1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Post by Ben C. Smith »

perseusomega9 wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:44 pm Yes to your first response granted I haven't read the original argument and only have Price's 2-3 sentence summary. But my impression from his synopsis is that it's trying too hard, we know his Corinthian correspondees ( for example) would advocate his position, no need to be so over-the- top explicit it making sure its liturgically read. Again, I haven't read the original argument, not even sure if there's an english translation, just makes me go hmmm
I guess I am not seeing it in terms of the Thessalonians either advocating or not advocating any position.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Post by perseusomega9 »

I dont think its so much about any particular position so much as the imperative to read it in the congregation, not like that wasn't going to be done anyway, much like the constant references in the OT to read this new thing in the congregation under such and such's authority, IOW an updated understanding using X prophet/king/patriarchs name, the give away is the explicit demand to read it (now, as in the first time, because this famous guy we all revere said so) instead of doing it naturally
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Post by Ben C. Smith »

perseusomega9 wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:56 pm I dont think its so much about any particular position so much as the imperative to read it in the congregation, not like that wasn't going to be done anyway, much like the constant references in the OT to read this new thing in the congregation under such and such's authority, IOW an updated understanding using X prophet/king/patriarchs name, the give away is the explicit demand to read it (now, as in the first time, because this famous guy we all revere said so) instead of doing it naturally
I am blanking out on the OT references you mention. Do you have some verses handy with what you are talking about?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Post by Ben C. Smith »

perseusomega9 wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:56 pm I dont think its so much about any particular position so much as the imperative to read it in the congregation, not like that wasn't going to be done anyway....
Do not most (if not all) of the Pauline epistles wrap up with a hodge podge of miscellaneous instructions that the recipients were probably going to do anyway?

1 Thessalonians 5.12-22: 12 But we request of you, brethren, that you appreciate those who diligently labor among you, and have charge over you in the Lord and give you instruction, 13 and that you esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Live in peace with one another. 14 We urge you, brethren, admonish the unruly, encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with everyone. 15 See that no one repays another with evil for evil, but always seek after that which is good for one another and for all people. 16 Rejoice always; 17 pray without ceasing; 18 in everything give thanks; for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus. 19 Do not quench the Spirit; 20 do not despise prophetic utterances. 21 But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; 22 abstain from every form of evil.

I can pick out a couple of instructions here which may mask ulterior motives, but most of them sound like our modern entreaties to "drive safe" or "take care," do they not? I doubt some Thessalonian troublemaker was suddenly pulled back from the brink of a murder spree solely by the tepid injunction to "live in peace with one another."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Post by perseusomega9 »

The quickest I can remember without an explicit reference but may be familiar enough is the book of the law that Israel never followed but a priest found in the temple and was commanded to be read anew by Josiah iirc. I've been listening to the OT read aloud during my overly long commute and the pentateuch is full of similar sayings, I apologize though for not being able to cite chapter and verse, but I do remember being tempted to drive into the lake while listening to leviticus.

Again, I dont know the actual dutch radical argument but the difference seems to be in the case of Corinthians we know there was a letter exchange between Paul and his followers talking about factional issues in the church, whether Paul expected his response to be read verbatim or not it seems at least his third or fourth part of the factions would be advocated in absentia, no need for him to say "read this fucking letter to those assholes". Letters like Thess or Colossians otoh, presupposes that Paul's letters are read as liturgy, much as Justin Martyr and the Memoirs of the Apostles. The specific instruction to read the letter in its entirety assumes such, hence, the letter is composed at a later time using the apostles presumed authority. The command to do so is redundant, and reflects a later situation in the church.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Well, yes, Shaphan reads the newly discovered scroll to Josiah the king on behalf of Hilkiah, its discoverer; and Ezra read the whole law of Moses to the returning exiles. I did not think that these narratives were what you had in mind; they are very different from what we find at the end of the Pauline epistles, and I am not sure yet how to formulate a meaningful comparison between them.

