1 Thessalonians 2.13-16, Paul, and the gospel of Matthew.

[Bernard Muller]

I got my argumentation for 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 being an interpolation here (with excellent contribution from Carrier):
http://historical-jesus.info/4.html

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 offers a raft of parallels to the so-called Olivet discourse (Matthew 24.1-25.46 = Mark 13.1-37 = Luke 21.5-38), and by far the closest parallels are to Matthew, not to Mark or Luke.

Why is 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 closer to Matthew 24.1-25.46 rather than to Mark 13.1-37?

Cordially, Bernard

Excellent question. Here are the synoptic parallels with 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11:

1. Both Paul and Matthew 24.3, 27, 37, 39 use the term παρουσια for the advent. Mark 13.1-37 and Luke 21.5-28 lack this word.
2. Both Paul and Matthew 24.30 associate the advent with heaven. The other parallel verses, Mark 13.26 and Luke 21.27 lack this mention. (Nota bene: Other instances of the term heaven are found in all three synoptic discourses, but the one I am talking about is the one that describes the descent of the son.)
3. Paul mentions an archangel. Both Matthew 24.31 and Mark 13.27 mention angels, but not Luke.
4. Both Paul and Matthew 24.31 mention the trumpet, but not Mark or Luke.
5. Both Paul and Matthew 24.31 mention a gathering, expressed by some form of the Greek word συν (επισυναξουσιν in Matthew, αμα συν in Paul). Mark 13.27 has this, as well (επισυναξει), but Luke does not.
6. Both Paul and Matthew 24.36 discuss knowing (or, rather, not knowing) the day and the hour (as Matthew has it) or the times and the seasons (as Paul has it). Mark 13.32 has this, as well. But not Luke.
7. Both Paul and Matthew 24.36 use περι δε to transition into the discussion of the day and the hour (the times and the seasons). So does Mark 13.32, but not Luke.
8. Both Paul and Matthew 24.43 compare the advent to a thief (κλεπτης). The discourse in both Mark and Luke lacks this metaphor.
9. Paul mentions the night; Matthew 24.43 mentions the watch (of night implied); Mark 13.35 mentions midnight. Luke lacks this metaphor.
10. Both Paul and Matthew 24.8 have birth pangs. Mark 13.8 does, as well, but not Luke.
11. Both Paul and Matthew 25.5 mention sleep. So does Mark 13.36, but not Luke.
12. Both Paul and Matthew 24.42 mention being awake. So does Mark 13.35, but not Luke (though it is found elsewhere in the book, in Luke 12.37).
13. Paul mentions drunkenness; Matthew 24.49 mentions drunkards; Luke 21.34 mentions drunkenness. Mark lacks this theme.
14. Paul shares with Luke 21.34 alone the term αιφνιδιος (suddenly).
15. Paul shares with Matthew 25.6 the term εις απαντησιν (to meet or unto a meeting).
16. Paul shares mention of the clouds with all three synoptics (Matthew 24.30 = Mark 13.26 = Luke 21.27), though in Luke the word is singular.
17. Paul shares with Luke 21.36 alone the theme of (no) escape.

So we have (at least these) 17 Pauline connections with one or more of the synoptic discourses, of which Matthew shares 15, Mark 9, and Luke only 4. Some of these connections might be thought of as pretty minor, but there are also some pretty major ones that Matthew and Paul share against Mark and Luke, including the use of the terms παρουσια and εις απαντησιν, the mention of the trumpet, and the metaphor of the thief.

Thanks for asking, Bernard. Cheers.

Ben.

[Peter Kirby]

Could 1 Thessalonians be the source here?

[Ben C. Smith]

I might point out that, while Luke 21.5-38 shares very few parallels with 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11, the two of them that stand against Matthew and Mark (αιφνιδιος and the theme of escape) are pretty potent on their own merits, and ought to be explained in the long run, as well.

