Vinnie

BTW: Thanks for not calling it "obvious" since that irks me--obviously

I just don't think you are taking into account the proper context at the time, the nature of the language and Paul's urgent eschatology. Of course the destruction of Jerusalem is a prime place where such a saying about the finality of God's wrath would be attached. But the point is that it is very possible to be seen in others, if in fact Paul had historical events in mind.

Vinnie

MortalWombat

Vinnie,

In your piece, you write:
And that this is one of the most important points in your evidence that it is not an interpolation.

However, there are a couple of issues.

1. The earliest manuscripts which contain these verses date to the 4th century if I'm not mistaken.
P46, which dates to the late 2nd/early 3rd cent, only contains 1 Thess 1:1; 1:9-2:3; 5:5-9,23-28 of this epistle.
P30, which dates to the early 3rd cent, contains only 1 Thess 4:12-13,16-17; 5:3,8-10,12-18,25-28; 2 Thess 1:1-2; 2:1,9-11 of this epistle.
P65, which dates to the mid 3rd cent, contains only 1 Thess 1:3-2:1; 2:6-13 of this epistle.
We don't see these versus until the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, early to mid 4th cent.
That's almost 300 years after Paul wrote. Someone correct me if I have the dates wrong for these manuscripts.

2. Cyprian, writing in the early to mid 3rd century in Treatise XII.1 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews has a section dedicated to Jews who did not believe the prophets and put them to death (Second Book):
This would have been a prime place for him to quote Paul (which he does throughout his treatises). Yet he fails to mention the passage from 1 Thessalonians, even though he is familiar with 1 Thessalonians and quotes other passages from 1 Thess in the very same treatise (1 Thess 4:6 and 1 Thess 5:2,3).

Layman

Origen was already well aware of the reference by this time:

And Paul, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, testifies this concerning the Jews: "For ye, brethren, became followers of the Churches of Cod which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men." Letter to Africanas, at 8.

And in his commentary on Matthew, book 10.

And by Paul in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians like things are said: "For ye brethren became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus, for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen even as they did of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drave out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men."

Tertullian also notes that Paul calls the Jews "persecutors of Christ" and notes in a section on Thessalonians that Paul said that "The Jews had slain their prophets" and Else he would not have burdened them with the charge of killing even the Lord, in the words, "Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets." Against Marcion, Book 5.

Vinnie

Layman beat me to the punch. Just to add, Origin's work dates from 200-250 according to Kirby's site:

Tertullian might have mentioned part of the passage as well but I would have to look at the full context to determine whether that reference is correct or not.

Check out PK's ecatena:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co...alonians2.html

Vinnie

Vinnie

Actually it appears to be a reference:

I may ask, What has this to do with the apostle of the rival god, one so amiable withal, who could hardly be said to condemn even the failings of his own people; and who, moreover, has himself some hand in making away with the same prophets whom he is destroying? What injury did Israel commit against him in slaying those whom he too has reprobated, since he was the first to pass a hostile sentence on them? But Israel sinned against their own God. He upbraided their iniquity to whom the injured God pertains; and certainly he is anything but the adversary of the injured Deity. Else he would not have burdened them with the charge of killing even the Lord, in the words, "Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets," although (the pronoun) their own be an addition of the heretics

Thats the verse. Terrtulian dates 200-220 on PK's site.


Vinnie

Layman

Notice the header of the chapter?

Are these chapter headings original to the text or added later?

In any event, Tertullian is clearing talking about a Pauline epistle here. He begins the discussion by stating: I shall not be sorry to bestow attention on the shorter epistles also.

He is even noting that Marcion's version of Thessalonians has this section with one addition: "their own." That puts the textual tradition back at least to Marcion, circa about 140 CE.

Vinnie

Marcion interpolated it

Vinnie

MortalWombat

Whether or not Origen or Tertullian knew of the verses doesn't address the issue of whether it was in all manuscripts by that time. If Cyprian failed to mention them when one would have expected him to do so might indicate that it was missing in the version that he had.

Layman

Origen, Tertullian, AND Marcion. And the manuscript goes back further because obviously Marcion's manuscripts with "their own" were not them same manuscripts that were used in the orthodox church. So it existed in multiple manuscript traditions over a hundred years before Cyprian wrote.

What this shows is that sometimes, no matter how much you think someone should have used a particular verse, the same thought simply did not occur to that author.

Vinnie

First, the trouble is with you methodology here. You are prioritizing silence over 3 witnesses. That he just forgot about the verse suffices as an answer. One does not even need to go further.

Not to mention that I have to ask if you doubt the textual stability of Rom 11:3???

Your argument from Cyprian silence is based upon him not mentioning the Thess passage which references Jews killing the prophets. But as I noted in my article:

So, does Cyprian also fail to cite Rom 11:3 as well?

It should be noted that Rom 11:3 is as follows:

"Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"

This cites 1 Kings 19:10,14

Cyprian know 1 Kings. From 81 or 82:

And in the first of Kings it is said that Elkanah had two wives: Peninnah, with her sons; and Hannah, barren, from whom is born Samuel, not according to the order of generation, but according to the mercy and promise of God, when she had prayed in the temple; and Samuel being born, was a type of Christ. Also in the first book of Kings: "The barren hath borne seven and she that had many children has grown weak."

He doesn't cite Kings, Romans or Thess here on this in any way shape or form though he knows all three. As Layman pointed out, "What this shows is that sometimes, no matter how much you think someone should have used a particular verse, the same thought simply did not occur to that author".

I will be incorporating this into the defense later.

This actually presents a good stand alone argument on the dangers of some appeals to "it looks like x would have mentioned this" in arguments for interpolation.

Vinnie