It appears to me (so far) that the concept of the letter being read "as liturgy" is being read into the command; it is not there on its own merits.
The command to do so is redundant, and reflects a later situation in the church.
The command is redundant only if the epistle is indeed already viewed as scripture. In other words, this argument assumes its conclusion. If the letter is simply from the founder of the church, who is regarded as having authority but who is also not completely uncontroversial in that respect, the command is not redundant at all. It may be unnecessary, but so are most of the instructions at the end of the epistles.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Post by perseusomega9 »

I guess I'm just suspicious of these 'universal' encyclicals given the history of pseudoepigraphy, forgery, interpolating, and rewriting of these early texts (and the OT). I can just imagine (granted not an argument in and of itself) of elders showing up at a church with unapproved doctrines and showing the real letter from Paul/Peter/who ever whether redacted or new yet old because the author had sent it around using Tim/Sylvanus/whatshisname not so long ago. Like discovering a new scroll in the temple.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8036
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 --- Interpolation or Not?

Post by Peter Kirby »

robert j wrote: Fri Jan 11, 2019 11:44 am … the Jews, who having killed … the Lord Jesus

For those accepting some version of the NT Gospel stories, not much problem here. However, I think a different solution better fits this claim.

Nowhere else did Paul write that the Jews had killed Jesus in such an explicit manner. However, I think that concept is inherent in Paul’s system constructed from the Jewish scriptures.

Paul presented his Jesus Christ as having “died for our sins according to the scriptures”. I think Paul’s Christ was “hung on wood” (Galatians 3:13) --- as derived from Deuteronomy 21:23 and 27:26 --- as a redemptive act in a Jewish tradition to set aside the Jewish law.

And Paul’s Jesus Christ was delivered-over unto death for our sins as derived from Isaiah 53 (especially verses 4-8), and then resurrected (Isaiah 53:10-12). I have elaborated on these concepts in relation to Paul in greater detail in numerous posts on this forum.

In Paul, it was ancient Jews that killed his Jesus Christ within the realm of his source material --- the Jewish scriptures.
I think I get what you're saying, in terms of Paul being able to use the Jewish scriptures as a basis for this statement.

What about the meaning and content of the statement itself? What does the statement mean in Paul?

Are you saying that the "ancient Jews" actually killed the Lord Jesus according to this statement in Paul? If so, when and where and how did the Jews do this (as a possible example, to clarify what you're saying)?

I think you could be right, but first I'd like to know what it is that you're saying. :)
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
perseusomega9
Posts: 1030
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Post by perseusomega9 »

And for me I see the suspicion in the liturgy because that's where all doctrines are harmonized. We all know the last supper with the bread and wine and resulting eucharist, yet what do we find in the eastern church, the mixing of water with wine in the cup. We also know some groups used water to the exclusion of wine, we also see Paul tell Timothy to drink some wine with all that water. We think of baptism as some sort of water ritual whether immersion or sprinkling, we also know some groups just anointed with oil, in the orthodox church you're anointed with oil then baptized in water. We know some groups abstained from sex/marriage, others didnt want to jeopardize family norms in the empire, what do we see, a bifurcation that allows family bearing units yet revered monastic. I see this all played out in our texts and put into practice in the liturgical life as a great compromise.
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16

Post by Ben C. Smith »

perseusomega9 wrote: Mon Jan 14, 2019 8:53 pmI guess I'm just suspicious of these 'universal' encyclicals given the history of pseudoepigraphy, forgery, interpolating, and rewriting of these early texts (and the OT).
Universal? Were/are you reading "all the brethren" as literally "all the brethren in Christendom," as it were? I was/am taking it as meaning "all the brethren" in Thessalonica, in keeping with the immediately preceding injunction to greet "all the brethren" with a holy kiss (not a practical custom if "all" is taken so literally as to be universal, but perfectly fine if "all" is naturally limited to the city at hand).

As for pseudepigraphy, forgery, and interpolation, I certainly sympathize. I myself think that 1 Thessalonians bears interpolations and (so far, pending some possible reconsideration) think that 2 Thessalonians is likely a forgery in Paul's name.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply