Ted Hoffman

I am studying Crossan's reconstruction and HJ methodology with a view of giving it a comprehensive treatment. I was reading Vinnie's website and under first stratum, he cites Sanders, who argues that in Matt 24:27 and Matt 16.27, we find "the same saying" as the one in 1 Thess 4.15-17.

1 Thessalonians 4:15 According to the Lord's own word, we tell you that we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.
(NIV)

Matt 24:27 For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man. (NIV)

Matt 16:27 For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done. 28 I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom. (NIV)

Vinnie notes that an urgent eschatology is evident elsewhere in Paul and he notes that the Thessalonians had problems. In any event, vinnie doesn't build up on the argument even when he defines first stratum later - I would think that he mentions Sander's argument because he knows FS without MA is pretty weak - more like a one-legged stool.

My question is, are we looking at "the same saying" in the passages above as Sander states? I dont think so.
Any similarities are incidental and too minute to warrant concluding that we are looking at 'the same saying'. If the argument is that they are the same, a finer point is to be made - whether its midrash, if they copied from the same source (since via MA the source predated both Matt and Thessalonians) or whatever. Dennis MacDonald set out clear and thorough criteria for showing literary borrowing. I would expect the same here [added in edit: ['same theme' doesnt equal 'same saying'].

I object to vinnie's claim that the Thessalonian's passage talks of Jesus' imminent return. I argue that it talks of Jesus' coming: his end-time coming or the parousia. Paul talks of what will happen to all christians (living and dead) while AMatt talks of the living. Paul talks of what will happen after they see the Lord return. AMatt only talks of how the son of man will come.

Instead of referring the Pauline passage as 'urgent eschatology', I would rather refer to it as an apocalyptic oracle or revelation.

Paul shows no awareness that Jesus uttered the words in Matt 24. Thus we rule out MA and we instead have SPA (Single or Poor Attestation) which is a negative criteria. We also know that Paul relied on the OT and revelation to get his kerygma - thus ruling out historicity of this saying.

And we also know that First stratum without MA is very weak, almost useless.
And we also know that the fact that a tradition is found in the first stratum hardly makes it true and that the first stratum is not immune to creative redaction. In any event, it can be argued that if Sander's argument holds, and that AMatt and Paul used the same source, it could have been a collection of sayings (perhaps in line with the Jewish expectations for a spiritual messiah) without any attribution to Jesus and that the 'Jesus said's were added later. But thats another argument for another day.

Luke 12:39 speaks of the lord coming like a thief in the night, which is in direct contradiction to Matt 24:27 above. Thus we have (CT) competing traditions. Another negative criteria. I believe we could go on but this is enough for now.

Link to Vinnie's website below.
http://www.after-hourz.net/ri/jesusmethod.html

Amaleq13

As you point out, they touch on the same theme of The End but I don't see the basis for calling them "the same saying".

At the very least, one would expect Paul to use the specific phrase "son of man" even if he was indirectly quoting Jesus.

Speaking about The End and claiming that at least some members of their respective audiences will live to see it hardly constitutes sufficient evidence to call these otherwise differing passages "the same saying", IMO.

ichabod crane

Hi Jacob! I'm not sure what the distinction is you are making between Jesus' "imminent return" and the parousia (the "coming"). I would take the word "return" to be just another way of speaking about the parousia. But if you are saying that there is no evidence in I Thessalonians of the parousia being imminent, then I disagree. Consider the following verse:

I Thess. 4:15: For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died.

Now my question is, who are the "we" here? It seems natural to take the word "we" as referring to Paul and the people to whom he is writing. If so, then although this instance is not as clear-cut as I Cor. 15:51, it seems that Paul thinks that at least some of the people to whom he is writing, if not he himself, will still be alive when the parousia occurs. So Paul does show a belief in an imminent parousia.

As for the parallels with Matthew, I agree with you that they are not compelling. Both ideas, in I Thessalonians and Matthew, have a strong background in Jewish eschatology. But as Paul developed his thinking, he became increasingly Hellenized in my opinion. There probably is no direct influence of I Thessalonians on Matthew or vice-versa, but if there is, it would be a case of the former influencing the latter, rather than the other way around. It's not unreasonable to suppose that the writer of Matthew could have known of I Thessalonians, but it is very unreasonable to suppose that Paul knew of Matthew.

In light of the above considerations, I think "urgent eschatology" is a fair enough description.

doubtingthomas

Both passages are referring to the end times, though they speak of different events. The Pauline passage deals with a return in which Jesus would raise the dead and gather up the living to be with him forever. Matthew could be referring to a coming similar to the one Pauld described, and then to a universal judgement. However, I don't think that the events in Matthew happen simultaneously. He could, in fact, be giving an overview of the end times, starting with the return and finishing it with the universal judgement.
So then it would seem that Paul focuses on the return, while Matthew merely mentions it in an overview of the end times.

