Interpolation in I Thess 2:14-16?

[Peter Kirby]

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

It would be limited by the fact that the vast majority of scholars are silent. So you'd first have to construct a survey apparatus. And then conduct a real survey, contacting real scholars for their opinion.

Unless you just want the consensus of published opinions, instead of the consensus of the population of scholars.

Ofc that'd be it's own hell of a slog, made impossible by the task of finding tangential references in footnotes and so on.

I think the best proxy would be counting opinions in commentaries on 1 Thessalonians (or on the Bible including verse-level commentary covering that passage). Still a lot of work but doable.

Unfortunately be aware that commentaries tend to "hang right" relative to the bible scholarship crowd in general. (I.e., the more to the right you hang, the more likely you are to produce a Bible commentary in your lifetime; the reverse is also true.) It takes a conservatism to want to pore over every jot and tittle of scripture in the first place.

Arguably it gets even more complicated. Personally I don't think it's very interesting to count every Bible teacher at a Christian college in the United States head-for-head with the faculty at world-renowned universities... but that's democracy for you.

[toejam]

It would be limited by the fact that the vast majority of scholars are silent.

Yep. I agree with all of your concerns here. This point in particular is my biggest concern with the too often used "most scholars think ..." lines we've all been guilty of using prematurely. Just because there are a lot, and a lot of loud voices out there claiming interpolation, it doesn't follow that it's consensus. Not a big deal... just throwing it out there...

[ficino]

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?

Neil, this is exactly what I was looking for, thanks.

Earlier I omitted as obvious the parameter, "present in all the (primary) manuscripts." I suppose that everyone knows that something like the Comma Johanneum is unlike our I Thess passage because it is not found in any Greek manuscript of any authority. I remember reading that Erasmus used this criterion to keep that passage out of his Greek edition of the NT, and then someone produced a very late Greek manuscript with the Greek of the words that had already stood in the Vulgate. I recall that Erasmus suspected this manuscript was hastily copied just to meet his challenge. But he kept his word and put the sucker in the text.

I'm still puzzling over why an interpolator would add these words at this spot. It seems easier to think, "Paul just wanted to put this in here, maybe he was in a bad mood" than to think, "an interpolator wanted to add anti-Judaic stuff at this spot in the epistle because ....?" But this isn't an argument.

In classical Greek one usually finds φθάνω construed with a supplementary participle, which is lacking here. I haven't read Schmid and others yet to see what they say about ἔφθασε. LSJ though provide NT and other parallels, including our passage, where this verb without participle but with ἐπί means "come upon" (Matt. and Luke) and with εἰς means "arrive at" (Rom., Phil.).

Very interesting: the word order in our passage follows that in Matthew 12:28 and Luke 11:20. Those gospel verses say that "the kingdom of God has come upon you." Here's the phrase in both: ἔφθασεν ἐφ' ὑμᾶς ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ. I.e. VERB | Prep. phrase w/ ἐπί | arthrous noun subject | poss. genitive. In I Thess. 2:16 we have the same word order: ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ' αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ... The apparatus in my Nestle text says that some western tradition manuscripts and Latin versions add "of God" after "wrath."

Hmm... is the person who wrote the Thess. verse influenced by this gospel passage? If he had used ἄρα, as we find in Matt/Luke instead of δέ as his discourse-structuring particle, I'd say it was a clincher, but he didn't.

