Vinnie

"""""""What are you talking about? Cyprian most certainly cites 1 Kings 19 in this passage (although it appears he is using a different numbering system)"""""""

Stupid error on my part. The "third book of kings" numbering thing three me off which I was wondering about. I should have read the whole verse, especially since there is no 3 Kings.

I concede that point. Cyprian mentions the Kings passage which Paul quotes and that does excuse his non-mention of Romans 11:3.

But we still have the methodological difficulty that this silence itself is not nearly enough to carry the burden of an interpolaiton. As I pointed out, that he just forgot about the other reference suffices.

The silence can work in tandem with some other points but it cannot carry any argument for interpolation given its highly speculative nature. It simply does not follow that the text was not in Cyprian's copy of Paul because he did not quote it here. This cannot overturn the three positive references to it.

Vinnie

MortalWombat

Ok, getting off the Cyprian/1 Thess point. I have another question, Vinnie.

When you sayI don't have the works of Koester or Mack, so I don't know what exactly they are saying or not saying about the issue. Are you saying that you do not think their opinions count with regard to the interpolation issue?

Vinnie

Both believe it was an interpolation but its just an aside in these works and only a little space is devoted to it. My problem is that Doherty did not cite any "primary" scholarly literature on this. Primary in the sense of dealing specifically with this issue. The exception to this of ocurse is Peason in his study.

I was pointing out that he has not actually dialogued with scholars and their counter-arguments on this in his book. Revisionism of his scale requires that he does precisely this.

Vinnie

Amaleq13

And with a wave of your magic wand, the problem disappears! As I have stated every time you offer this argument, the other two accusations (i.e. that the Jews killed the prophets and persecuted Christians) are clearly intended literally. There is absolutely no indication this accusation is to be taken otherwise.

Accusing the Jews of putting Jesus to death is quite obviously not consistent with the Romans crucifying Jesus.

Not according to any version of the story in the Gospels. They all depict the Jewish leaders conspiring to convince the Romans to murder Jesus. They also all depict the Romans actually carrying out the sentence. The interpolation in Josephus got it right, according to the Gospels. The interpolation in Thessalonians did not.

Amaleq13

You need to read more carefully. YOU are the only one using the word "involved". Have you noticed that? It isn't in the passage. The author of the passage goes well beyond accusing the Jews of "involvement". He accuses them of putting Jesus to death. I have repeatedly agreed that the Jews were "involved" but I have just as repeatedly explained this is not what the passage says.

Amaleq13

No (nor do I think it was intended as such) but we know that Matthew was the most popular (most copies found) so this "silence" isn't necessarily significant. The apparent silence of Cyprian in several places where his failure to refer to Paul's similar belief, can't be so easily dismissed. Certainly not by claims that he "simply forgot" the only passage where Paul directly accuses the Jews of murdering Jesus!

Quote:

These references are irrelevant to the issue of the authenticity of this passage. It already existed in multiple manuscript traditions over a hundred years prior.

You seem to be missing the point. Cyprian isn't evidence relevant to dating the interpolation. It is offered as evidence that there existed copies after the introduction of the interpolation which did not contain the interpolation. Given the specific nature of the passage in question, it is difficult to understand why any Christian copyist would remove it so it can only have been added to the others.

Arguments from silence are only as strong as the expectation of something other than silence. If there were only one place where this topic was discussed by Cyprian, I would be less inclined to grant it much weight. According to MW, he makes several references to it. Given that he wasn't reluctant to refer to Paul, it does seem odd that this, the only explicitly relevant passage, would be ignored.

Layman

Sure it's easy to dismiss. There was no need to cite Paul. You are simply saying that Paul and Cyprian were talking about the same thing. So what? Happens all the time.

I understand the point quite well. Perhaps you do not have all the facts yet. We have multiple manuscript traditions with the verse over a hundred years prior to Cyprian. We have two other Christian writers predating or concurrent with Cyrpian that are familiar with the passage and refer to it quite explicitly. Such a well-established tradition makes it unlikely that Cyprian had access to a manuscript that did not have the verses.

No, the best explanation is that Cyprian had no compelling reason to cite it.

Actually, according to MW, we have one reference where Cyprian talks about Jews killing prophets and one where he talks about Jews killing Jesus. As for the former, MW has already explained that it would be redundant to refer to 1 Thess. or to Romans, since he got a passage attesting to the event from Kings. As for the latter, it would also be redundant since, as you note, Matthew was a very popular gospel at that point and served to prove Cyprian's point quite well. In both cases he seemed to prefer to cite to the narrative source to support his point rather than some offhand comments from Paul.

Cyrpian had the support he wanted and there is nothing remarkable about his not referring to Paul here. Simply saying "Oh yes there was" doesn't add anything to the discussion. Why would Paul's short letter have been a superior source than the Gospel of Matthew?

Layman

The Jewis leaders were the prosecutors and Pilate was the judge. A few Roman soldiers were the executioners. It would make complete sense to accuse any of them of killing Jesus.

I've worked on death penalty cases before and have heard the Judge, the Prosecutor, and the police all accused of "killing" the defendant.

In 1 Thess. 2 Paul was referring to Jewish opposition to the Gospel so he referred explicitly to the Jews. This makes more sense in Paul's time--where the Jews were the one's persecuting Christians and not the Romans--than in some later time--where the Romans were the one's persecuting the Christians and not the Jews.

Amaleq13

Because the interpolation was so popular among Christian copyists, it is unlikely that an uninterpolated copy could have survived and come to Cyprian?That makes no sense.

Interpolations become "well-established traditions" when all originals and copies of originals have rotted away or been destroyed. That isn't a process that happens overnight and can be quite some time before no originals remain. If the evidence from Cyprian indicates he had a copy without that passage, it makes no sense to suggest it was removed by a Christian so it can only be an addition. You don't see that, either way, we would expect to find earlier copies that did contain the passage? The only legitimate way to attack this argument is by calling into question the claim that Cyprian's silence warrants concluding the text was not present. Arguments from silence are nearly always problematic so this is clearly a valid complaint. The number of earlier testimonies to the existence of the passage is actually irrelevant.

After rereading the posts, I think your arguments against the weight of Cyprian's silence are credible though I'll admit I'm not familiar enough with him to know if Paul was somebody he referred to consistently.

Layman

Not if you assume it's an interpolation to begin with.

We are not talking about overnight. We are talking about over one hundred years or more with multiple manuscript traditions.

The evidence does not. That the tradition was well established in multiple manuscripts more than 100 years before he wrote adds to the ridiculousness of using Cyrpian as any evidence for interpolation.

I would not expet to find multiple manuscript traditions dating back more than a hundred years prior.

The question is not whether he referred to Paul consistently. The question is what compelling reason would he have to use Paul's passage in Thessalonians here when its attested to by documents that served Cyprians' purpose much better. Let's see. Cite Paul who admits he never knew Jesus? Or cite a gospel that gives a full account of what happened to Jesus and I thought was likely written by an eyewitness?

Cyprian is wortheless as an argument for interpolation.