Amaleq13

Vinnie,


You seem to be misunderstanding the point of the objection to 1Thess2:15-16. This is not simply a matter of Paul not blaming the murder of Jesus on the Jews anywhere else. The verses have Paul blaming the Jews for murder and not only suffering the "final wrath" of God because of it but deserving that wrath. There is no similar example of this to be found elsewhere. And, as we have already seen from an earlier post to this thread, there are numerous examples throughout Paul's letters of views that appear contrary to the sentiment conveyed in the disputed passage. There is good reason to doubt the authenticity of these verses.

Along those same lines, you wrote:
Where is there any implication anywhere Paul discusses the Law that he considered the Jews deserving of the "final wrath" of God? This is wishful thinking.

Regarding the quotation from Wallace, it is interesting how he ends the original argument by conceding the possibility that the passage might still be an interpolation:

"...even if this were an interpolation, this would not deny authenticity for the rest of the epistle."

I suspect this is a reasonable acknowledgement of the tenuous nature of his observations.

Continuing from the Wallace reference:
So, according to Wallace, the disputed verses are consistent with the general pattern because they include a) reference to hindering Paul's ministry from reaching Gentiles opposed to the success of the Thessalonians and b) reference to Jews not escaping the wrath opposed to Gentiles being saved from it.

With regard to a), I have no problem leaving those portions of the disputed verses if Wallace thinks there are good reasons to think they are original.

"...for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: who have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always."

Or an even more reduced version:

""...for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always."

These aspects of the suspect verse are not part of what makes the verses appear foreign to Paul.

With regard to b), while Paul earlier claimed the believing Gentiles would be preserved from the coming wrath, the disputed passage refers to a wrath that has already come. We are still left with an apparently anachronistic reference to the destruction of the Temple since no other, earlier event would seem to warrant such a belief. It is best understood as an example of interpolated margin notes.

With the text reading as either example above, Wallace's observed pattern remains intact with the interpolations removed.

Vinnie

I am not misunderstanding anything. Edited to add: Except for your objection which I just caught

You can choose to engage in highly speculative exegesis on the basis of what the evangelists did not say but I recognize the pitfalls of doing so. I have nothing further to add on Pauline silence. Your methodology is simply flawed.

I said nothing of the sort. My comments go back to the arguments Jewish involvement is presupposed by the theology itself. Its background knowledge.

I have not fully evaluated Wallace's argument yet. When I do I will comment on it.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

You have incorrectly characterized the argument in two ways. First, it is not an argument from silence but a recognition that the sentiment expressed is nowhere repeated in Paul's letters and appears contrary to what he does say. Recognizing that the sentiment expressed in 1Thess2:15-16 is unique to all of Paul's other writing and seemingly contrary to certain expressed views does not require "highly speculative exegesis". It only requires a sufficient level of reading comprehension. In fact, it is your assertion that appears to rely on "highly speculative exegesis". The fact that you have offered no credible examples to support this claim only reinforces that view.

Except for the disputed passage, there is no evidence in Paul that this was "background knowledge". The idea that you keep repeating where a single, unique reference constitutes "strong" evidence for historicity is absurdly ridiculous. The opposite is the actual case because a unique reference is, alone, sufficient grounds for a reasonable doubt and an interest in support from elsewhere in his writings. Where are specific examples from Paul that can be argued as consistent with the belief that the Jews deserved the "final wrath" of God because they murdered Jesus?Without that evidence, your argument for authenticity lacks sufficient support to attain credibility.

The closest you come in the OP essay is a reference to (I believe it was obtained from Brown) Romans 9-11 and to Paul's description of the origin of the Eucharist tradition. The problem with these "parallels" is that they aren't. The coming wrath described is against those who refuse the gospel of the Risen Savior. The wrath in the disputed passage is given as the apparent consequence of murdering Jesus. Romans 9-11 offers no support for the sentiment expressed in 1Thess2:15-16. The single reference to the Eucharist also is not relevant because there is no unique sentiment expressed that seems contrary to what is written elsewhere.

guy_683930

This passage is not as unequivocally historic as most people (including Doherty) think it is. One thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned in this forum is that Paul sometimes uses the term "jew" metaphorically. Paul sometimes uses dualities: e.g. "jew" vs. "gentile", "jew" vs. "greek", "slave" vs. "free", "women" vs. "men", "weak" vs. "strong". There are others too. This is used by Paul to disguise teachings about the two different levels of believers.
"psychic", simple believers: jew, slave, women, weak, ...
"pneumatic", mature believers: gentile, greek, free, men, strong, ...

An example in of using "jew" metaphorically:
Romans 2:28-29: "For he is not a real Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. He is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart, spiritual and not literal. His praise is not from men but from God."