It's interesting to see the little interpolation of "of God" in some western MS. witnesses. Pretty obvious because it conflicts with other primary witness MSS. and because it's clearly added for clarity.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Interesting. Thanks for bringing up, ficino. A little overview:

1 Thessalonians 2:15
τῶν καὶ τὸν Κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων καὶ Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων,
who both the Lord having killed Jesus and the prophets and us having driven out and God not pleasing and all men set against,

I. variant readings and the fathers

laparola.net
προφήτας] ‭א A B D* F G I P 0208 6 33 81 88 256 263 424c 436 629 1319 1573 1739 1881 1912 1962 2127 l596 itar itb itc itd itdem itdiv ite itf itg itmon ito itx itz vg copsa copbo copfay arm geo1 Tertullian Origengr Origenlat Adamantius Ambrosiaster Pelagius Euthalius WH NR CEI Riv TILC Nv NM
ἰδίους προφήτας] D1 K L Ψ 075 0150 104 181 326 330 365 424* 451 459 614 630 1241 1852 1877 1984 1985 2200 2464 2492 2495 Byz Lect syrp syrh goth eth geo2 slav Marcionaccording to Tertullian Basil Chrysostom Theodorelat John-Damascus ς ND Dio
See A Student's Guide to New Testament Textual Variants

ἡμᾶς] Byz ςScrivener WH
ὑμᾶς] ςStephanus

bible.ovc.edu
text: "·who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets"
ecidence: S A B D* G I P 0208 33 81 1739 1881 lat vg cop
text: "·who killed the Lord Jesus and [their] own prophets"
evidence: Dc K Psi 104 614 630 1241 2495 Byz Lect syr(p,h)

church fathers
A Letter from Origen to Africanus: "And Paul, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, testifies this concerning the Jews: "For ye, brethren, became followers of the Churches of Cod which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews; who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men."

Origen Commentary on Matthew Book X: And by Paul in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians like things are said: "For ye brethren became imitators of the churches of God which are in Judaea in Christ Jesus, for ye also suffered the same things of your own countrymen even as they did of the Jews, who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drave out us, and please not God, and are contrary to all men."

Tertullian Against Marcion Book V: The Jews had slain their prophets.


II. first-thessalonian style - interesting phrases


1. phrase - „τὸν Κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν“ (the Lord having killed Jesus)

structure: article + „Lord“ + verb + „Jesus“
- no matches found in 1 Thessalonians, no matches found in other Paulines

a roughly similar phrase: τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ (the Lord of us Jesus) (1Thes 1:3, 2:19, 3:11, 3:13, 5:9, 5:23, 5:28)

note: Acts 9:17 „ὁ Κύριος ἀπέσταλκέν με, Ἰησοῦς ὁ ὀφθείς σοι“ (the Lord has send me Jesus the having appeared to you)


2. phrase - „ἀποκτεινάντων ... τοὺς προφήτας“ (having killed ... the prophets)
(LXX for killing the prophets 3Kgs 18:13, 19:1, 19:10, 19:14, 2Esd 19:26, Hos 6:5, Lam 2:20)

no matches found in 1 Thessalonians

note:
Rom 11:3 „Κύριε, τοὺς προφήτας σου ἀπέκτειναν“ (Lord, the prophets of you they have killed) quotation LXX-3Kgs 19:10
Matt 23:17 „Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας“ (Jerusalem killing the prophets)
Luke 11:47 „μνημεῖα τῶν προφητῶν, οἱ δὲ πατέρες ὑμῶν ἀπέκτειναν αὐτούς“ (tombs of the prophets, however fathers of you killed them)
Luke 11:49 „διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡ σοφία τοῦ Θεοῦ εἶπεν Ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσιν καὶ διώξουσιν“ (Because of this also the wisdom of God said, I will send to them prophets and apostles and [some] of them they will kill and persecute,)
Luke 13:34 „Ἰερουσαλήμ, ἡ ἀποκτείνουσα τοὺς προφήτας“ (Jerusalem killing the prophets)
Acts 7:52 „τίνα τῶν προφητῶν οὐκ ἐδίωξαν οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν; καὶ ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς προκαταγγείλαντας“ (Which of the prophets not did persecute the fathers of you and they killed those having foretold)


