Interpolation in I Thess 2:14-16?

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

I always get nervous when we think we know what is "typical" of the Pauline letters. There are so many sections containing commentaries and inserted phrases that what we think we are looking at is not what we are actually looking at.

When 1 Thess 1:2-10 and 2:13-16 have the "interpolations" removed (see below) the parallels are not so striking. My hypothetical interpolator often seizes on something that he saw in the original text and then turns it into something else a little later, with the original meaning pulled inside out. Unfortunately, it turns out that what we think are parallels, end up not being so.

Agreed.

I really liked your comment in the previous post.

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")."

Personally, I have a great fear that I could create my own text - rather than to interpret the “correct” text - when I argue for an interpolation without a strong textual clue and without a minor reading. So I have no problem with exotic interpretations, but I am very conservative in dealing with interpolations when no variant reading is attested. I just wanted to say that the assumption of an interpolation is not so easy.

I have said before that I really sympathize with your work on the Paulines and I am open to your conclusions. Nevertheless, it seems to me not so easily. For example: Not only you, but many scholars assume that Philippians 2:5-11 is an interpolation. But I have good reasons to believe that Mark knew Philippians 2:5-11 in the form we know it today. Therefore it seems to me that the difficulty is much greater.

[andrewcriddle]

Hi andrewcriddle,

If one accepts the traditional dating of 1 Clement, then Paul's letters were apparently widely known before 100 CE.

According to Wikipedia "1 clement":

The traditional date for Clement's epistle, which has been elicited by the Epistle to the Hebrews's call for leadership from the church in Rome and is permeated with the earlier letter's influence

So the traditional date of 1 Clement is established by the letters of Paul and now we are to establish the date of Paul's letters through accepting the date of Clement! In other words, we should accept the traditional date of 1 Clement because it is an answer to Paul's letter/s and we may accept Paul's letter/s date as being in circulation because it is known by the traditional date of Clement.

Hi Jay

I think you are misunderstanding the wiki article (which is badly phrased)

The First Epistle does not contain Clement's name, instead being addressed by "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth." The traditional date for Clement's epistle, which has been elicited by the Epistle to the Hebrews's call for leadership from the church in Rome and is permeated with the earlier letter's influence,[4] is at the end of the reign of Domitian, or c. AD 96, by taking the phrase "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1) for a reference to persecutions under Domitian. An indication of the date comes from the fact that the church at Rome is called "ancient" and that the presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has also passed on (44:3). However, some scholars hold to a wider and earlier range of dates, but limit the possibilities to the last two decades of the 1st century,[5] and absolutely no later than AD 140.[6]

It would be clearer as

The First Epistle does not contain Clement's name, instead being addressed by "the Church of God which sojourneth in Rome to the Church of God which sojourneth in Corinth." The traditional date for Clement's epistle, (an epistle which has been elicited by the Epistle to the Hebrews's call for leadership from the church in Rome and is permeated with the earlier letter's influence,[4]) is at the end of the reign of Domitian, or c. AD 96, by taking the phrase "sudden and repeated misfortunes and hindrances which have befallen us" (1:1) for a reference to persecutions under Domitian. An indication of the date comes from the fact that the church at Rome is called "ancient" and that the presbyters installed by the apostles have died (44:2), and a second ecclesiastical generation has also passed on (44:3). However, some scholars hold to a wider and earlier range of dates, but limit the possibilities to the last two decades of the 1st century,[5] and absolutely no later than AD 140.[6]

The claim is that the letter has been elicited by the letter to the Hebrews, not the date of the letter
Andrew Criddle

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi andrewcriddle.

Thank you for clarifying this. The Wikipedia article did seem to mislead me into believing the traditional dating of 1Clement was somehow based on its use of "Hebrews".

The traditional date seems to be based on Eusebius' Church History 3:15-17

Chapter 15.
In the twelfth year of the same reign [Domitian] Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker. His words are as follows: "With Clement and the rest of my fellow-laborers whose names are in the book of life."
Chapter 16.
There is extant an epistle of this Clement which is acknowledged to be genuine and is of considerable length and of remarkable merit. He wrote it in the name of the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, when a sedition had arisen in the latter church. We know that this epistle also has been publicly used in a great many churches both in former times and in our own. And of the fact that a sedition did take place in the church of Corinth at the time referred to Hegesippus is a trustworthy witness.
Chapter 17.
Domitian, having shown great cruelty toward many, and having unjustly put to death no small number of well-born and notable men at Rome, and having without cause exiled and confiscated the property of a great many other illustrious men, finally became a successor of Nero in his hatred and enmity toward God. He was in fact the second that stirred up a persecution against us, although his father Vespasian had undertaken nothing prejudicial to us.

The twelfth year of Domitian would have been 92 CE.
In Chapter 34, Eusebius says:

1. In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above (Trajan), Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all.

Trajan started as emperor in 98, Thus 100 is when Clement retired. The letter would have been written between 92 and 96 (When Domitian was assassinated, during the time

Eusebius mentions the letter again in the following Book, 4:23

9. There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle, in which he commends the practice of the Romans which has been retained down to the persecution in our own days. His words are as follows:

10. "For from the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send contributions to many churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the needy, and making provision for the brethren in the mines by the gifts which you have sent from the beginning, you Romans keep up the hereditary customs of the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter has not only maintained, but also added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children."

11. In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: "Today we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement."

Pope Soter of Rome is dated 167-175.
Dionysius has written to Pope Soter saying they have read his letter in the Corinthian Church as well as "the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement"
Eusebius takes the "former epistle" as 1 Clement and says that Dionysius is proof that it was read "from the beginning" in the Corinthian Church.

Neither Hegesippus or Dionysius date the letter to the time of Domitian. Hegesippus just says "Domitian was the second that stirred up a prosecution against us" and Dionysius just says that the letter was read on the Lord's day to the Corinthian Church during the time of Soter (167-175). It is Eusebius who identifies the "misfortunes and hindrances" mentioned in the letter with the prosecution during Domitian's time. Eusebius gives us no other reason to believe that the date of the unknown letter was 92-96 then his deduction that the disturbances referred to Domitian's prosecution.

The Anchor Biblical Dictionary notes http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1clement.html:

But the language of 1:1 is so vague that one may doubt whether it refers to persecution at all (Merrill 1924: 160); and the evidence for a persecution under Domitian is tenuous (Merrill 1924: 148-73).

A deduction by Eusebius seems to be the only reason for the traditional dating of 1 Clement. Considering that Eusebius published the Abgarus-Jesus correspondence, he has been widely accused of forging or changing the TF, and has demonstrably changed numerous texts, the traditional dating of 1 Clement has to be considered on extremely shaky grounds. Therefore, we cannot base the dating of Paul's letters on the dating of 1 Clement, unless we adopt the moto, "In Eusebius we Trust."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

The claim is that the letter has been elicited by the letter to the Hebrews, not the date of the letter
Andrew Criddle