Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

toejam wrote: MAJOR SUB-POINT:
I hear the claim a lot that "most" scholars think 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is an interpolation.

Sorry to pop up here, guys, but the following didn't seem important enough for a separate thread: does anyone know whether Richard Carrier had already come to agree with Doherty-style mythicism by 2011, when he argued in his old blog that I Thess. 2:14-16 is interpolated?

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011 ... tions.html

It seems as though the Doherty-Carrier version of mythicism needs this passage to be interpolated, since this passage says that the Jews killed Jesus. That wouldn't fit a theory that has Jesus killed by demons in outer space between moon and earth.

Carrier doesn't go into mythicism in the above blog post.

ficino wrote:

toejam wrote: MAJOR SUB-POINT:
I hear the claim a lot that "most" scholars think 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is an interpolation.

Sorry to pop up here, guys, but the following didn't seem important enough for a separate thread: does anyone know whether Richard Carrier had already come to agree with Doherty-style mythicism by 2011, when he argued in his old blog that I Thess. 2:14-16 is interpolated?

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011 ... tions.html

It seems as though the Doherty-Carrier version of mythicism needs this passage to be interpolated, since this passage says that the Jews killed Jesus. That wouldn't fit a theory that has Jesus killed by demons in outer space between moon and earth.

Carrier doesn't go into mythicism in the above blog post.

I'm not sure about that one way or another. I think he was on the fence for a quite a while.

ficino wrote:

toejam wrote: MAJOR SUB-POINT:
I hear the claim a lot that "most" scholars think 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is an interpolation.

Sorry to pop up here, guys, but the following didn't seem important enough for a separate thread: does anyone know whether Richard Carrier had already come to agree with Doherty-style mythicism by 2011, when he argued in his old blog that I Thess. 2:14-16 is interpolated?

http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2011 ... tions.html

It seems as though the Doherty-Carrier version of mythicism needs this passage to be interpolated, since this passage says that the Jews killed Jesus. That wouldn't fit a theory that has Jesus killed by demons in outer space between moon and earth.

Carrier doesn't go into mythicism in the above blog post.

Of course the passage was interpolated. Some of the scholars who have argued this:

That 2:14-16 was interpolated:

van der Vies; Ritschl (1847); Rodrigues (1876); Pierson and Naber; Spitta (1889: 501; 1901: 190); Schmiedel (1891: 17); Pfleiderer; Teichmann (1896); Mansfield; Drummond; Loisy (1922: 135, 139; 1935: 85); Goguel; Bammel (1959); Eckhart (1961); Schmithals (1965: 89ff.).

That only 2:15f. was interpolated:

Koster (1980); Schmidt (1983)

That's from Sturdy's "Redrawing the Boundaries" -- drafted in response to Robinson's publication on early dating of the NT (a work Sturdy thought at first must have been a joke).

The scholarly arguments of more recent works (Sturdy's book was prepared some years back and never completed before he died in 1996) are outlined (with names and publications) in my post Taking Eddy and Boyd Seriously Part 3. From that post trace back through the links to see the previous two posts in which I detail the contrary argument -- the argument that the verses are authentic.

Follow up posts continue the interpolation argument and Eddy and Boyd's attempt to rebut it: http://vridar.org/2010/01/06/taking-edd ... riously-4/ and http://vridar.org/2010/01/10/taking-edd ... riously-5/

Thanks for your links, Neil. Eddy and Boyd make heavy use of "there is no reason to think..." and "there is little reason to think that ... necessarily ..." Love it, Love it! Who needs evidence from the text when we can get "well, it might have been this other way"?

toejam wrote:cienfuegos, it's clear we're not getting anywhere. Look, at the end of the day you have your suspicion on the claimed association between Jesus and John the Baptist and I have mine. Neither of us are claiming any degree of certainty or even abundant confidence, so I don't know why you're playing this like you would against a Christian fundamentalist who is arguing from a point of view of certainty. I don't disagree with many of the criticisms you've raise. Indeed, those questions are the ones that prevent me from holding the position with assured confidence. But one needs to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I am not treating you like a fundamentalist. I am asking you to critically examine (apply a methodology) what you consider to be a "sound historical conclusion." That's all. In order to arrive at a conclusion, one must apply a methodology. If you apply the very same methodology to accepted "truths" like "John baptized Jesus," you see clearly that we do not have grounds for making positive conclusions. There might be other data that fair better, for example, the crucifixion under Pilate.

