Paul --- A Rock and a Hard Place

[Ben C. Smith]

I do not know about spin, but I think you were a former seminarist (no offence intended). Because of that, you got interested about theology and were given theological answers for almost anything.

I have never attended a seminary. I have thought of seminaries as wastes of time ever since I was in high school. I used to be a Christian, true, but not the kind who would have attended a seminary (at least not for any of the usual reasons).

My interest in theology is almost completely from the perspective of trying to understand the thoughts of the people whom I am studying: ancient Jews and Christians, in this case. I have virtually no interest in it on its own merits.

[Bernard Muller]

to spin,

I did for example point to your use of Acts, as though it was something that provides useful historical data

And you think Acts is all fiction, just as the four gospels. Right?

This is the sort of blunder by you that confounds your efforts. There was no claim made that 'Paul was thinking about that verse from Galatians when he wrote "was Paul crucified for your sake?"' Both the reference to Gal 3 and to 1 Cor 1:13 reflect Paul's thinking which relied on the notion of Christ dying for the sake/on behalf of us—a notion which he clarifies in Gal 3—in order to redeem us from the curse of the law. "On our behalf" (υπερ ημων) is also explained by the L&S link I supplied earlier as "for, instead of, in the name of" us.

Yes, but the clarification in Galatians 3 came rather late. And why do you think about the clarification in:
2 Co 5:19a "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them ..."
2 Co 5:21a "God made him [Christ] who had no sin to be sin for us ..."
Gal 1:3b-4a "... our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age ..."
Ro 3:23-25 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,"
Ro 4:25a "[Christ] who was delivered up because of our offenses, ..."
No clarification in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians but at least two in the later epistles. That's rather strange than Paul never clarified before. Clarifying "Christ crucified" (thought as a nonsense in need of defending) in 1 Cor 1:23 never happened in 1 Corinthians, just hidden within God's secret wisdom.

It might be nice if you attempted to interact with the meanings of Paul statements. When you refuse to read the texts for what they say, there's no wonder that you remain clueless of their content.

Your meanings require X-ray vision when you find interaction between Gal 3:13 ("the curse of the Law") and 1 Cor 1:13.
No I cannot "read" what you "read". I must be illiterate

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

No I cannot "read" what you "read". I must be illiterate

Not illiterate, but perhaps selectively blind? It is not as if it is typical of students of the text to overlook the connections that spin sees (as do I) between, say, 1 Corinthians 1-3 and the rest of Pauline thought. Here are a few commentators who do the same, referring to Pauline passages on redemption and to verses like Romans 3.24, 4.25, and Galatians 1.4 in their explanations of verses from your "early" Corinthian epistle:

Fitzmyer on 1 Corinthians 1.13: Was Paul crucified for you? Lit. “Paul was not crucified for you, was he?” The sentence is introduced by mē, expecting the answer “no.” Paul singles himself out, even if he could have mentioned either Cephas or Apollos instead, to stress the absurdity of the factious groups.... It is rather the vicarious death of Christ on the cross that has brought salvation to humanity (see Rom 4:25).

Fee on 1 Corinthians 1.30: This is the first appearance of "righteousness" (= "justification") in Paul. As a result of the later " Judaizing" controversy in Galatia it becomes the dominant metaphor. But the usage here and in 6:11 suggests two things: (1) It was already a common metaphor for Paul to express the saving work of Christ; and (2) it functioned in this period as one among other metaphors to connote the rich breadth of that work. "Righteousness," therefore, is not so much an ethical term here as it is forensic, and highlights the believer's undeserved stance of right standing before God, despite his/her guilt from having broken his law. We have already met the term "holiness" in 1:2. This is a "religious" metaphor, and in this kind of list it moves us into the ethical sphere. It is a recurring motif in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and is picked up again in 6:11. The term "redemption" is a metaphor from slavery, and had a rich history among the Jews to express their own deliverance from the bondage of Egypt. The emphasis is more on the deliverance of captives unto freedom than it is on the concept of "ransom" by payment; in Pauline usage (e.g., Rom. 3:24; Col. 1:14) it usually refers to deliverance from the bondage of sin. / Thus there is "wisdom" with God, to be sure. But it is of another kind from what the Corinthians currently delight in and squabble over. Wisdom does not have to do with "getting smart," nor with status or rhetoric. God's wisdom—the real thing—has to do with salvation through Christ Jesus. In a community where "wisdom" was part of a higher spirituality divorced from ethical consequences, Paul says that God has made Christ to become "wisdom" for us all right, but that means he has made him to become for us the one who redeems from sin and leads to holiness....