[Stephan Huller]

Did you ever compare the passage in 1 Thessalonians to the Diatessaron?

[Ben C. Smith]

Could 1 Thessalonians be the source here?

Sure. Why not? If, as this thread is assuming for the sake of argument, 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16 is an interpolation, then I guess two different scenarios are possible:

1. The interpolation predates the gospel of Matthew, which copies over the themes both of the interpolation and of the apocalyptic passage.
2. The interpolation postdates the gospel of Matthew, in which case we may have a Paul-Matthew-Paul sandwich, with Matthew drawing on Paul for the apocalypse and the interpolater drawing on Matthew for the invective against the Judeans/Jews.

Other details that would have to be hammered out if 1 Thessalonians is the source for the synoptic apocalypse are these, I suppose:

1. The Marcan apocalypse is close enough to Paul that, if the Matthean one does not yet exist (on Marcan priority), then Mark must have drawn from 1 Thessalonians. Then Matthew must have drawn both on Mark and on Paul. No problem with this in theory, but does it work out and make sense on the ground? One would have to look for middle terms and such to find out.
2. The Didache apocalypse, which again looks more like Matthew than like Mark or Luke, has to fit into it all, as well. Was it a source for the Matthean version, as Garrow argues? Or did it draw upon Matthew, as per the usual (often unargued) assumption? And again, with nothing to contradict it in theory, does this notion work on the ground?

I am very, very slowly looking into these angles. In the meantime, however, is it suspicious that there are two passages in 1 Thessalonians that evince relatively strong parallels with Matthew, and at least the bulk of both of them have been suspected on various grounds as interpolations? (This is a genuine question; it is not rhetorical.)

[Ben C. Smith]

Did you ever compare the passage in 1 Thessalonians to the Diatessaron?

No, I have not. That is a good idea. Thanks.

[Peter Kirby]

1 Thess 4:13-18

13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. 14 For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. 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. 16 For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord forever. 18 Therefore encourage one another with these words.

This passages is one of the few passages in Paul that I can keep coming back to, as a way to have some assurance that it may be grounded in the writing of someone in the very first generation of belief in the coming of the Lord Jesus, when there were very real concerns about the fact that even just some people have died already.

By the time we've ruled even this passage to be interpolated, what's to say that 1 Thessalonians as a whole isn't later?

But, either way, why would this be the exact concern at a later time? Why is the [micro] "delay of the parousia" expressed this way, as involving just a few who have died and still expecting Paul and several others ("we") of the time to be alive at the time of the parousia? It has never seemed to make sense that way to me, and it is one of the few objections I could find to bring up against Detering and his argument in conversation with him.

It is totally expected to find the "delay of the parousia" (proper) discussed in the manner it is in 2 Peter, e.g., but this is just unexpected as the form of expression in a later work, and it strains credulity regarding both the hypotheses of interpolation and forgery.

[toejam]

^Yep. It is for that primary reason I consider 4:13-18 to be very early. Same for other imminent verses like 1 Corinthians 7:29-31.

[Ben C. Smith]

Good points, Peter. And I agree that we should at least pay attention to the markers concerning those who will be alive and those who may have died at the parousia or day of wrath or coming of the son of man, or what have you. (What happens, by your reckoning, when you pay that same kind of attention to the very similar markers at Matthew 16.28 = Mark 9.1 = Luke 9.27, markers which on their face concern the generation of Jesus himself?)

In the case of 1 Thessalonians, what if we envision these two passages as non-Pauline, yet as still early, still within the lifetime of Paul himself even (a situation explicitly envisioned, whether genuinely or pseudonymously, in 2 Thessalonians 2.2)?

(ETA: I am aware that some of the most forceful arguments against 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 as genuine have to do with the fact that it seems to fit better after 70 than before, but I am still asking, what if? Is 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16 simply too unlikely to predate 70? I guess at least one person who responded to this thread thinks it is not.)