1 Thess 2:14-15 : "the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus"

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
hakeem
Posts: 647
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:20 am

Re: 1 Thess 2:14-15 : "the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus"

Post by hakeem » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:24 am

The claim that 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15 is an interpolation is flawed. It is seen that virtually every Christian writer, even those who make no mention of the so-called Pauline Epistle, claim that the Jews killed their Lord Jesus Christ and it was for that reason the Temple was destroyed and the fall of the Holy City.

1. Acts 2:23
Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain


2. Aristides' Apology II But he himself was pierced by the Jews, and he died and was buried; and they say that after three days he rose and ascended to heaven.

3. Justin' Dialogue with Trypho XVI Accordingly, these things have happened to you in fairness and justice, for you have slain the Just One, and His prophets before Him

4. Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.XII.3 ....but ye killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead, whereof we are witnesses.

5. Hippolytus’ Expository Treatise Against the Jews ---7. But why, O prophet, tell us, and for what reason, was the temple made desolate?....... it was because they killed the Son of their Benefactor

6. Tertullian’s Answer to the Jews ----let the Jews recognise their own fate…….. on account of the impiety with which they despised and slew Him

7. Origen’s “Against Celsus” -----he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death Christ

8. Lactantius' The Manner in which the Persecutors died" ----- I find it written, Jesus Christ was crucified by the Jews.

9. Eusebius’ Church History 1.13.15 --- ……….I wished to take an army and destroy those Jews who crucified him

10. Chrysostom’s Against the Jews ---They slew the Son of your Lord..

The killing of Jesus by the Jews as claimed in 1 Thessalonians was the fundamental and completely corroborated teaching of Christians, the Canon and the very Church.

perseusomega9
Posts: 851
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: 1 Thess 2:14-15 : "the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus"

Post by perseusomega9 » Wed Apr 07, 2021 10:57 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 9:13 am
perseusomega9 wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:56 am
If the Jews killing Jesus is original (and early) in Thess., it takes us back to the GPeter and GLuke additions of Herod in the passion narrative. So which is more original, crucifixion of Jesus by Pilate and the Romans, or killing of Jesus by Herod?
Assuming FTSOA that Paul knew an account of Jesus' death similar to Mark then IMO he could plausibly regard the Jewish leaders as responsible for the death. They found Jesus worthy of death and brought him to Pilate for final sentencing.

Andrew Criddle
Fair enough, but do we have enough to go on to disambiguate an earlier tradition where Herod killed Jesus (or someone who was important and the later identified as Jesus, vs a possible later tradition where it was the Romans? I'm perfectly fine where it remains a dual responsibility for the killing as well.

rgprice
Posts: 494
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: 1 Thess 2:14-15 : "the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus"

Post by rgprice » Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:01 pm

robert j wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:30 am
rgprice wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:34 am

But it seems to me that the statement that the Jews killed the Lord is quite problematic. Nowhere else does Paul say this or even imply it. And indeed it would seem that there are many statements from Paul that contradict such a claim.
Acknowledging your qualifier, I am curious to see a few examples of the many statements from Paul that contradict such a claim.
Well, Romans 9-11 for starters, as well as Romans 2 for that matter.

Romans 2:
9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of mankind who does evil, for the Jew first and also for the Greek, 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who does what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

...

17 But if you call yourself a Jew and rely upon the Law and boast in God, 18 and know His will and distinguish the things that matter, being instructed from the Law, 19 and are confident that you yourself are a guide to people who are blind, a light to those in darkness, 20 a corrector of the foolish, a teacher of the immature, possessing in the Law the embodiment of knowledge and of the truth— 21 you, therefore, who teach someone else, do you not teach yourself? You who [y]preach that one is not to steal, do you steal? 22 You who say that one is not to commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who loathe idols, do you rob temples? 23 You who boast in the Law, through your breaking the Law, do you dishonor God? 24 For “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you,” just as it is written.

25 For indeed circumcision is of value if you practice the Law; but if you are a violator [ab]of the Law, your circumcision has turned into uncircumcision. 26 So if the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the Law, will his uncircumcision not be regarded as circumcision? 27 And he who is physically uncircumcised, if he keeps the Law, will he not judge you who though having the letter of the Law and circumcision are a violator of the Law? 28 For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from people, but from God.


Romans 9:
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon objects of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory, 24 namely us, whom He also called, not only from among Jews, but also from among Gentiles, 25 as He also says in Hosea:

“I will call those who were not My people, ‘My people,’
And her who was not beloved, ‘beloved.’”
26 “And it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, ‘you are not My people,’
There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel, “Though the number of the sons of Israel may be like the sand of the sea, only the remnant will be saved; 28 for the Lord will execute His word on the earth, thoroughly and quickly.” 29 And just as Isaiah foretold:

“If the Lord of armies had not left us descendants,
We would have become like Sodom, and would have been like Gomorrah.”