Collins on 1 Corinthians 1.13: In the first rhetorical question of his letter Paul had asked the Corinthians to reflect on Christ, put to death and raised from the dead. Now with a subtle movement of rhetorical slippage Paul asks whether he had been crucified on behalf of the Corinthians. It was virtually unthinkable for a Roman citizen to be crucified. This circumstance (cf. 9:1) only adds to the implausibility of a positive response to the question as phrased. With rhetorical inversion and by means of the succinct formula "for your sake" (hyper hyman; peri hyman in P46, B), Paul's question effectively calls attention to the vicarious death of Jesus. The kerygma, with its focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus, will underlie Paul's argument throughout the letter. For a comparable use of a hyper phrase to express the vicarious character of Jesus' death see 11:24; 15:3; Rom 5:8; 8:32; 14:15 (cf. 1 Cor 8:11); 2 Cor 5:14-15; Gal 1:4; Col 1:24 (cf. Eph 3:1, 13; Col 2:1).

I quote these commentaries, not in order to claim that they are always right, but rather to underscore that spin's reading of the text here is hardly idiosyncratic or eccentric; it is, to the contrary, quite obvious to most readers. Of course what Paul says in other letters will probably shed light on what he says in this one. It would be different if the letters either contradicted one another or spoke to completely different topics. But in a case such as this one, in which the (more detailed) other letters not only fit in so easily and naturally with the (less detailed) letter at hand but also fill in some of the missing details, then yes, of course, the thoughts of the former almost certainly undergird the latter, especially given that they find ready precedent in Jewish thought anyway.

[spin]

to spin,

I did for example point to your use of Acts, as though it was something that provides useful historical data

And you think Acts is all fiction, just as the four gospels. Right?

This sort of black and white thinking is endemic of your methodological quagmire. I never use the word fiction, which is a sad widespread blunder. Fiction is a modern notion that has been widened to have little meaning, except, once applied, it has polemic impact. Forget fiction. We have no material that can be demonstrated to be of historical value in Acts or the gospels. Until historicity can be established the material has no probative value.

The gospels are narratives, just like the Satyricon. You need to do more than arbitrarily reify the contents of the narrative.

This is the sort of blunder by you that confounds your efforts. There was no claim made that 'Paul was thinking about that verse from Galatians when he wrote "was Paul crucified for your sake?"' Both the reference to Gal 3 and to 1 Cor 1:13 reflect Paul's thinking which relied on the notion of Christ dying for the sake/on behalf of us—a notion which he clarifies in Gal 3—in order to redeem us from the curse of the law. "On our behalf" (υπερ ημων) is also explained by the L&S link I supplied earlier as "for, instead of, in the name of" us.

Yes, but the clarification in Galatians 3 came rather late.

Late, shmate. This is a refrain to your musical.

And why do you think about the clarification in:
2 Co 5:19a "that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men's sins against them ..."
2 Co 5:21a "God made him [Christ] who had no sin to be sin for us ..."
Gal 1:3b-4a "... our Lord Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us from this present evil age ..."
Ro 3:23-25 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed,"
Ro 4:25a "[Christ] who was delivered up because of our offenses, ..."
No clarification in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians but at least two in the later epistles. That's rather strange than Paul never clarified before. Clarifying "Christ crucified" (thought as a nonsense in need of defending) in 1 Cor 1:23 never happened in 1 Corinthians, just hidden within God's secret wisdom.

You're stuck with this repetitive stress. Crap about late and early. Refusal to read the texts. Inability to see the relations between one comment and another:

It might be nice if you attempted to interact with the meanings of Paul statements. When you refuse to read the texts for what they say, there's no wonder that you remain clueless of their content.

Your meanings require X-ray vision when you find interaction between Gal 3:13 ("the curse of the Law") to 1 Cor 1:13.
No I cannot "read" what you "read". I must be illiterate

No commentis needed.

To sum up:

● Airy-fairy notions of late and early texts.
● Assumptions about lack of evidence meaning evidence of lack.
● Inability to see the relations between comments Paul makes incidentally while dealing with other topics.
● The belief that you know better than Paul what he needs to say.

Sad, Bernard, sad. Thanks for a rehearsal of your problems. But let's end it.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Not illiterate, but perhaps selectively blind? It is not as if it is typical of students of the text to overlook the connections that spin sees (as do I) between, say, 1 Corinthians 1-3 and the rest of Pauline thought. Here are a few commentators who do the same, referring to Pauline passages on redemption and to verses like Romans 3.24, 4.25, and Galatians 1.4 in their explanations of verses from your "early" Corinthian epistle:

Sure, Paul explained things in his later epistles. That does not mean he had these explanations in his mind in his early epistles. There is no signs it was so. Actually for "Christ crucified" he was clueless, hiding behind God's hidden wisdom.