toejam wrote:Mark is not my only source for John's baptism of Jesus. Like I said, it is attested to in other gospel traditions. While it's true that Matthew and Luke almost certainly had access to Mark (or some proto-Mark), and I agree that John may well have been familiar with it, it is interesting that they don't seek to remove John's association with Jesus at the start of his public ministry (as they do with other Markan/synoptic stories) but have different views on it. gJohn even hints at Jesus' disciples being former-disciples of John. Could this not be because the association was too well known?

Or it could be that the prominent position of the story in gMark made it difficult to erase completely.

toejam wrote: Josephus gives multiple attestation to John's existence.

That isn't the question. John F. Kennedy appears in the fictional film Forrest Gump. We can agree that Gump was fictional, and JFK was real?

toejam wrote: Plus when read in light of off-the-cuff comments from Paul and the book Acts about baptism, the hypothesis makes good sense: Jesus was baptised by John and that explains why he turns up in multiple gospel traditions and why some early Christians' initiation ritual was the "baptism of John" (not the "baptism of the Holy Spirit", much to the chagrin of the author of Acts). There is nothing unsound about this conclusion other than its lack of certainty which I have openly admitted all along. It seems we're arguing over the definition of "sound historical conclusion".

I would have to examine the comments you reference. (John doesn't turn up in multiple gospel traditions, there is only one gospel tradition, one dependent on another). My null hypothesis so far has only been that John did not baptize Jesus.

Neil suggested another hypothesis: the myth of John baptizing Jesus emerged as an explanation of the ritual of baptism. If we consider that hypothesis, my guess is that it would fit well your evidence from Paul and Acts. That's a hunch. We would have to process that hunch, willingly to consider different outcomes.

Here would be some confirming evidence that would nail the H1 to the wall: If Paul said that John baptized Jesus, you would have better evidence. It could still be said that the Gospel tradition is based on Paul, however, Paul is a more sound source: his writings are primary sources (to what he thinks is true), his reporting of events like John baptizing Jesus would be second-hand with a very plausible chain of transmission: Paul himself says he talked to Peter and James. We can evaluate Paul as a source. This would give you a much stronger case than the Gospels which are fiction at worst, hearsay at best. Unfortunately, Paul says nothing about John baptizing Jesus which would be strange if Paul knows the story and talks about baptism. Why wouldn't he mention it? Under the presumption that the Gospels are reporting hearsay that has some truth to it, why wouldn't we see evidence of that in Paul? Somehow the story (as they all do) skip over Paul straight to the Gospels.

[quote="toejam"}Your alternative proposal is worth investigation, but I don't find it as strong. It assumes without evidence that Mark was historicising a being previously thought to have been exclusively celestial. The evidence you point to this are texts like Paul's letters and Hebrews, but when we look closely we can find many hints to show that both authors accepted a Jesus who (whatever else they thought of him) had been here, and suffered, on Earth. Support for your claim? Weak.[/quote]

Here I am only asking that you examine "sound historical claims" that are based on unsound sources. You make many untrue statements here, but I will let them pass.

[quote="toejam"}We are both forming opinions based on little and flimsy evidence. I'm simply telling you which hypothesis I find the most plausible.[/quote]

I told you my conclusion: Given the nature of the evidence, we cannot make a sound historical conclusion (ie: cannot falsify the null hypothesis) as to whether or not John baptized Jesus.

toejam wrote:What is your evidence for the reliability of the sources who corroborate Plato? Do you just accept them "just-so"? What is your evidence for the reliability of Plato's account of Socrates? Do you accept that as a "just-so"? This game can be played indefinitely.

