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

[Peter Kirby]

Excellent case, Ben. I think a little problem to argue in favor of an interpolation could be that the term παρουσία (parousia) occurs in Matthew only in 24:3.27.37.39, in Paul it is 1 Cor 15:23, 16:17; 2 Cor 7:6.7, 10:10; Phil 1:26, 2:12; 1 Thess 2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23.

Interesting. I wonder whether this could be said to show the influence of Paul on the synoptics.

[Ben C. Smith]

What are your clues that Mark might have known 1 Thessalonians?

1 Thessalonians 4.15-17

1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 overlaps with Mark on the (arch)angel(s), the use of a sun word, and the clouds. 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 overlaps with Matthew on the (arch)angel(s), the use of a sun word, the clouds, the use of εις απαντησιν, the use of παρουσια, the trumpet, and the mention of heaven. You think that 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 is a clue that Mark (with 3 overlaps) knew 1 Thessalonians, yet you remain quite certain that Matthew (with 7 overlaps) did not know 1 Thessalonians. What is it that is persuading you that Mark is the one to look at here, not Matthew? How did you decide this? What does Mark have in common with Paul that Matthew does not? What am I missing? What are you not telling me?

Why do your arguments against the extra parallels in Matthew not speak against the few parallels in Mark? After all, Mark elsewhere speaks of angels, who appear in the Old Testament at any rate, and compounds using sun are not particularly rare, and hey, the Old Testament has divine figures coming on the clouds.... Try to dismantle the Marcan parallels in the same way that you are trying to dismantle the Matthean ones, and now Paul can be free of overlap both with Matthew and with Mark. So why not go there? Why stop after disposing of the 4 extra Matthean parallels? Why not keep going and dispose of the 3 Marcan-Matthean ones, as well?

Joel 2.1 LXX has the verbal form of the noun parousia, yes, but there it is the parousia of the day of the Lord, not the parousia of the Lord. So Matthew and Paul each independently (on your view) turned the verb into a noun and turned its subject from the day to the person (Lord or son of man). I am guessing you find nothing suggestive about that, but I do, especially in conjunction with the other Matthean parallels.

But the word appears twice in James 5:7-8 "the coming of the Lord", an epistle that I am certain Matthew read.

I am pretty certain that there is a connection between James and Matthew (not going to commit to the directionality, though). But it is for the same kinds of reasons that convince me that there is a connection between 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 and Matthew.

By the way, eis apantēsin also appears in Acts 28:15....

Sure. What is your argument? How does the author of Acts using this phrase of the brethren meeting Paul at Three Taverns in any way shed light on both Matthew and Paul using this phrase of meeting the Lord (the bridegroom) at his advent? Does Josephus using this phrase of the Askalonites meeting Jonathan outside the city in Antiquities 13.7.4 §101 shed light on Matthew and Paul, as well?

But I also note that Matthew did not use the same word for "come", in "the coming of the Lord" and "will come down from heaven" from 1 Th 4.15-16, but in the corresponding passage (Mt 24.30) Matthew followed gMark (13:26) which uses a different word ('erchomai') than Paul ('parousia' & 'katabainō').

Granted. That is why this noncorrespondence between Matthew and Paul did not make my list of correspondences between Matthew and Paul. Were I to draw up a list of correspondences between Matthew and Mark (or, say, a synopsis), this would most assuredly make the list.

Ben.

[perseusomega9]

Also, the Gospel writer doesn't have the other very peculiar feature of 1 Thessalonians, which is the apparent surprise and explanation of some people dying. The Gospel of Mark more or less takes it for granted, and is instead asserting positively that some of the people at the time of Jesus will be alive. The expectation behind 1 Thessalonians seems far, far stronger; i.e., that none should die before the parousia. It is this concern that is apparently addressed.

Something rubs me the wrong way regarding this surprise of people dying view. Paul describes how he labored with them day and night teaching them the gospel. He never taught them any sort of funerary rite or prayer, never explained how the dead will rise at all? Then he and Timothy and others leave, Paul worries about them so he sends Timothy to check up on them. Timothy finds them doing great in the faith except they have this problem of not knowing whats going to happen to those that have died since Paul and Tim left. Timothy (Paul's right-hand man) apparently can't it explain it well enough to the extent he has to bring it back to Paul to officially address? Paul addressing the issue from 4 on reads like a church manual, this section follows what appears to be a closing doxology at the end of chapter 3.

[robert j]

I wonder if Mark avoided the use of parousia because the term created a problem for his story.

Parousia --- despite the ecclesiastical baggage accumulated over the centuries --- just meant in Paul’s time “the presence”, “arrival”, or “face-time”. Paul used parousia, not only for the future arrival of his Christ, but also for the more mundane presence or arrival of himself, Titus, Stephanus, etc.