30 What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, but the righteousness that is by faith; 31 however, Israel, pursuing a law of righteousness, did not arrive at that law. 32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as though they could by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone, 33 just as it is written:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense,
And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”

In all of this no mention of the fact that Jesus was killed by Jews. It goes on in Romans 10 and 11 (I'm not going to quote it all). Romans 9-11 is all about various faults and shortcomings of the Jews, but nowhere among them is a claim that they killed the Lord.

And then of course we have Galatians. Galatians also rails against the Law and Jews who try to enforce circumcision. Yet, with all of the rhetoric against the Jews, no mention of them killing Jesus Christ. In Philippians Paul says that he used to be a Pharisee, zealous for the law, etc., etc. Then he renounces all of his old views and those who hold to those views. Yet never says anything about Jews having actually done anything wrong, just that they are misguided by the Law.

There are at least half a dozen places where it would have been more than relevant for him to bring up the fact that Jesus was killed by the upholders of Jewish law if that's something he thought. This isn't some vague absence. In many places Paul is directly laying out the faults of the Jews, yet he never mentions what would be the most obvious and glaring fault if tis something that he actually thought they did. The fault of the Jews according to Paul is that they have been mislead into trying to obtain salvation through the law. Moses put a veil over their eyes. Instead of having Faith in God's promise, they try to obey the law, but no one can because its impossible, so everyone who tries to obey the law is cursed, because everyone falls short. That's the issue Paul takes with his fellow Jews. Other than Thess 2:13-16, Paul, while laying all all manner of charges against his fellow Jews, the most obvious potential charge, killing Jesus, is never one of them.

robert j
Posts: 820
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: 1 Thess 2:14-15 : "the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus"

Post by robert j » Wed Apr 07, 2021 2:17 pm

rgprice wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 1:01 pm
robert j wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 7:30 am
rgprice wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 6:34 am

But it seems to me that the statement that the Jews killed the Lord is quite problematic. Nowhere else does Paul say this or even imply it. And indeed it would seem that there are many statements from Paul that contradict such a claim.
Acknowledging your qualifier, I am curious to see a few examples of the many statements from Paul that contradict such a claim.
Well, Romans 9-11 for starters, as well as Romans 2 for that matter.
...

In all of this no mention of the fact that Jesus was killed by Jews. It goes on in Romans 10 and 11 (I'm not going to quote it all). Romans 9-11 is all about various faults and shortcomings of the Jews, but nowhere among them is a claim that they killed the Lord.

And then of course we have Galatians. Galatians also rails against the Law and Jews who try to enforce circumcision. Yet, with all of the rhetoric against the Jews, no mention of them killing Jesus Christ.

There are at least half a dozen places where it would have been more than relevant for him to bring up the fact that Jesus was killed by the upholders of Jewish law if that's something he thought. This isn't some vague absence. In many places Paul is directly laying out the faults of the Jews, yet he never mentions what would be the most obvious and glaring fault if tis something that he actually thought they did.

...Other than Thess 2:13-16, Paul, while laying all all manner of charges against his fellow Jews, the most obvious potential charge, killing Jesus, is never one of them.
Yes, thanks rg. We are in general agreement on this in relation to the culprits of Jesus' death in Paul's system. What I was looking for beyond reasonable arguments from silence, was that perhaps you had identified claims in the letters that would seem to exonerate the Jews in at least some level of explicit form, or point to other culprits. My apologies for not expressing my interest more clearly.
Last edited by robert j on Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: 1 Thess 2:14-15 : "the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus"

Post by MrMacSon » Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:04 pm

rgprice wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 5:14 am
BeDuhn says that Marcion omitted Jesus following the Lord, but the version I read1 has Jesus there. What's going on? BeDuhn is claiming that Tertullian reads: "Who both killed the Lord and their own prophets", but the text has "Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets".