A good example of using the term "gentile" metaphorically comes from the deutero-Pauline text Colossians.
Colossians 1:27: "To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory."
Why is it the mystery of "Christ in you" given to "gentiles"? Because "gentiles" was a key word used by Paul and continued on in deutero-Paul to (sometimes) refer to the spiritual people in the church. Other writers continued on the metaphor (cf. Gospel of Phillip). The terms are sometimes used literally, sometimes used metaphorically, and sometimes both. Now let's look at the passage from 1 Thessalonians and see if it can be applied metaphorically.

"For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews,who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men,by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved--so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!"

He says they became imitators of the churches of God in Judea. But, that could be a way of referring to imitating the "jews" . He says a similar thing himself:
1 Corinthians 9:20: "To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews..."

It says that the "jews" killed Jesus. However, this does not sync with the gospel accounts first of all, and it contradicts other things Paul says. (1 Corinthians 2:8). So, this could be applied metaphorically. There are other examples of saying the simple believers by continuing being simple "kill" Jesus.

Hebrews 5:12-6:6: "For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need some one to teach you again the first principles of God's word. You need milk, not solid food;for every one who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child.But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God,with instruction about ablutions, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.And this we will do if God permits.For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt."

You may say that this is reading too much into the letter. However, since it contradicts Paul, and he uses the terms "jew" and "gentile" metaphorically, it is at least a possible interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.

guy_683930

I found more evidence for this section of the text (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16) as being interpreted as metaphorical jews.
Prophecy was one of the spiritual (pneumatic) gifts Paul describes in his letters. (1 Corinthians 12:8-11).
So, when it says "killed the prophets", it could be interpreted as keeping the prophets "dead", that is unspiritual.
This interpretation of death-resurrection needs to be understood through Paul's understanding of the resurrection of the "dead" in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44. This is the translation from Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic Paul":
"So is the resurrection of the dead. What is sown in corruption is raised in incorruption; what is sown in dishonor is raised in glory. Sown a psychic body, it is raised a pneumatic body."
The word psychic is usually translated as physical or natural in order to give the impression that Paul had SOME sort of physical resurrection in mind, but the word in greek is psychikos.

The best evidence that this sort of meaning for Jews (psychics) being as horrible as Paul (perhaps, perhaps not) describes here is given in Heracleon's commentary on John:

(Jesus is speaking to Jews here)
John 8:44a: "You are of your father the devil, and your wish is to do your father's desires..."

The verse “You are of your father the Devil� is to be understood as meaning ‘of the same substance as the Devil.’ On “and your wish is to do your father’s desires�: The Devil has no will, but only desires. . . This was said not to those who are by nature children of the Devil, but to the psychical people who have become children of the Devil by intent. Some who are of this nature may also be called children of God by intent. Because they have loved the desires of the Devil and performed them, they become children of the Devil, though they were not such by nature. The word “children� may be understood in three ways: first, by nature; secondly, by inclination; thirdly, by merit. (A child) by nature means (the child) is begotten by someone who is himself begotten, and is properly called “child.� (A child) by inclination is when one who does the will of another person by his own inclination is called the child of the one whose will he does. (A child) by merit is when some are known as children of hell, or of darkness and lawlessness, and the offspring of snakes and vipers. For these do no produce anything by their own nature; they are destructive and consume those that are cast into them; but, since they did their works, they are called their children. . . He now calls them children of the Devil, not because the Devil produces any of them, but because by doing the works of the Devil they became like him.

This reading also also provides an interpretation for this part here in 2:16a: "with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins".

So there is actually a great deal of evidence suggesting that if this is written by Paul, it could have a different, non-historical meaning associated with it.

NOGO

Who is "them" in the last sentence?
Obviously it refers to Jews in Judea as referenced in the first sentence.

Who killed Jesus and the prophets?
Jewish authorities.

So the wrath must be on Jewish authoroties in Judea or on all Jews in Judea collectively.

Add "to the utmost" to this equation and only one event fits.

Otherwise, what makes Paul think that a vague reference to some small event in Rome or Judea or elsewhere would be known and understood by the Thessalonians.

guy_683930

First of all, in the gospels, the people who actually performed the killing was Roman soldiers, rather than the Jews.

Secondly, if 2:16b is by Paul, it is hyperbole, referring to the psychics who are still under the law, as Paul says in Romans 4:14: "for the law brings about wrath, where there is no law, there is no violation."

Paul is not above hyperbole. In Galatians 3:1, "You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?" That is clearly hyperbolic.

NOGO, I think you may misunderstand my intentions a bit. I am in favor of 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 being an interpolation, but I don't think it is necessary for the MJ case. It was most likely done by an interpolator, one who probably had Acts or an Ur-Acts in front of them, and who realized that the Paul of Acts was very different from the Paul of the epistles, one who did not seem to refer to the "Jesus the Nazorean" that Acts refers to. Luckily for us, it was done by a rather stupid interpolator, who didn't realize that Paul sometimes used the terms "jews" and "gentiles" metaphorically. Had the guy slipped in the words "sanhedrin" or "caiaphas" or something else, it would be necessary to simply admit it as an interpolation for the MJ case.