Other than what might be interpreted from the rest of Paul’s letters --- whether Paul’s Jesus had suffered and died in some mythological, scriptural realm on earth in the distant past, or perhaps in the heavenly realms --- Paul never wrote of a return, only of a future arrival or presence.

In gMark, Jesus was already present throughout the story. And in what may be the earliest extant description of a future “second coming” in Mark 13:26, the author chose to use a common verb for “coming” --- perhaps because his Jesus was already “present”.

Such a consideration could easily have been lost with Matthew’s re-write. Matthew didn’t get the term parousia from Mark, but granted, this doesn’t directly address whether Matthew used 1 Thessalonians. Other than the LXX, are there any other good options?

[Ben C. Smith]

Matthew didn’t get the term parousia from Mark, but granted, this doesn’t directly address whether Matthew used 1 Thessalonians. Other than the LXX, are there any other good options?

I doubt the LXX had anything to do with the use of the term. Craig Evans, Commentary on Mark 8.27-16.20, pages lxxxvii-lxxxviii:

The anticipated arrival of the emperor was referred to as a παρουσια (Latin adventus). In honor of the Roman emperors, "advent coins" were struck; e.g., a coin struck in 66 C.E. in honor of Nero reads adventus Augusti, "the coming of Augustus." An inscription in honor of Hadrian speaks of the "first παρουσια of the god Hadrian" (both examples from Deissmann, Light, 371-72). P.Teb. 48 announces the παρουσια of the king to the forum. This manner of speaking is known to Judaism of late antiquity, as seen in Josephus, who also speaks of the "παρουσια of the king" (Ant. 19.8.1. 340; cf. 3 Macc 3:17; T. Abr. 13:4-6).

F. F. Bruce, Commentary on 1 & 2 Thessalonians, page 57:

The παρουσια (Lat adventus) of a very important person might inaugurate a new era, as happened with the visit of Hadrian to Athens and other Greek cities in A. D. 124--an inscription of A. D. 192/3 at Tegea is dated "in the year 69 of the first παρουσια of the god Hadrian in Greece...." Not long after 1 Thessalonians was written, coins bearing some such legend as adventus Augusti were struck at Corinth and Patras to commemorate an official visit of Nero.

LSJ, παρουσια, second definition (the first being presence, essentially), underlining mine:

2. arrival, ἡμῶν κοινόπουν π. S.El.1104, cf. E.Alc.209, Th.1.128; εἰς Ἰταλίαν D.H.1.45; esp. visit of a royal or official personage, βασιλέως, etc., PTeb.48.14 (ii B. C.), IPE12.32A85 (Olbia, iii B.C.), etc.; of a god, IG42(1).122.34(Epid.).

Though of course the term could be used in perfectly ordinary ways (as you pointed out in the case of Paul), essentially meaning presence as opposed to absence (Greek απουσια), in certain contexts it (and the corresponding Latin adventus) also took on a quasi-technical sense pertaining to visiting royalty.

I suspect that this royal usage, as it were, influenced some of the early vocabulary about Jesus.

Ben.

[robert j]

Though of course the term could be used in perfectly ordinary ways (as you pointed out in the case of Paul), essentially meaning presence as opposed to absence (Greek απουσια), in certain contexts it (and the corresponding Latin adventus) also took on a quasi-technical sense pertaining to visiting royalty.

I suspect that this royal usage, as it were, influenced some of the early vocabulary about Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Matthew used neither 1 Thessalonians nor the LXX for his use of parousia --- but instead, mostly followed Mark for his corresponding passage but added the term parousia for his 'son of man' a few times based on the well-documented, quasi-technical use of the term at the time for the arrival/presence/face-time of royal persons? It does seem feasible.

[outhouse]

Floating a possibly silly idea....

A recent exchange between Andrew Criddle and Peter Kirby got me thinking about 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16; specifically, it prompted me to revisit the influential 1971 article by Birger A. Pearson, which is available online. (This forum will not let me post links yet, so just use Google: birger pearson 1 thessalonians, and look for the PDF.) Pearson concludes by rightly turning to the gospel of Matthew to find the closest parallels to the alleged interpolation, since many of its words and concepts do strike some characteristically Matthean notes.

Ben.

Excellent work Ben.

Far above what I could produce on the topic.

Have you ever thought the reason much of Pauls work is debated on the topic of interpolations, is because it was a community effort with more then one hand involved in writing these Epistles/letters ?

I understand we dealing with possible compilations in some cases and were dealing with copies of copies that also could lead to this view, and I m not proposing there are no interpolations either.

But how much was Paul's hand and or Tim's and or the others in his community, who might have proof read and wanted changes before they were sent, is always a curiosity of mine.

[Ben C. Smith]

Though of course the term could be used in perfectly ordinary ways (as you pointed out in the case of Paul), essentially meaning presence as opposed to absence (Greek απουσια), in certain contexts it (and the corresponding Latin adventus) also took on a quasi-technical sense pertaining to visiting royalty.

I suspect that this royal usage, as it were, influenced some of the early vocabulary about Jesus.

Are you suggesting that Matthew used neither 1 Thessalonians nor the LXX for his use of parousia --- but instead, mostly followed Mark for his corresponding passage but added the term parousia for his 'son of man' a few times based on the well-documented, quasi-technical use of the term at the time for the arrival/presence/face-time of royal persons? It does seem feasible.

Well, yes and no. It seems to me that Matthew need not have consulted Paul to coincidentally use the same word here and there, especially if that word can also be found in the LXX or in the culture at large or in other readily available sources in that same context. I do not think that Matthew and Paul are connected here because of one word, or even two or three words. I think, however, that once one finds many more words and concepts than that, especially specific ones, and often in the same approximate order, then one is probably dealing with a literary connection of some kind.

So, to answer your question more directly, yes, I think it perfectly plausible for Matthew and Paul to independently use the term parousia of this event. No problem. Each and every one of the individual correspondences between Matthew 24-25 and 1 Thessalonians 4.13-5.11 may well be a coincidence. It is their aggregate sum that impresses me as requiring a literary explanation.

I hope that makes sense.

Ben.

[Ben C. Smith]

Excellent work Ben.

Thank you for your kind words.

Have you ever thought the reason much of Pauls work is debated on the topic of interpolations, is because it was a community effort with more then one hand involved in writing these Epistles/letters ?

I have often wondered, yes, how much the Pauline cowriters may have influenced the text of each epistle. I admit, though, that I have not come up with (m)any firm conclusions on the matter.

I m not proposing there are no interpolations either.

The biggest question for me when it comes to Pauline interpolations is: did Marcion mutilate the epistles, or did the proto-orthodox pollute them? Or some measure of both? For, in this case, we are not even arguing for the interpolation on the kinds of internal arguments I am examining on this thread; no, we are comparing textual witnesses, as it were, since Marcion himself is a very early witness to the text, and we have only the proto-orthodox to believe or disbelieve when it comes to the charge that he mutilated the epistles.

I admit I do not have (m)any firm conclusions on that matter, either.

Ben.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 overlaps with Mark on the (arch)angel(s), the use of a sun word, and the clouds. 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 overlaps with Matthew on the (arch)angel(s), the use of a sun word, the clouds, the use of εις απαντησιν, the use of παρουσια, the trumpet, and the mention of heaven. You think that 1 Thessalonians 4.15-17 is a clue that Mark (with 3 overlaps) knew 1 Thessalonians, yet you remain quite certain that Matthew (with 7 overlaps) did not know 1 Thessalonians. What is it that is persuading you that Mark is the one to look at here, not Matthew? How did you decide this? What does Mark have in common with Paul that Matthew does not? What am I missing? What are you not telling me?

Let's examine the core passage:

1Th 4:16-17 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the archangel's call, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first;
then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord.

Mk 13:26-27 And then they will see the Son of man coming in clouds with great power and glory.
And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

Mt 24:30-31 and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory;
and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

a) About the trumpet, in 1 Thessalonians, its call is the one of God. In gMatthew & gMark, it is the Son of Man/Jesus making the trumpet call.
b) No archangel's mention in gMatthew and gMark but one in 1 Thessalonians.
c) no angels in 1 Thessalonians, but they are in gMatthew & gMark.
d) No "gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven" in 1 Thessalonians but it is in both gMatthew & gMark.
e) No meeting in the air of the elects with the Lord in 1 Thessalonians but it is in both gMatthew & gMark.
f) The elects are dispersed all other the heaven in both gMatthew & gMark, but will be with the Lord according to 1 Thessalonians.

Who copied whom? Obviously Matthew from gMark.
And Mark took liberties on Pauline material as he did for other items, such as the last supper.
What are here the overlaps Paul/Matthew?

Only "heaven", but at a different location: in 1 Thessalonians, it is from where the Lord comes.
In gMatthew, it is where the clouds are.

Essentially, there is no overlap. So that's it for the core passage.

'Parousia' is in 1 Th 4:15 not part of the core passage (that is with a corresponding passage in gMatthew &/or gMark).
I do not see why Matthew would depend on the Pauline epistles (1 Cor &/or 1 Th) for using that word, more so when it appears also in James' epistle. And I explained already why 'parousia' does not show in gMark & gLuke.

The use of εις απαντησιν is in the parable of the ten virgins, certainly not in the core passage, and peculiar to Matthew. Are you saying that Matthew depended on 1 Thessalonians in order to know about and use that phrase, when Luke also used it in Acts?

I do not know what do you mean by the sun word.

Cordially, Bernard