1 Thessalonians first?

[Colby D Strang]

New testament. Is it true that the book of Thessalonians was written before any of the epistles or the gospels? I've been studying theology for half a year now and this is the 2nd time I've come across this note.

[Peter Kirby]

It is a very common opinion that the genuine epistles of Paul came before any other New Testament books. Among the epistles of Paul considered to be genuine, either 1 Thessalonians or Galatians are usually considered to be the first of these letters, with the opinion regarding 1 Thessalonians being slightly more popular. Most schemes for making an order out of the genuine Pauline epistles try to place them within a chronology provided by the outline of Paul's travels in the book of Acts.

[Blood]

The Acts Seminar just concluded that Acts is worthless as an independent corroboration for a Pauline biography.

[Peter Kirby]

Some also attempt a relative chronology on internal evidence, usually ending up with Gal > 1 Cor > 2 Cor > Rom due to references to the collection for Jerusalem. Better than this post might be this one by Mark Goodacre.

Then they try to place the other epistles considered to be genuine either before or after (or in the middle) of these, based on ideas. It is a common assumption that the ideas of 1 Thessalonians represent an earlier theological development in the mind of Paul than the four "Hauptbriefe," which are themselves usually placed before Philippians (except for Romans), resulting in a sequence of 1 Thess > Gal > 1 Cor > 2 Cor > Phil > Rom. The letter Philemon is usually classed as authentic but is also classed with Colossians, which itself has critical opinion split (so, some see both being not genuine, some see both being genuine but late, and some see Philemon as genuine but Colossians not so). Despite disagreement over Philemon and Colossians, not to mention occasional disputes regarding the authenticity of one or the other of the other six (usually Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and/or 2 Corinthians) or against the whole corpus, the idiom of "seven genuine letters of Paul" has stuck itself deep in the theological consciousness, with Philemon receiving the privilege of being the seventh.

There is actually a lot of disagreement regarding the exact sequence that might be assigned to Paul's letters, but putting either Galatians or 1 Thessalonians first (when viewed as a combination of both opinions) is very popular.

Theological opinion from there tends to regard 2 Thessalonians and Ephesians usually as inauthentic, with significant dissent, and the three "Pastorals" of 1 Tim / 2 Tim / Titus as inauthentic, with less significant dissent (the same ~30% by-weight-volume of primarily Anglo-American evangelical Protestant scholarship that also favors 1 and 2 Peter as by Peter, Jude by Jude, James by James, etc.).

A rare exception (that is surprisingly reasonable) to the whole thing is Hermann Detering, who regards the Pauline letters as pseudepigrapha.

[Tenorikuma]

Aren't the two Corinthian epistles generally regarded as compilations of letters by those who study the origins of the Pauline letters? (I'm somewhat unread on this topic.) In that case, determining their order is rather futile.

I'm also warming to J.C. O'Neill's view that all of them are composite documents with one or more Pauling letters at the core combined with significant additional material that relates to Paul's letters topically, and which would originally have been stored together with Paul's letters (on separate papyrus sheets).

[Peter Kirby]

The second one (2 Corinthians) is often split up. The first one much less often so.

Despite reading 2 Corinthians as a compilation of different letters in different chapters, several try to sort through their relative order anyway. (Not 100% unreasonable, given that one part of 2 Cor refers to a previous "tearful letter.")

[hjalti]

Yes. An editor maybe chopped together various sources to create 1 and 2 Cor, but just keep in mind that there aren't any interpolations in there

[PhilosopherJay]

I think it is essential to remind ourselves that there was no post office in ancient Rome. This meant that you had to have a friend deliver the letter or a slave. If you were sending a letter across town or to a nearby town that was only a few kilometers away, this was no problem. The friend or slave could be back in an hour or two with a reply.
However, remember that travel between cities even relatively close ones only 200 kilometers away could easily take a week or two each way. You would have to provide for the slave's food and lodging. Thus delivery of the letter could cost the equivalent of several hundred or even several thousands of dollars. It was something that only wealthy people could afford. How wealthy was Paul?

