Thessalonian 'hostility to all men' in a historical context? Easy to fit in the context of the Jews taking on the entire Roman Empire in a war, but hard to fit into a Pauline context?

Steven Carr

'As so often happens...'

I suppose that means it is possible that a (perhaps different) copyist added, brother of Christ to the mention of James in Antiq. 20, in the famous passage describing how High Priests were deposed for persecuting Christians.

Vorkosigan

To tell you the truth, that interpretation also strikes me as extremely sensible.

Vorkosigan

fix quote tag