No, in fact, it can't, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. There are methodologies used to evaluate the reliability of a source. In the case of, for example, the trial of Socrates, we have contemporary, known writers whose writings we have and can evaluate who attest to the trial. That is called multiple attestation. Knowing the writers, their other writings, their reputations, etc, allows us to examine the data contained in their writings and evaluate it, each piece separately, for veracity. That doesn't mean we just "accept them." Having established the soundness of the sources, we would still evaluate the evidence. Do our sources agree? On what points do they disagree? Is their story plausible? For example, did Plato really capture the speech of Socrates accurately? Or is Socrates' speech more Plato than Socrates? There are several internal methods we could apply: does Socrates only say things that agree with Plato? Does Plato report Socrates saying things that are potentially embarrassing to the legacy of Socrates (that would be correct use of embarrassment, Plato probably would not report something embarrassing unless it were true). If Plato and Xenophon disagree, we would consider: Plato was an eyewitness (allegedly) and Xenophon was not. We do not just accept it, however, establishing a source as sound allows us to draw sound conclusions. That is my point, which you seem to be missing.

toejam wrote:MAJOR SUB-POINT:
I hear the claim a lot that "most" scholars think 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 is an interpolation. I'm not convinced it is consensus. I would say that there's a significant proportion of scholars who think this, but I have yet to see any stats to show that it's consensus (this is not a point of contention, I'd just like to see some stats). Do you have any stats for this claimed consensus? Either way, since when did consensus hold sway? I am not convinced 1 Thessalonians 2:14 is interpolation, or that if it is, exactly which part is the interpolation. It is found in every single manuscript with (as far as I'm aware) no major textual variations, and (as far as I'm aware) we have no early reference from any church father of its missing in any manuscripts (e.g. critics of Marcion don't claim the verse was missing). There is no direct reference to the destruction of the Temple. Once can read it as referring to that, but it could be something else. There are other options as to what Paul is referring to. I'm 50/50 on whether or not it was an interpolation.

I didn't say anything about 1 Thess. Why are you asking me?

But since you ask:

To me, your position is based on a personal preference for maintaining that Jesus might have existed. This is an important piece of evidence that would probably confirm that. Unfortunately, it has been scarred by scholarly conclusions that it is an interpolation. Have you read the critiques of this passage? Which ones have you read? What specific points do you think they have wrong?

Here are some of the arguments of the classic paper on this:

Pearson, B. (1971). 1 thessalonians 2: 13-16 : A deutero-pauline interpolation. Harvard Theological Review, 64(1), 79-94.

pearson wrote:It will certainly not do to use the speeches in Acts as an example of the early origin of this topos, for, as U. Wilckens has shown, one finds very little of primitive Palestinian Christianity in the speeches of Acts; on the whole the speeches reflect the work and thought of the author of Luke-Acts. In my view,one must look to a time after 70 AD for such a development.

pearson wrote: I find it also virtually impossible to ascribe to Paul the ad hominem fragment of Gentile anti-Judaism in v. 15. Paul seems to have been rather proud of his achievements in Judaism prior to his "conversion" (Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:sf.); in fact, even after he became a Christian he continued to refer to himself as a Jew. Moreover, the thought that God's wrath has come upon the Jewish people with utter finality (v. 16) is manifestly foreign to Paul's theology which, unique in the New Testament, expresses the thought that God has not abandoned his ancient covenant people (Rom. 9:1), and indeed "all Israel will be saved"

pearson wrote: With reference to the alleged persecutions in Judaea, 1 Thessalonians 2:14 would be the only New Testament text — were it a genuine expression of Paul — to indicate that the churches in Judaea suffered persecution at the hands of the Jews between 44 AD and the outbreak of the war against Rome. Those who have recently dealt with this question in some detail argue that, in fact, there was no significant persecution of Christians in Judaea before the war.

pearson wrote:Mention should also be made of the mimesis terminology which occurs in v. 14. Not only is it improbable that Paul would cite the Judaean Christians as examples for his Gentile congregations; 4 9 the mimesis usage in this verse does not cohere with Paul's usage elsewhere. It is a very interesting fact that when Paul uses the terminology of "imitation," he uses it with reference to the imitation of himself (1 Cor. 4:16; 11:1; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:6; cf. 2 Thess. 2:7-9). Nor does he counsel his congregations to "imitate Christ" directly.51 Characteristic of his usage is 2 Corinthians 11:1: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ." In 1 Thessalonians 1:6 Paul uses the expression in the indicative mood: "You became imitators of us (me), and of the Lord." Here, too, I would see an expression of the intermediary function of the apostle in the mimesis process. 52 What is involved in this usage is nothing less than an intense apostolic self-understanding on the part of Paul. He and no one else — surely not the Judaean churches — is, under the Lord, the supreme authority and "model" for his congregations.53 Given this unique understanding of his own apostolic role and authority on the part of Paul, and given the otherwise coherent picture of the mimesis terminology in the Pauline letters, 1 Thessalonians 2:14 stands out as not only historically incongruous but theologically incongruous as well.