It seems to me that Paul is talking about saints (living and dead) being "raptured," and that Matthew is referring to the judgement of every man who ever lived.

Ted Hoffman

IC,
'Return' presumes a HJ: it implies that Jesus walked the earth and left and will therefore 'return' later. Parousia does not entail that he walked the earth. Returning, unlike coming, holds a presupposition of earlier presence.
I am not "saying that there is no evidence in I Thessalonians of the parousia being imminent". On the contrary.

'Urgent eschatology' is bankrupt because it leaves out the revelatory nature of the proclamation - the word eschatology, by itself, doesn't inform the reader about the source of Paul's message: revelation. 'Apocalypse' has both eschatology and revelation.

Added in edit: it may seem like a semantic quibble but excluding the source of Paul's eschatology while assesing these passages opens the door for MA (ie. that Paul and AMatt relied on an earlier source) which then strengthens FS argument.

ichabod crane

OK, thanks, now I understand why you make the distinction.

I think it is a minor quibble. "Urgent eschatology" doesn't inform that the source of the information is revelatory, but neither does it exclude it. It just doesn't say. Perhaps "Urgent revelatory eschatology" or something?

Amaleq13

ichabod crane and doubtingthomas,


Just to be explicitly clear, am I correct in concluding that neither of you consider it accurate to refer to these passages as containing "the same saying"? IOW, you agree with Jacob's main point that we do not have Multiple Attestation for the saying, correct?


Jacob,


Does Sander's argument for MA of the saying differ from Vinnie's at all?

Rick Sumner

Dennis MacDonald's "clear and thorough criteria for showing literary borrowing" can be used to show that the Wizard of Oz is directly related to Hebrew scripture--right down to "Auntie Em" being a play on the Hebrew word "em" meaning mother, as I noted on the Ebla board. Seems like parallelomania to me.

Sanders' point doesn't necessitate this being the same saying, though it's more than possible that it is. The argument Sanders presents refers to what is indicated by the theme--a theme that is doubtlessly multiply attested.

1Thess 4.15-17, Matt.24.27, Matt.16.27, John 21.21-23--even later texts, right up to 2Pet.3.3-8, all seem to point to the existence of an expectation of something very, very soon. Texts like John and 2 Peter show the end result of that expectation--excuses when it didn't come to pass.

Sanders' point is that some sort of event had been promised and not delivered. That would appear to be unequivocally true even if the Jesus-Myth is accurate--somebody promised the eschaton. They didn't come through.

The theme--expectation of an event within the lifetime of the first Christians or of the apostles--is most certainly multiply attested, even if an individual saying is not. It's the tradition that matters, not a single multiply attested saying--such a method would fly flagrant in the face of everything Sanders considers most important.

See Sanders, _The Historical Figure of Jesus_ pp.179-182.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

As I noted above, Sanders argument for multiple attestation really isn't contingent on it being an individual saying.

Sanders isn't arguing for an historical Jesus, he's arguing that Jesus was an eschatological prophet. I'd venture that Sanders would think it quite ridiculous for anyone to suggest that he needs to argue for an historical Jesus.

Sanders presents the following reasons, however, to indicate that the saying enjoys one common source:

1) The presence of angels.

2) Coming from heaven.

3) Trumpets

4) Gathering of the elect.

5) Those alive now will see it happen.

6) Paul attributes it to a "word of the Lord" "a saying he attributed to Jesus" (Sanders, Hist.Fig., p. 180)

Thus if we ignore the apologetics and redactional tendencies of the author--that which we obviously should ignore--we're left with sayings that look remarkably similar. If we believe, as Sanders does, that there's really no question as to whether or not Jesus lived, then it seems quite reasonable to conclude that we are looking at the same saying.

Regards,
Rick Sumner

doubtingthomas

The passage in Matthew 16:27 is similar to the one in 1 Thess 4:16 because it deals with a return; the difference, I believe, is in how they describe it. Matthew 16:27 deals with a return and judgement, while the passage in 1 Thess deals with a return and gathering of the saints. I almost think that the original poster has the Matthew 24:27 passage confused with Matthew 24:31.

"And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."

To me, that passage is alot closer to the one in Thesselonians than Matthew 24:27, though they are both referring to the return of christ. So, in my opinion, the passages (Matthew 16:27, Matthew 24:27, and 1 Thess 4:15) are closely related in theme, but not close enough to say that they are the "same saying." Though I wouldn't be suprised if the saying in Matthew 24:31 and the one in 1 Thess 4:15 shared a common source.