1 Which version have your read? Just Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.15, as you have in the OP, or something else?

rgprice wrote:
Wed Apr 07, 2021 3:48 am

From Tertullian, Against Marcion 5.15
I shall not be sorry to bestow attention on the shorter epistles also. Even in brief works there is much pungency. The Jews had slain their prophets2 [1 Thessalonians 2:15]. I may ask, What has this to do with the apostle of the rival god,3 one so amiable withal, who could hardly be said to condemn even the failings of his own people;3 and who, moreover, has himself some hand in making away with the same prophets3 whom he is destroying? What injury did Israel commit against him in slaying those whom he too has reprobated, since he was the first to pass a hostile sentence on them? But Israel sinned against their own God.4 He upbraided their iniquity to whom the injured God pertains; and certainly he is anything but the adversary of the injured Deity. Else he would not have burdened them with the charge of killing even the Lord, in the words, Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, although (the pronoun) their own be an addition of the heretics. Now, what was there so very acrimonious in their killing Christ the proclaimer of the new god, after they had put to death also the prophets of their own god?2 The fact, however, of their having slain the Lord and His servants, is put as a case of climax. Now, if it were the Christ of one god and the prophets of another god whom they slew, he would certainly have placed the impious crimes on the same level, instead of mentioning them in the way of a climax; but they did not admit of being put on the same level: the climax, therefore, was only possible by the sin having been in fact committed against one and the same Lord in the two respective circumstances. To one and the same Lord, then, belonged Christ and the prophets.


There's a helluva lot going on in that passage ie. Against Marcion 5.15 ...

I was reading an article yesterday - Israel in Marcion’s Theology and the Challenge of Contemporary Marcionism for the Orthodox Church (which I'm still digesting; it is a bad translation into English) - but it basically says in part, iiuc, (i) Marcion was critical of the Jewish god but was in no way anti-Jewish / anti-Semetic and (ii) that anti-Jewishness came about in the Orthodox v Marcion adversary. Which Tertullian seems to be expressing in Adv Marc. 5.15. But there's an implication that this adversary went on for long after Tertullian's time (with an implication it's been sheeted back into works attributed to Tertullian)

Does 2 above reflect 1 Thess. 2.15? Perhaps it does not, despite the Catholic Encyclopaedia linking it ...

What do 3 mean?

What about 4 ? (these are questions I'm somewhat posing for myself as much as anything, to reflect upon while reflecting on that paper)

I've recently read others who seem to agree with the author of the aforementioned paper, , eg.

.
"a number of scholars have recently raised the possibility that although Marcion may have deprecated all things Old Testamental so far as Christianity was concerned, such a position may have entailed no prejudice against the legitimacy of Torah as the basis for the religion of Jews.

Along such lines Marcion would be a pioneer — as John Marshall has urged in an article published last year in The Journal of Early Christian Studies [ie. in 2012] — of the so-called “two-covenant” or Sonderweg (more literally, ‘separate ways‘) solution which reads Paul‘s critique of the Law as applying only to attempts to harness it as a means for the salvation of gentiles.

"what was most innovative about Marcion, I will argue, is best explained as arising from the same socio-historical milieu that produced the forms of anti-Judaism dominating the witnesses to Christianity in the first half of the second century."

Marcion: Anti-Jewish Christian Extremist or Forerunner of Theological Pluralism? | Stephen Cooper, 2013, SBL
.

There would seem to be a lot more to tease out and consolidate as far as Marcion studies go. I would think that works like Markus Vinzent's 'Tertullian's Preface to Marcion's Gospel', 2016, which addresses aspects of Tertullian's rhetorical style as well as his actual rhetoric, might be important to understanding a lot of what was really going on ...


eta:

To one and the same Lord, then, belonged Christ and the prophets.

- seems like Tertullian doing some eisegesis ...


eta2:

John W. Marshall, 'Misunderstanding the New Paul: Marcion's Transformation of the Sonderzeit Paul, Journal of Early Christian Studies
Volume 20, Number 1, Spring 2012

Abstract
The study of Marcion's reception of Paul has not kept pace with changes in the historical-critical interpretation of Paul's letters. This study seeks to understand Marcion's view of the future of the Jewish people by means of the "two paths" interpretation of Paul. I argue that Marcion's doctrine of the two Christs both transforms and preserves something of Paul's conception of the special way into salvation that he offered to Gentiles. Marcion's transformation of Paul consists in the ubiquitous second-century containment or removal of Paul's intense eschatology. Marcion participates in this wider movement in second-century Christianity but stands as a rare instance of preserving distinct salvific paths for Jews and Gentiles. via https://muse.jhu.edu/article/468579/pdf

eta3: Marshall's paper: https://www.academia.edu/35380675/Misun ... rzeit_Paul

  • The entire history of the reception of Paul seems to be a history of misunderstanding (mixed of course with understanding). I want to suggest that this is almost inevitable, but also that the shape that we understand the misunderstanding to take depends on the changing character of what it is to “understand” Paul: the account of second-century misunderstanding requires revision because our understanding of Paul has changed immensely since Harnack’s quip [that “in the second century only one Christian—Marcion—took the trouble to understand Paul, but ...he misunderstood him”]


Post Reply