One could impose on a friend to deliver the letter, but this would be a burden. A city such as Thessaloniki had 1/2 million people in the First century. It would be extremely difficult to find some specific person. There were no address books, so you might have to spend days asking hundreds of people until you found someone who knew the person you were to deliver the letter to. It would be a matter of rare coincidence or luck if a friend who might be traveling to any of hundreds of different cities just happened to be traveling to a city where there was someone you wanted to write to.

If a letter was delivered, there would be no reason for a person to keep a letter once a reply had been written. It was not as if one could auction the letter on E-bay and make a buck on it later. Ordinary letters had no material value.

On the other hand, writing epistles in the name of a famous person was a common rhetorical exercise taught in hundreds of rhetorical schools throughout the Roman Empire.

Here http://www.spurlock.illinois.edu/collec ... nchus.html is how a genuine letter from the Second century C.E. sounded. It was found in the garbage dump of Oxyrhincus:

"Thais to her own Tigrius, greeting.

I wrote to Apolinarius to come to Petne for the measuring. Apolinarius will tell you how the situation stands concerning the deposits and public dues. He will let you know the name of the person involved.

If you come, take out six measures of vegetable seed and seal them in the sacks, so that they may be ready. And if you can, please go up and find out about the donkey.

Sarapodora and Sabinus salute you. Do not sell the young pigs without consulting me. Good bye."

It is short, concise and to the point.
Compare this to the alleged letters/rhetorical epistles of Paul.


Warmly,

Jay Raskin

On the other hand,

[Bernard Muller]

I am back!
According to my personal research,

a) 1 & 2 Corinthians have interpolations in them (as for all epistles by Paul, except for Philemon).
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#ada
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adb
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#adc
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#add
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html#ade
http://historical-jesus.info/co2a.html#ada

b) 1 & 2 Corinthians (also Philippians) are a combination of three letters for each of the canonical ones.
http://historical-jesus.info/co1a.html
http://historical-jesus.info/co1b.html
http://historical-jesus.info/co1c.html
http://historical-jesus.info/co2a.html
http://historical-jesus.info/co2b.html
http://historical-jesus.info/co2c.html
The reasons are explained here:
http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html#corinth1
http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html#corinth2

c) I do not agree with the Jesus Seminar about Acts. Actually, there are concordances with the reconstructed Corinthians six letters about Paul's travels.
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p45.htm
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p48.htm
Here is a critique about the Jesus seminar on Acts:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p80.htm
Also related:
http://historical-jesus.sosblogs.com/Hi ... b1-p81.htm

d) Galatians was written right before Romans, which is the last major epistle from Paul.
I explained why here:
http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3xx.html#galdate
I take 1 Thessalonians as the earliest epistle written by Paul (minus a few interpolations).

e) Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, and the three "pastorals" were not written by Paul.

Cordially, Bernard

[stephan happy huller]

Jay we are in complete agreement:

It is short, concise and to the point.
Compare this to the alleged letters/rhetorical epistles of Paul.

Just compare the Syriac Ignatian epistles to the Greek monstrosities and Lucian's effective statement that letters were written after the death of the 'fiery one' Peregrinus (a point already noted by Lightfoot). Of course the professional scholars say - the Syriac letters are too short! In the same way an American walks into an Italian restaurant in Italy and complains - too little food (I just heard that today; someone actually told me, 'yeah Italy was ok but I like the Italian food here better, like at the Olive Garden). People can't get over the idea that 'what seems right to them' is entirely dictated by familiarity.

The only place that isn't true is sexual attraction. You could be married to a supermodel (like Billy Joel) and you end up attracted to a stranger who isn't half as good looking. I don't know why that is other than to say that sex is based on truth. No amount of bullshit can cover up you not being into someone (both figuratively and metaphorically).