3. phrase - „καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων“ (and us having driven out)
no matches found in 1 Thessalonians, no matches found in other Paulines

note: Luke 11:49 „Ἀποστελῶ εἰς αὐτοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἀποστόλους, καὶ ἐξ αὐτῶν ἀποκτενοῦσιν καὶ διώξουσιν (ἐκδιώξουσιν)“ (I will send to them prophets and apostles and [some] of them they will kill and persecute,)

variant readings Luke 11:49
διώξουσιν] p75 ‭א B C L Θ 1 33 579 1241 1424 pc WH
ἐκδιώξουσιν] A D W Ψ f13 Byz ς

Acts 7:52 „τίνα τῶν προφητῶν οὐκ ἐδίωξαν οἱ πατέρες ὑμῶν; καὶ ἀπέκτειναν τοὺς προκαταγγείλαντας“ (Which of the prophets not did persecute the fathers of you and they killed those having foretold)


4. phrase - „Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων“ (God not pleasing)

1 Thes 2:4 „οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες, ἀλλὰ Θεῷ“ (not as men pleasing, but God)
1 Thes 4:1 „καὶ ἀρέσκειν Θεῷ“ (and to please God)

note: a typical pauline phrase (Rom 8:8, Rom 15:1, Rom 15:2, Rom 15:3, 1Cor 7:32, 1Cor 7:33, 1Cor 7:34, Gal 1:10)


5. phrase - „πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων“ (all men set against)
no matches found in the NT
a roughly similar phrase: Acts 28:17 - „Ἐγώ, ἄνδρες ἀδελφοί, οὐδὲν ἐναντίον ποιήσας τῷ λαῷ ἢ τοῖς ἔθεσι τοῖς πατρῴοις“ (I, men, brothers, nothing against having done the people, or the customs of our fathers)

[ficino]

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.

Hey Neil, you outta put the above on Sheshbazzar's laying cards on table thread!

[ficino]

Some speculations. I suspect they are not new.

If the passage is interpolated, a good candidate for a time period is not long after the destruction the Temple, or even the defeat of the holdouts at Masada. We don't know the interpolator's identity or location (Deutero-Paul, if he even is the postulated D-P, isn't an identity). It may have taken some time for news of it to reach him, but probably not much time. The shock of the news might be what provoked this triumphalistic addition to the epistle and the hyperbolic εἰς τέλος.

On the other hand, after some decades it became apparent that Judaism was not dead. And in the Diaspora, it had continued along without interruption (even in a good deal of Galilee). It would be incongruous for, say, Justin Martyr to write that wrath had overtaken the Jews to the uttermost, even if wrath is theologized.

So I'm guessing late first cent. for the interpolation. [one needs to see whether I Thessalonians is quoted anywhere before the late second century; I haven't done that.]

That would put the original epistle in, say, the mid first century.

This, like any stab at the text's genesis, rests on assumptions, of course.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Basically, I have no knowledge about Paul and should be silent But I found the problem very interesting. Personally, I tend to think that I Thess 2:14 and 2:16 is no interpolation (look at I Thessalonians 1:6 and the Pauline use of "μιμηταί") and the phrase "Θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων" (God not pleasing) in I Thess 2:15 too. I cannot adequately judge the rest of 2:15.

[ficino]

Re my last speculations: of course, the Romans crushed the Jews in the Kitos War (115-117) and again in the Bar Kokhba revolt (132-135). That εἰς τέλος has in mind the first Revolt seems more likely to me, but I can't call this an argument. Sigh.

[Blood]

We've been over this many times. The problem with Carrier's thesis is that he takes Biblical documents too literally. These are ancient mystagogues we are dealing with. If one minute they seem to say that Jesus was crucified by archons in the Ogdoad, and the next minute say that "the Jews killed Jesus," and one minute they say the Law is good, the next that the Law is demonic, that is precisely what you would expect from mystagogues. The very last thing you would expect is logical consistency. It's absurd to expect so.

I Thess 2:14-16 is not an interpolation. It is in fact the very core of the Jesus myth.