pearson wrote:Formally v. 13 introduces a "thanksgiving" period, indicated by βνχαριαττονμεν.541 The "thanksgiving" form in the Pauline letters was delineated and described form-critically in the pioneering work of P. Schubert.55 In the case of 1 Thessalonians (and 2 Thess., which is deutero-Pauline and in structure a slavish mitation of ι Thess.) 5 6 there is an apparent anomaly in that it has as now constituted two "thanksgiving" sections.

pearson wrote:The method of our hypothetical interpolator is strikingly similar to that of the author of 2 Thessalonians, viz., to use Pauline words and phrases from a genuine letter in order to provide a putative "Pauline" framework for a new message.

Against all this, you have a hunch that 1 Thess 2:14:16 is authentic.

really enjoying the show

neilgodfrey wrote: I don't know what you think was unique about the gospel writing style. It was not unlike other styles of the era. Do you mean the genre or type of stories the gospels are? They are a mix of ancient genres. Creative authors are often mixing genres, then and now. Nothing unique in that sense.

This is what im getting at

His book is not history in the modern sense, or even in the sense of classical Greek and Roman historians, but "history in an eschatological or apocalyptic sense," depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time.[11]

And we know he was influenced as you say, with many genres from that time period.

As for your claim that the author was trying to capture traditions etc while appealing to a Roman audience and divorcing Judaism, those are assertions that needs to be demonstrated.

I think it is common knowledge Hellenist were divorcing cultural Judaism, and the anti Semitism in the NT is solid evidence of such.

The traditions of collected parables unique to this time period, as well as the suffering servant, as well as the compilation of existing sources, is not in dispute by anyone.

There are good grounds from the texts themselves that they were not "capturing traditions" at all.

Would you discount that the new members of the movement, as these gentiles and Hellenistic Jews went back to Passover each year, if they went that year/s, they would not be adding to the mythology from oral traditions/hearsay?

Existing written traditions are verified by Paul as exiting as well as other teachers. Not only that Paul joined a movement in progress, and started nothing.

Woah! We can't just start here with a proposition because we cannot imagine a reason not to.

The reason the man has historicity is not that there is no explanation for 100% mythcism. It is because nothing refutes a martyred man at Passover with any credibility what so ever.

One Passover is called/nicknamed "the trampled/ing Passover" or close and a single man remembered for being ran over by the crowds. No primary sources required, that mans historicity as being ran over is not questioned by anyone.

Events at Passover were often recorded, as these crowds often got out of hand. Nothing out of ordinary here. And a peasant teacher being crucified for sedition doesn't make the historical radar, as almost no crucifixion did.

We know about the Roman guard who whipped it out and urinated on the crowd. That was remembered because of the tens of thousands killed in the fighting, yet only a small blurb exist. Not a collection of books like the NT.

We can't just start out by treating the gospels as myth nor can we start out treating them as historical.

I agree. Its the total of all the evidence, it is the conclusion in total that gives him historicity by almost a unanimous decision of very well educated people.

Your more educated then I am, and have much more knowledge, and I respect your opinion very much. But I think you discount more evidence then I do. Evidence that I will agree is hard to pin down one way or the other.

Those are both things to be determined after we do a study or analysis of the material itself.

And they have for hundreds of years. And to date most think it is based on a martyred Aramaic Galilean.

outhouse wrote:

As for your claim that the author was trying to capture traditions etc while appealing to a Roman audience and divorcing Judaism, those are assertions that needs to be demonstrated.

I think it is common knowledge Hellenist were divorcing cultural Judaism, and the anti Semitism in the NT is solid evidence of such.

The traditions of collected parables unique to this time period, as well as the suffering servant, as well as the compilation of existing sources, is not in dispute by anyone.

There certainly is dispute in the literature over this very point. It's been there since at least Goulder and is more prevalent now than for many decades.

Also studies of the Second Temple era are according to some prominent scholars in the field have moved to the view that Judaism itself was a form of Hellenism.

outhouse wrote:

There are good grounds from the texts themselves that they were not "capturing traditions" at all.