For Fitzmyer on 1 Corinthians 1.13, I do not have any problem except for his reference to Rom 4:25. Anyway 1 Thessalonians has a vicarious death for salvation, but no indication on why and how.

For Fee on 1 Corinthians 1.30: Fee, is a Christian theologian (as also Fitzmyer). And of course, he did the typical thing of interpreting Paul's thought by combining verses from different epistles, including pseudo-Pauline Colossians & 2 Thessalonians.
He certainly drew a lot from a single word from 1 Cor 1:30 thanks to the help mostly from later epistles (foremost Ro 3:24 & Col 1:14) in order to arrive at "he has made him to become for us the one who redeems from sin and leads to holiness."

For Collins on 1 Corinthians 1.13: He is also a Christian theologian, and again does the typical things that theologians do. He also assumes that Ephesians & Colossians are from Paul. That leads him to the vicarious death of Jesus (looking at 1 Thessalonians only would have been sufficient to conclude that), but no mention of atonement of sins & the curse of the Law.

I quote these commentaries, not in order to claim that they are always right, but rather to underscore that spin's reading of the text here is hardly idiosyncratic or eccentric; it is, to the contrary, quite obvious to most readers. Of course what Paul says in other letters will probably shed light on what he says in this one. It would be different if the letters either contradicted one another or spoke to completely different topics. But in a case such as this one, in which the (more detailed) other letters not only fit in so easily and naturally with the (less detailed) letter at hand but also fill in some of the missing details, then yes, of course, the thoughts of the former almost certainly undergird the latter, especially given that they find ready precedent in Jewish thought anyway.Collins on 1 Corinthians 1.13

The so-called spin's reading (and also yours) is the one of a Christian theologian. Not of a critical investigator. As for contradictions, did you notice my piece on "who will Judge". I discovered also huge differences in the two Corinthians letters, which of course I used for delimiting them into three original letters for each of the two: http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html
Christian Theologians won't bother with evolution of Paul's gospel. For them, as I said before, Paul's gospel was the same from day one up to his death. And also the same as the others, including the one of the pillars, except that some of them were insisting on Judaization.
I very much disagree with that.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

As for contradictions, did you notice my piece on "who will Judge".

Not sure. Do you have a link?

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,

Bernard Muller wrote:

As for contradictions, did you notice my piece on "who will Judge".
Not sure. Do you have a link?

At the end of that post:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2717&start=60#p60865

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,

Bernard Muller wrote:

As for contradictions, did you notice my piece on "who will Judge".
Not sure. Do you have a link?

At the end of that post:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2717&start=60#p60865

Thanks. I am not sure I agree even with that conclusion of yours, but in this case you at least have two statements which substantially differ from one another ("saints judge" versus "God judges"). There is something to talk about there. With the case you and spin are debating there is no such difference to discuss. One example is simply more detailed than the other; there is no necessary contradiction.

[Bernard Muller]

to Ben,
Also here http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html then search on "Jesus as the "Son" (of God)", I made a case about Paul accepted Christ as "the Son of God" late into his ministry.
And here I recapitulated the influence of "Hebrews" and its author on Paul's gospel: http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html then search on "3.3"

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

to Ben,
Also here http://historical-jesus.info/hjes3x.html then search on "Jesus as the "Son" (of God)", I made a case about Paul accepted Christ as "the Son of God" late into his ministry.

Your case depends upon some very specific arguments for interpolation. You write:

1Th1:10 is another addition:
"and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead -- Jesus, who rescues us from the coming wrath."
Why?
a) 1Th1:10 considerably extends a sentence, when Paul used generally short ones in this letter.
b) 1Th1:10 affirms "he raised [Jesus] from the dead" when later, it is a matter of faith "we believe that Jesus died and rose again" (4:14a)
c) 1Th1:10 is packed with theological tenets, some of them having no counterpart in the letter:
Jesus is Christ (1:1,3,2:6,3:2,4:16,5:9,18,23,28) or/and Lord (1:1,3,2:19,3:11,13,4:1,2,15,16,17,5:2,9,23,28), but never "Son". The expressions:
"God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (1:1)
"our God and Father" (1:3,3:13)
"our God and Father himself and our Lord Jesus" (3:11)
And NOT "... the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ..." (2Co1:3a & Ro15:6),
tend to preclude Paul had then Jesus as the "Son".
Then in this letter, dead are risen (4:14,16) (Greek root 'anistemi'), but never "raised" (root 'egeiro').
d) Paul would not have acknowledged "to wait" as a good thing when he wrote in the same letter:
"And we urge you, brothers, warn those who are idle" (5:14)
Apparently, these "idlers" were a problem in the community:
1Th4:11-12 "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody."

