Vinnie

Yes, sober research leads to the conclusions you suggest on this but not for all advocates of the religion of Jesus skepticism. Vork was seen a while back arguing that later Christians could feasibly be seen as attributing predictions to Jesus that never occured//came true! Its quite an "interesting" position to say the least....

Vinnie

{edited to fix quote tags}

Toto

I'm still on vacation, but I have been reading Interpolations in the Pauline Letters by William O. Walker, Jr. He argues that this section is one of many interpolations in Paul. In particular, he notes that the interpolated verses interrupt the flow of that section, use different grammatical constructions and syntax; that the ideas in these verses contradict other parts of the Pauline letters,

He argues that the "final wrath" must refer to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE; and that the NT contains no other indication that the churches in Judea suffered persecution at the hands of the Jews between 44 AD and the outbreak of the war against Rome, and that there is no indication that the churches in Thessalonika were suffering persecution at this time - in short, that it is historically incongruous.

Walker's book is a comprehensive study of interpolations, and I will try to write more about it when I finish it, after I get back from vacation.

Layman

Wait, wait, let me guess.

Because Walker tells there was no persecution of Christians by Jews after 44 CE, this is also an interpolation: "Five times I received from the Jews thirty-nine lashes." 2 Cor. 11:14.

And, despite overwhelming scholarly consensus to the contrary, Josephus' account of the death of James at the hands of the Chief Priest in Jerusalem was also an interpolation.

rlogan

Layman, this is an odd passage in Josephus in that we have the Sanhedrin being called without the permission of the Romans.

I cannot be sure about whether the penalty was a further breach of authority - but nonetheless a death penalty without administrative approval of the process ought to have gotten quite a bit of attention.

Do we have any other citations that "triangulate" this for us?

Vinnie

"""""""I'm still on vacation, but I have been reading Interpolations in the Pauline Letters by William O. Walker, Jr. He argues that this section is one of many interpolations in Paul."""""""

Let me take a guess. In Thess sections 2:13-16, 4:1-8, 10b-12, 18; 5:12-22,27 are all interpolations? Kummel wrote that this view runs "aground on the incontestably Pauline language of these sections, and also on the fact that nothing can be adduced against these texts."(p.185-NT).

I showed that Temple Destruction is not required. I also showed that the passage is consistent with Pauline thought. I also pointed out Brown and something by Hurd which shows that the "interupting text" is not unPauline:

There simply are no convincing reasons on why the text need have come later.

This looks partly ridiculous. How on earth does he even begin to reconstruct the Thess community that existed in this time? As far as I am aware we have one short letter to them by Paul at this time! The other one is not one of the 7 accepted letters of the Pauline corpus and most would date it late 1st century. If pseudonymous we don't even know if 2 Thess was going to Thess!

What's the methoology for reconstructing the Thessalonian community so exhaustively? Whatever Paul did not mention did not happen there? Therefore his statement is an interpolation? Do we have other sources which fill in our information of this community during the 40s?

Vnnie

Steven Carr

Was there a Roman procurator in place at that time?

Josephus writes '...for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.'

So Albinus was not in place yet. The killing did make quite a bit of stir.

Who would have thought the Jews would be so upset by the killing of James, the brother of Jesus , that the High Priest was sacked as a direct result?

Steven Carr

You write 'Above I spoke of Paul's single mention of the Lord's Supper only because of problems Corinth had over the issue.'

Yes, but Paul writes about the death of Jesus many times. It comes up a lot more.


So we would expect many more references to Jews killing Jesus than to the wine and bread. But there is, at most , one.

You also reference Deuteronomy 21

22 If a man guilty of a capital offense is put to death and his body is hung on a tree, 23 you must not leave his body on the tree overnight. Be sure to bury him that same day, because anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse.

You write about this 'It is perfectly harmonious with Gal 3:13, which reports that "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by having become a curse for us" inasmuch as his death fulfilled Deut 21:23: "Cursed everyone who hangs on a tree." That reasoning, which looks on Jesus' death in terms of the Mosaic law, would make little sense if the death was simply the result of a Roman intervention without Jewish involvement. Similarly Paul's references to the crucifixion or death as a skandalon to the Jews (1 Cor 1:23); see Gal 5:11), and the statement that he was crucified in "weakness" are not easily reconcilable with a death that was only Roman civil punishment. Schinzer ("Bedeutung" 152) would carry further the argument about the theological meaninglessness of exclusive Roman responsibility'

I don't understand any of this.

First , as Paul rides roughshod over Dueteronomy's claim that it is GUILTY people who are cursed by God (yet Jesus was sinless), then Paul would hardly have been bothered by whether there was or was not any Jewish involvement. Why would he be? Paul is simply proof texting, and would easily have found a way to get around any problem caused by a purely Roman involvement (and I fail to see what problem that would be anyway). Proof texts don't work in such a literalist manner.

Could you explain futher about '.... with the urgent eschatology of Paul and his audience.' and why Paul thought the wrath was already happening?


You write about 1 Thess. ''The usage here is also no more difficult than the undoubtedly genuine reference in 11 Cor 11:24,26.'

This reads as follows :-
24Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.

The Jews are here calumnified no more than Gentiles. Is regarding Jews as Christ-killers. who are now reaping the wrath of God. really no more difficult than regarding Jews as people who lashed Paul (as others beside Paul were lashed)?

Surely Paul would not compare his (non-fatal) treatment at the hands of the Jews as comparable to the killing of the Messiah. Paul was not the first , or the last, to be flogged, while only one God had been killed by the Jews.

There must be some difficulty in the usage, or at least a comparison with 2 Cor. does not strike me as the same sort of usage.

You write 'Paul's comments may have been restrictive to those Jews who killed the Lord Jesus or hindered the spread of the Gospel so the NJBC p. 76. Brown cites Gilliard NTS 35 (1989), 481-502 in defense of this.'

What then did he mean by 'the wrath of God'? Were only the Jews who killed Jesus expelled from Rome?

You say the usage in 1 Thess. is similar to the usage in Romans 11.
Romans 11:1 I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means!

This does not sound like Paul thinks the wrath of God is upon the Jews.

And although Romans talks about the killing of prophets by Jews, it never refers to anything more current than Elijah.

Romans 11 writes '12But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring!'

So Paul still sees hope for these people who have already had the wrath of God visited upon them. Paul goes on to say that all Israel will be saved. Is this really reconcilable with a view that the wrath of God is killing them right now?

rlogan

Steven - yes, I had that quote in front of me. That is why I said I wanted other citations too. It seems the interpolation charge comes to the fore so readily. Thus, the confirmation request. This was supposedly so aggregious an affair it may have caught more than local attention and therefore be noted in other sources.

Steven Carr

Interpolation of what in particular?

As for other sources mentioning this killing of James, there are Christian references, if you are sure they are talking about the same James.

DO you mean other sources referring to the deposing of the High Priest? I know none that have survived.

rlogan

Precisely, Steven. Deposing a high priest I would think might be taken note of - as perhaps a lesson to others, as something that would be referred to in exemplifying the extent of Roman authority, whatever. In so doing we can get another confirmation about James - maybe it would even say "brother of the Christ..."

Yes, the holy forgeries would be talking about the same James. Is there some doubt about that?

Interpolation? The Josephus account. With the controversial Josephus TF on Jesus, for example, one unfortunately is compelled to look for multiple sources, check for internal consistency, etc. It's a bummer but I'm learning that.