Interpolation in I Thess 2:14-16?

[ficino]

I'm starting a thread on this because I don't want to derail the earlier thread any further.

Many scholars allege that the above verses are a later interpolation, for the anti-semitism of the passage, and the bald accusation that it was the Jews who killed Jesus, seem to contradict things in other Pauline passages. There are defenders, of course.

See earlier discussion. toejam introduced the point, and several others chimed in:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1099&start=150#p24416

My comment and my question.

Comment: some features that suggest interpolation, taken by themselves:
1. καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων : [of the Jews} "and opposed to all men/people" It was a standard gentile beef against the Jews that they were against everyone. (The same was said against Christians.) This sounds more like a gentile interpolator than like Paul, who generally honors his own people even when he blames them for rejecting Jesus.
2. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος : "and the wrath [sc. of God] came upon them to the uttermost." The aorist, designating an event looked at by itself, makes a powerful statement that some decisive, past visitation of punishment occurred. This does not mesh with Paul's conviction in Romans that Israel some day will be saved.

Question:
What is the methodology for detecting interpolations? Many interpolations in manuscripts are recognized because they are unnecessary redundancies. Especially when they add a later word to an earlier word of similar meaning, they reveal themselves as marginal glosses that were taken into the main text in error by a later copyist, who thought the gloss was a restoration of words that had been omitted from the main text by mistake.

This is not that. I understand that another category of interpolation is seen in material that, for some ideological reason, clashes with the rest of the passage. That seems to be what we have here. Usually, though, I have seen textual critics seek to explain what motivated the interpolator. I have trouble understanding the motivation of someone who would interpolate these words into this spot in the text.

Does a sound methodology for detecting interpolations require that one give a plausible account of the reasons that led to the interpolation?

[neilgodfrey]

I understand that there are arguments. I understand that this passage, if it is the weakest link in an interpretation of the Pauline corpus, is not the worst problem that any such interpretation could have. . . . .

But we get too complacent with converting our "probably this" and "probably that" into something much more than what it is. . . .

I am sure you do know the arguments. My expression of impatience was prompted more by what came across to me as too much of this "probably this" and "probably that" in discussion re this passage. I'd like to see more acknowledgement of the arguments by those pushing some agenda for or against on this: not just "we can't just conveniently opt for an interpolation when it suits" type assertion.

Actually my own personal partiality is towards a heavenly Jesus who really did drop down to earth for a short while, in the flesh, so he could be crucified by the Jews.

So it would "be convenient for me" if the passage was genuine.

The case needs to be made independently of any mythicist question at all. If it's genuine then a mythicist case will need to accommodate that. I know you know all this stuff.

[Peter Kirby]

When it comes to the scholarly endorsements of interpolation, of course, there is a real question of partiality at work, and it has nothing to do with historicity. Rather it has a lot to do with antisemitism, or perhaps more properly anti-antisemitism. The passage is useless to everybody except someone who doesn't care that ******************Paul says the Jews killed Jesus and that God hates Jews******************. I.e., the passage is a bit of an embarrassment for most Christians and also for most mythicists. That means fuck all evidence-wise, but it's a real motivation to try to cut it out.

You see the same thing in the "Scholars' Translation" of the Gospel of Thomas. Look at saying 114. Look at the note. The note says it's interpolated. Why? Hell if I know. Most likely anti-antifeminism.

[neilgodfrey]

I'd be surprised if it ever became possible to have a sure way to identify interpolations. William Walker sets out the following guideposts:

1. text critical evidence — includes a study of other texts in which references are made to the document
2. contextual evidence — contextual flows or breaks within the document
3. ideational evidence — how does the idea at the heart of the questioned passage compare with the ideas throughout the main document?
4. comparative evidence — compare the thought expressed in the questionable passage with related thoughts expressed elsewhere.
5. motivational evidence — what do we know of the motivations of various interest groups relating to the thoughts expressed in both the larger document and the questionable passage?
6. locational evidence — what is the impact of the questionable passage being located at this point in the text?