Would you discount that the new members of the movement, as these gentiles and Hellenistic Jews went back to Passover each year, if they went that year/s, they would not be adding to the mythology from oral traditions/hearsay?

Existing written traditions are verified by Paul as exiting as well as other teachers. Not only that Paul joined a movement in progress, and started nothing.

Your two paragraphs are not related in any way to the point I made. Unless you are convinced by a constellation of hypothetical epic scenarios to imaginatively link them somehow to my point. They don't have any relation to the evidence that exists in the texts about the sources for Jesus narratives and sayings.

outhouse wrote:

Woah! We can't just start here with a proposition because we cannot imagine a reason not to.

The reason the man has historicity is not that there is no explanation for 100% mythcism. It is because nothing refutes a martyred man at Passover with any credibility what so ever.

One Passover is called/nicknamed "the trampled/ing Passover" or close and a single man remembered for being ran over by the crowds. No primary sources required, that mans historicity as being ran over is not questioned by anyone.

Events at Passover were often recorded, as these crowds often got out of hand. Nothing out of ordinary here. And a peasant teacher being crucified for sedition doesn't make the historical radar, as almost no crucifixion did.

We know about the Roman guard who whipped it out and urinated on the crowd. That was remembered because of the tens of thousands killed in the fighting, yet only a small blurb exist. Not a collection of books like the NT.

You are confusing methodological approach with specific arguments themselves. You have to get methodology right before you start shooting. Anyone can make any argument at all about anything that they will find convincing otherwise. As confirmation bias knows so well.

outhouse wrote:

We can't just start out by treating the gospels as myth nor can we start out treating them as historical.

I agree. Its the total of all the evidence, it is the conclusion in total that gives him historicity by almost a unanimous decision of very well educated people.

Your more educated then I am, and have much more knowledge, and I respect your opinion very much. But I think you discount more evidence then I do. Evidence that I will agree is hard to pin down one way or the other.

It's not about discounting evidence. It's about evaluating data to see what is relevant evidence before throwing stuff around. Very well educated people, as you mention, have not ever begun to study the question of Jesus' historicity. He is almost entirely assumed from the outset in biblical studies -- and even more so in other fields. He is a cultural icon for reference -- not a figure of historical inquiry unless the inquiry is to find a figure who can be related to some contemporary ideology.

That explains why many bible scholar historicists are so hell bent on ad hominem attacks on mythicists and on misrepresenting or ignoring completely their arguments. They are being confronted with a question that threatens to undermine their faith and careers -- something they have always taken for granted is being seriously challenged.

outhouse wrote:

Those are both things to be determined after we do a study or analysis of the material itself.

And they have for hundreds of years. And to date most think it is based on a martyred Aramaic Galilean.

Just people saying they have been studied etc doesn't mean they have been. One has to see what, exactly, has been on the curriculum.

neilgodfrey wrote: Of course the passage was interpolated. Some of the scholars who have argued this:

That 2:14-16 was interpolated:

van der Vies; Ritschl (1847); Rodrigues (1876); Pierson and Naber; Spitta (1889: 501; 1901: 190); Schmiedel (1891: 17); Pfleiderer; Teichmann (1896); Mansfield; Drummond; Loisy (1922: 135, 139; 1935: 85); Goguel; Bammel (1959); Eckhart (1961); Schmithals (1965: 89ff.).

That only 2:15f. was interpolated:

Koster (1980); Schmidt (1983)

That's from Sturdy's "Redrawing the Boundaries" -- drafted in response to Robinson's publication on early dating of the NT (a work Sturdy thought at first must have been a joke).

The scholarly arguments of more recent works (Sturdy's book was prepared some years back and never completed before he died in 1996) are outlined (with names and publications) in my post Taking Eddy and Boyd Seriously Part 3. From that post trace back through the links to see the previous two posts in which I detail the contrary argument -- the argument that the verses are authentic.

Follow up posts continue the interpolation argument and Eddy and Boyd's attempt to rebut it: http://vridar.org/2010/01/06/taking-edd ... riously-4/ and http://vridar.org/2010/01/10/taking-edd ... riously-5/

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

andrewcriddle wrote: 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.