I believe point A is moot. You cannot use an English translation to determine the length of Greek sentences, since translators often break up long Greek sentences by turning participles into finite verbs. (Go to this link: https://bible.org/download/netbible/ond ... ok/1th.pdf, and do a search for "sentence"; notice the various times in the footnotes where the translator has done this very thing.) Here are some long sentences from 1 Thessalonians, including the one in question (I take γάρ to begin a new sentence, but ὅτι to begin a dependent clause):

1.2 εὐχαριστοῦμεν τῶ θεῶ πάντοτε περὶ πάντων ὑμῶν, μνείαν ποιούμενοι ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν ἡμῶν, ἀδιαλείπτως, 3 μνημονεύοντες ὑμῶν τοῦ ἔργου τῆς πίστεως καὶ τοῦ κόπου τῆς ἀγάπης καὶ τῆς ὑπομονῆς τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν, 4 εἰδότες, ἀδελφοὶ ἠγαπημένοι ὑπὸ [τοῦ] θεοῦ, τὴν ἐκλογὴν ὑμῶν, 5 ὅτι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐγενήθη εἰς ὑμᾶς ἐν λόγῳ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐν δυνάμει καὶ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ καὶ [ἐν] πληροφορίᾳ πολλῇ, καθὼς οἴδατε οἷοι ἐγενήθημεν [ἐν] ὑμῖν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς.

1.9 αὐτοὶ γὰρ περὶ ἡμῶν ἀπαγγέλλουσιν ὁποίαν εἴσοδον ἔσχομεν πρὸς ὑμᾶς, καὶ πῶς ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν θεὸν ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων δουλεύειν θεῶ ζῶντι καὶ ἀληθινῶ, 10 καὶ ἀναμένειν τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν, ὃν ἤγειρεν ἐκ [τῶν] νεκρῶν, ἰησοῦν τὸν ῥυόμενον ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ὀργῆς τῆς ἐρχομένης.

2.1 αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε, ἀδελφοί, τὴν εἴσοδον ἡμῶν τὴν πρὸς ὑμᾶς ὅτι οὐ κενὴ γέγονεν, 2 ἀλλὰ προπαθόντες καὶ ὑβρισθέντες καθὼς οἴδατε ἐν φιλίπποις ἐπαρρησιασάμεθα ἐν τῶ θεῶ ἡμῶν λαλῆσαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν πολλῶ ἀγῶνι.

2.3 ἡ γὰρ παράκλησις ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐκ πλάνης οὐδὲ ἐξ ἀκαθαρσίας οὐδὲ ἐν δόλῳ, 4 ἀλλὰ καθὼς δεδοκιμάσμεθα ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ πιστευθῆναι τὸ εὐαγγέλιον οὕτως λαλοῦμεν, οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώποις ἀρέσκοντες ἀλλὰ θεῶ τῶ δοκιμάζοντι τὰς καρδίας ἡμῶν.

2.5 οὔτε γάρ ποτε ἐν λόγῳ κολακείας ἐγενήθημεν, καθὼς οἴδατε, οὔτε ἐν προφάσει πλεονεξίας, θεὸς μάρτυς, 6 οὔτε ζητοῦντες ἐξ ἀνθρώπων δόξαν, οὔτε ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν οὔτε ἀπ᾽ ἄλλων, 7 δυνάμενοι ἐν βάρει εἶναι ὡς χριστοῦ ἀπόστολοι, ἀλλὰ ἐγενήθημεν νήπιοι ἐν μέσῳ ὑμῶν. ὡς ἐὰν τροφὸς θάλπῃ τὰ ἑαυτῆς τέκνα.

3.1 διὸ μηκέτι στέγοντες εὐδοκήσαμεν καταλειφθῆναι ἐν ἀθήναις μόνοι, 2 καὶ ἐπέμψαμεν τιμόθεον, τὸν ἀδελφὸν ἡμῶν καὶ συνεργὸν τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν τῶ εὐαγγελίῳ τοῦ χριστοῦ, εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλέσαι ὑπὲρ τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν 3 τὸ μηδένα σαίνεσθαι ἐν ταῖς θλίψεσιν ταύταις. αὐτοὶ γὰρ οἴδατε ὅτι εἰς τοῦτο κείμεθα.