Motivations can never be attributed to all suspected interpolations. Marginal glosses, for example. We simply have no way of knowing who might have been responsible for some interpolations. Where we can suss out motivations they can be factors in how we assess the probability that words are not original, but it's still a guessing game to some extent. The more different lines of argument come together the stronger the probability -- perhaps the best we can do?

[neilgodfrey]

When it comes to the scholarly endorsements of interpolation, of course, there is a real question of partiality at work, and it has nothing to do with historicity. Rather it has a lot to do with antisemitism, or perhaps more properly anti-antisemitism. The passage is useless to everybody except someone who doesn't care that ******************Paul says the Jews killed Jesus and that God hates Jews******************, i.e., the passage is a bit of an embarrassment for most Christians and also for most mythicists. That means fuck all evidence-wise, but it's a real motivation to try to cut it out.

You see the same thing in the "Scholarly Edition" of the Gospel of Thomas. Look at saying 114. Look at the note. The note says it's interpolated. Why? Hell if I know. Most likely anti-antifeminism.

Yes indeed. Like you I also see both "good" and "bad" ideologies at work in this field. Conclusions are censured on racial and gender and other grounds.

I've begun to monitor a fair range of biblioblogs recently and the first thing one notices is the amount of religious preaching or faith subtext in them all. Also amazing how many see Paul as a closet twenty-first century thinker at heart. Even the latest post on Bible and Interpretation about the non-violent Jesus is little more than a Sunday sermon about how nice and peace-loving Jesus was. And don't attempt to raise questions arising from the research by a full spectrum of geneticists into Jewish ethnic history.

[Peter Kirby]

I'd be surprised if it ever became possible to have a sure way to identify interpolations.

That's all perfectly fair, of course.

But there's a sleight of hand game that gets played by most people.

Let's imagine I'm on board. On page 106 of my opus, I argue that the passage is interpolated. Confidence greater than 75% that it's spurious.

On page 1523, I'm summarizing the evidence for and against my interpretation of Paul.

I leave out this passage because, on page 106, it's probably spurious.

But I put on the table a bunch of things that only slightly nudge in favor of my interpretation of Paul, pushing the confidence only a few fractional points.

Psychologically this is a powerful case, but it's a lot more powerful than it deserves to be, because I swept evidence against it under the rug on page 106.

Oh and yes, I did it again on page 112 when I argued that the pastorals are spurious (confidence >95%), again in the appendix when I argued that we have some genuine letters of Paul in the first place, again on page 134-169 when I argued that "James the brother of the Lord" does not mean a blood relation (confidence >25%), etc. etc. etc.

Even with all these sublemmas that together may actually be highly improbable (!), this feels good because the way the evidence assembles as a result (and the explanation of origins we get to enjoy thereby) is much tidier than the mess (the actual evidence) we actually started with.

[Peter Kirby]

Veering off-subject again:

I believe this is why jurisprudence requires a "smoking gun," such as a confession or physical evidence, that convinces "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Bayesian probabilistic reasoning is too tinker-y and subjective to be used when it really counts.

On a purely mathematical basis, it fails because we haven't proven independence (in the mathematical sense) of the individual probabilities. We can also never prove that we've named all the relevant priors and posteriors (although this is the weakest criticism in this paragraph, as we could just say that we're modeling the current state of our knowledge and information). And, finally, in the historical application, because in practice all the individual numbers have been invented.

And, yes, Carrier is right; we don't have much better anyway. But muddling through and giving your gut feeling doesn't amount to much worse either.

[outhouse]

I believe this is why jurisprudence requires a "smoking gun," such as a confession or physical evidence, that convinces "beyond a reasonable doubt."

.

Yet its not really how laws works does it? Hearsay is better evidence then most people realize, provided you know the proper exceptions.

Using excited utterance, has provided enough solid evidence to hang many people.



But I digress you bring up good points with certainty.