[DCHindley]

Given that some version of the passage seems to have been in Marcion, we should IMO be hesitant to regard it as entirely an interpolation.

Andrew Criddle

The passage is ideologically at home with Marcionism but alien to Paul's ideology.

Back on FRDB, Huller, me and others looked at what we know of Marcion's actual theology, and we did not come off with the impression that it was anti-Jewish. He believed that the creator God had in fact arranged for there to be a messiah that would liberate the Jews, and that the Jews were no better or worse than folks who believed in other deities, who were all sock puppets for the creator God.

Marcionites felt that one can discern the true teachings of Jesus from the contamination of Judean expectations that were in the Gospel as he had received it (proto Luke) by means of comparing and contrasting the sayings (which Marcion had done in his book Antitheses). Thomas Jefferson did something like this with the canonical Gospels to create what folks call the "Jeffersonian Bible."

The writers of the Pseudo-Clementines (the easy to peel variety are the best*) felt that the Judean holy scriptures also contained both true doctrine of God and corruptions by mere men, which they felt could be separated from one another by means of "philosophy." If a passage seemed to present the Judean God as not the most noble fellow then that passage had to be an invention of men.

How different is this from what many assert right here? "If I don't like the sound of it, it must be an interpolation (as in "false")." Now it happens that I do think that the passage is partially interpolated. However, I base this on whether the Greek definite article (ho = "the") is or is not used with the Greek words translated as God (theos) and Lord (kurios).

IMHO, the original writer of these letters scrupulously used the definite article with theos to designate "the (only/true) God" while an interpolator just as scrupulously did not use the definite article with theos (his "God" was more ethereal and abstract).

Conversely, the original author did NOT use the definite article with kurios because he was using that word as a placeholder for the name of the Judean God (YHWH). My hypothetical interpolator, though, tended to use the definite article with kurios because he understood that word as a title for Jesus/Christ.

Original	Interpolated
13a And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word	.
13b [...],	13b of God
13c which is at work in you believers.	.
14a For you, brethren, became imitators of the churches of God	.
14b [...]	14b in Christ Jesus
14c which are in Judea; for you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Judeans,	.
15 [...]	15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all men
16 […]	16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved -- so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But God's wrath has come upon them at last!
17 […]	17 But since we were bereft of you, brethren, for a short time, in person not in heart, we endeavored the more eagerly and with great desire to see you face to face
18 because we wanted to come to you--I, Paul, again and again--but Satan hindered us.	.
19a For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting? - Is it not you -	.
19b [...]?	19b before our Lord Jesus at his coming
20 For you are our glory and joy.	.

As a result, I do not see the original author (let's call him "Paul") as referring to Jewish hostility to Christians (as he knew nothing of Jesus/Christ with or without the title "Lord"), but resistance by the local Judeans to the presence in that region of folks holding his particular brand of "good news" that "gentiles are cool in the eyes of the Judean God." I am willing to be corrected on this, but this is the impression I get from this strata as identified by my analytical pretensions. It suggests that there was such a group of gentiles, in Judea, probably what later came to be called "resident aliens." Their presence indicates that there were Judeans who were fine with this idea, but resistance to them also suggests there were Judeans who were not happy with their presence. Time wise I'd see this (the accepting Judeans) as more likely before the Judean War described by Josephus, for reasons listed below.

Now my hypothetical (and must be wrong) interpolator, on the other hand, HATES Judeans. I get the feeling from other places where I think I have isolated his commentaries that this negative view of them is rooted in his personal experience. When he lets out one of his "those evil Jews are getting their just deserts" type comments, it makes it seem like they were presently suffering justly for something they did in the past. The single most intense event that I can see that might have fostered so much ill will was the ethnic cleansing committed by both Jews and gentiles in the "Judean War" chronicled by Josephus, so I place him after 70 CE.

These are, then, two different narratives, neither one being "true" or "false," just "there."

DCH

*Random irrelevant factoid thrown in to keep up with the best of you.