Steven Carr

John's Gospel has lots of stories of Jesu preaching a resurrection.

So does Matthew's Gospel.

And if you read the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke, you can also find in them passages where Jesus teaches about the general resurrection.

So why did people who converted to Jesus-worship in Thessalonican and Corinth deny the general resurrection and believe that the dead were lost?

Surely the would have worked on the principle 'Jesus said it. I believe it. That settles it.'

And why would Paul not rub their noses in their lack of faith in the words of their Lord and Saviour?

I would have. I'm more than happy to quote the Gospels whenever it suits me.

Rum coves, these early Christians.

andrewcriddle

IMO the Thessalonian Christians were not worried that the Christian dead were lost. They expected them to share in the general resurrection along with the righteous dead from the times before Jesus was born.

Their concern was that the Christian dead would lose the special privileges of those other believers who would still be alive at the time of Christ's return.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

What special priviliges might those have been?

1 Thessalonians 4 13 Brothers, we do not want you to be ignorant about those who fall asleep, or to grieve like the rest of men, who have no hope. 14 We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

Why would the grieve like people who have no hope, simply because their dead brethren would lose some special priviliges?

Ben C Smith

I am attracted to the idea suggested by Alan Garrow (whose paper used to be online, but now seems to be gone) and refined by Stephen Carlson (.doc format). It basically runs as follows:

1. The tradition that Paul passed on to the Thessalonians either was or closely resembled Didache 16, including the line in 16.7 about the resurrection, but not of all, but, as it is said: The Lord will come, and all his holy ones with him, prooftexted from Zechariah 14.5.

2. The Thessalonians, perhaps helped along by a strain of Jewish thought that interpreted the holy ones of Zechariah 14.5 as the prophets of the past, therefore thought that the resurrection pertained only to the patriarchs and prophets of old, not to the more recent dead. (This line of Jewish thought is traced by Jonathan Draper, Resurrection and Zechariah 14.5 in the Didache Apocalypse, Journal of Early Christian Studies 5 (1997), pages 155-179; I have not consulted this article, and the reference is from Carlson.) They evidently thought that the coming of Jesus was to be so soon as to precede any deaths in the church.

3. When some people did in fact die, a mild panic set in. Paul has to clarify: The holy ones (of Zechariah 14.5 and Didache 16.7) include those who have fallen asleep in Jesus (1 Thessalonians 4.14), the dead in Christ (4.16).

At any rate, I think there is certainly some kind of connection between Didache 16, 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11, and the Olivet discourse, and any inquiry of the Thessalonian misunderstanding of the resurrection should look into those passages.

Ben.

jjramsey

Alternatively, if Jesus preached that the resurrection would come soon, giving the impression that it would happen before the current generation had a chance to die off, then that would explain the Thessalonians' panic as well. It also wouldn't be too easily solved with a "Jesus said," since what Jesus said would have started the problem in the first place.

Doug Shaver

Maybe the Jesus they worshipped had no connection with the man portrayed in the gospels, or with any man like him?

andrewcriddle

My idea (which after reading Ben's post I'm less confident about) is that Paul's teaching would have distinguished between the privileges of righteous Israel and the privileges of the Church the symbolic or metaphorical body of Christ.

I may be wrong but this would explain Paul's repeated insistence in 1 Thessalonians 4:15-16 that living Christians have no precedence over dead Christians at the coming of Christ.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Carr

Presumably, as a scholarly paper, it examined ideas which clashed with those ideas, such as the idea that early Christians had never heard of a Jesus preaching on the resurrection.

What did it say about that thesis?

Steven Carr

It's a thought , isn't it? And one which carries rather more conviction than the idea that converted Christians in both Thessalonica and Corinth were smiitten by minority Jewish interpretations of Zechariah 14:5.

Christians of today have little hesitation about using the teachings of Jesus to correct the false beliefs of the Thessalonians.

http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/gvcc/r...urrection.html

'The resurrection of Jesus Christ demonstrates to us that all the teachings of Jesus Christ are true. Everything Jesus taught was true, including his great promise in John 6:40, "Everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Jesus' teachings concerning his person, his work, heaven, hell, and the future judgment are all true.'

If only Paul had thought to remind the Thessalonians that all the teachings of Jesus Christ were true, including his great promises.

Ben C Smith

That thesis lies well outside the scope of the essay. Consider the options (that Jesus did or did not teach about the resurrection).

If Jesus did not teach about the resurrection at all, the scenario looks like this:

1. Paul taught the Thessalonians about the resurrection.
2. The Thessalonians (mis)interpreted the resurrection as applying only to the saints of old.

If Jesus did teach about the resurrection, the scenario looks like this:

1. Jesus taught about the resurrection.
2. Paul taught the Thessalonians about the resurrection.
3. The Thessalonians (mis)interpreted the resurrection as applying only to the saints of old.

You can see that what (or whether) Jesus himself actually taught about the resurrection is inconsequential to the question of what the Thessalonians had understood from Paul.

Ben.

ETA: If you are merely trying to cast doubt on the Johannine resurrection sayings, fine. I doubt they are authentic anyway. But the synoptic resurrection sayings may be another ballgame.

ETA: BTW, even if Jesus taught all about the resurrection, we would still be unsure whether Paul had heard those particular teachings.