3.9 τίνα γὰρ εὐχαριστίαν δυνάμεθα τῶ θεῶ ἀνταποδοῦναι περὶ ὑμῶν ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ χαρᾷ ᾗ χαίρομεν δι᾽ ὑμᾶς ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν, 10 νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ δεόμενοι εἰς τὸ ἰδεῖν ὑμῶν τὸ πρόσωπον καὶ καταρτίσαι τὰ ὑστερήματα τῆς πίστεως ὑμῶν;

3.11 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ἡμῶν καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν ἰησοῦς κατευθύναι τὴν ὁδὸν ἡμῶν πρὸς ὑμᾶς· 12 ὑμᾶς δὲ ὁ κύριος πλεονάσαι καὶ περισσεύσαι τῇ ἀγάπῃ εἰς ἀλλήλους καὶ εἰς πάντας, καθάπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς ὑμᾶς, 13 εἰς τὸ στηρίξαι ὑμῶν τὰς καρδίας ἀμέμπτους ἐν ἁγιωσύνῃ ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ πατρὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τῇ παρουσίᾳ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν ἰησοῦ μετὰ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων αὐτοῦ.

4.3 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, 4 εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῶ καὶ τιμῇ, 5 μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθάπερ καὶ τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν, 6 τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῶ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διότι ἔκδικος κύριος περὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα.

4.16 ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν κελεύσματι, ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου καὶ ἐν σάλπιγγι θεοῦ, καταβήσεται ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ, καὶ οἱ νεκροὶ ἐν χριστῶ ἀναστήσονται πρῶτον, 17 ἔπειτα ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι ἅμα σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁρπαγησόμεθα ἐν νεφέλαις εἰς ἀπάντησιν τοῦ κυρίου εἰς ἀέρα· καὶ οὕτως πάντοτε σὺν κυρίῳ ἐσόμεθα.

5.12 ἐρωτῶμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, εἰδέναι τοὺς κοπιῶντας ἐν ὑμῖν καὶ προϊσταμένους ὑμῶν ἐν κυρίῳ καὶ νουθετοῦντας ὑμᾶς, 13a καὶ ἡγεῖσθαι αὐτοὺς ὑπερεκπερισσοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ διὰ τὸ ἔργον αὐτῶν.

Point B is just a matter of expression and context. 1 Thessalonians 4.14 is set in the context of the Thessalonians' own grief, and Paul is pointing out that they already have the beliefs in place to dispel this grief. No such context overrides 1 Thessalonians 1.10.

Point C is interesting, so far as the relative paucity of references to Jesus as the son of God is concerned in some of the epistles, but two things concern me. First, I think you have (again) ignored the occasional nature of epistles. Paul is responding to specific issues in the churches, not writing his own theological treatises from scratch. Second, of course, your so-designated early epistles do call Jesus the son of God; that idea is not absent. But you relegate those instances to interpolations, such as the one at hand in 1 Thessalonians 1.10. Those are very specific interpolations, and, if you are wrong about even one of them, your idea crashes to the ground.

Also under point C you write: "Then in this letter, dead are risen (4:14,16) (Greek root 'anistemi'), but never "raised" (root 'egeiro')," which is a statistical wash. We have two instances of the former root and one of the latter, not nearly enough to establish a pattern. 1 Corinthians 15 employs both roots, with more of the latter than of the former, and not even counting your proposed interpolations in that chapter. One could use your same kind of argumentation to help indict 1 Thessalonians 4.14 and 4.16 as interpolations, since these are the only instances of the verb ἀνίστημι being used of the resurrection from the dead in the entire genuine Pauline corpus.

Point D is completely moot. There is no conflict in any way between waiting for the second coming and working with your hands. You can eagerly await the day you get to graduate from college and still work two jobs to stay afloat till that happens; you can wait to win the lottery and still work in the meantime; you can wait for Mrs. Right and still date lots of women in search of her.

I applaud the effort to search as hard as possible for textual interpolations, layers, and embedded traditions; I believe nothing is clearer than that early Christian writings are the sort of literature in which scribes and other churchmen would add their own thoughts or other materials to what they inherited and in which marginal notes would find their way into the text. But I am not at all sure that your arguments above are up to the task in this case. Two of the points are obviously invalid on their face, another is just a matter of context, and the remaining one is part of the same observation which inspires you to rid the early epistles of references to Jesus as the son of God in the first place, thus running the risk of being circular in nature.