[toejam]

I'd be surprised if it ever became possible to have a sure way to identify interpolations.

That's all perfectly fair, of course.

But there's a sleight of hand game that gets played by most people.

Let's imagine I'm on board. On page 106 of my opus, I argue that the passage is interpolated. Confidence greater than 75% that it's spurious.

On page 1523, I'm summarizing the evidence for and against my interpretation of Paul.

I leave out this passage because, on page 106, it's probably spurious.

But I put on the table a bunch of things that only slightly nudge in favor of my interpretation of Paul, pushing the confidence only a few fractional points.

Psychologically this is a powerful case, but it's a lot more powerful than it deserves to be, because I swept evidence against it under the rug on page 106.

Oh and yes, I did it again on page 112 when I argued that the pastorals are spurious (confidence >95%), again in the appendix when I argued that we have some genuine letters of Paul in the first place, again on page 134-169 when I argued that "James the brother of the Lord" does not mean a blood relation (confidence >25%), etc. etc. etc.

Even with all these sublemmas that together may actually be highly improbable (!), this feels good because the way the evidence assembles as a result (and the explanation of origins we get to enjoy thereby) is much tidier than the mess (the actual evidence) we actually started with.

Yes!! I see this happening so often in historicism vs. mythicism debates - people prematurely rendering sources as unusable because their reliability can't be guaranteed 100%

E.g. Doherty/Carrier-type mythicists love to claim the following:

* We can't use Josephus' references to Jesus because there is some question over authenticity
* We can't use Tacitus' reference because he is probably just repeating what Christians had told him
* We can't use 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 because it is probably an interpolation
* We can't use Paul's reference to Jesus' brother James because he might not have meant Earthly brother or he might have been lying
* We can't use the gospels as sources because their mythical elements and unknown authorship render them unreliable

The problem is that even if we assign a 75% likelihood to each of these four claims, it doesn't follow that all five will fall in the mythicists favor. All it would take is for one of these 75%ers to be wrong and it more or less seals the deal for historicism IMO. Indeed, the chances are that at least one will fall against the 75% chance.

E.g.

If (even if we only render it at 25% likely) Josephus did mention Jesus in some stripped-back form (ala Geza Vermes, Ehrman etc.), that in combination with the gospels more or less renders historicism very strong.

If (even if we only render it at 25% likely) Tacitus' had other non-Christian sources for his info, that in combination with the gospels more or less renders historicism very strong.

If (even if we only render it at 25% likely) 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is genuine, that pretty much seals the deal for Paul believing in an Earthly Jesus.

If (even if we only render it at 25% likely) Paul really did mean the actual brother of Jesus (the most straightforward reading), well, then it goes without saying that a historical Jesus likely existed.

If (even if we only render it at 25% likely) that there are historical nuggets about Jesus in the gospel traditions, well also, then it goes without saying that a historical Jesus certainly existed.

The problem is that Doherty-Carrier proposal basically requires ALL of these points to fall in their favor. Stock historicists only require one and it's more or less a closed case IMO.

I've only addressed the Carrier-type issue here, but I see it happening from all sides. We all do it, most of the time without realising that's what we're doing.

[toejam]

I'm also curious if anyone has any stats for the claim that "most scholars" think 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is an interpolation.

I'm just becoming more and more wary of claimed consensuses of scholarly opinion. I see it very often and have found myself making the "most scholars" assumption on a particular topic simply because I've read many that do. I certainly don't deny that a significant proportion of scholars think 1Thess2:14-16 an interpolation, I'm just not convinced it's consensus. This is not a point of contention - I don't know if it is or isn't consensus and I'd genuinely like to know. Has anyone ever undertaken an extensive survey on this?

(On my views on the actual verses in question: After reading some of the arguments for and against, I find myself in a 50/50 tug-of-war. I really don't know, nor have even any sense of a hunch. I've come back to this question many times in my research and I'm still at a loss as to which is more likely. Neither view is able to land a big enough punch to push me to one side or the other)