Did Paul write that the Jews killed Jesus?

In 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16, there is an explicit statement that Jesus was killed by the Jews:

14 ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε ἀδελφοί τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων

14 Be imitators, brothers, of the churches of God that are in Judea in Christ Jesus, because you yourselves suffer the same things by your own fellow citizens as they do by the Jews (or the Judeans),

15 τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων καὶ θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων

15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and persecuted us, and are not pleasing to God and to all people,

16 κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσιν λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντοτε ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπ’ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος

16 who forbade us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved, in order to fill up the full measure of their sins always. But wrath has come upon them at last.

DidJesusExistIn Did Jesus Exist Bart D. Ehrman, much to my surprise, defends the authenticity of this passage. (Above, for the sake of convenience, I am using the translation Ehrman provides in his book.) I have searched his other books to see whether he changed his mind or actually held this position earlier. In God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question–Why We Suffer from 2008, he discusses this passage on p. 148ff without giving a hint [as far as I can tell through the preview at Amazon] that it might not be genuine. So obviously he has for some time believed that this passage was indeed written by Paul.

In Did Jesus Exist Ehrman writes:

Paul thinks that Jesus was killed at the instigation of “the Jews.” This is indicated in a passage that is much disputed—in this instance, not just among mythicists.

Ehrman is accordingly (and naturally) fully aware of the fact that this passage is disputed, in part or in its entirety. Paula Fredriksen, Pheme Perkins, Daryl Schmidt, Burton Mack, Birger A. Pearson, Wayne Meeks, Helmut Koester, S. G. F. Brandon, Paul W. Schmiedel, Richard Carrier, Raymond Brown and many more have suggested that the passage was in part or in its entirety not written by Paul.

After quoting 1 Thess 2:14–16, Ehrman refers to the last sentence where the wrath (of God) is said to have come upon the Jews at last:

It is this last sentence that has caused interpreters problems. What could Paul mean that the wrath of God has finally come upon the Jews (or Judeans)? That would seem to make sense if Paul were writing in the years after the destruction of the city of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans, that is, after 70 CE. But it seems to make less sense when this letter was actually written, around 49 CE. For that reason a number of scholars have argued that this entire passage has been inserted into 1 Thessalonians and that Paul therefore did not write it. In this view some Christian scribe, copying the letter after the destruction of Jerusalem, added it.

But Ehrman objects to this:

I myself do not agree with this interpretation, for a number of reasons. To begin with, if the only part of the passage that seems truly odd on the pen of Paul is the last sentence, then it would make better sense simply to say that it is this sentence that was added by the hypothetical Christian scribe. There is no reason to doubt the entire passage, just the last few words.

Ehrman makes a conditional sentence by saying “if the only part of the passage that seems truly odd on the pen of Paul is the last sentence, then …”. But he never discusses what the options are if also other parts of the passage are odd. In fact, he begins by saying, “if”, and then simply assumes that to be the case. I will soon return to the other objections.

Ehrman continues:

But I do not doubt even these. For one thing, what is the hard evidence that the words were not in the letter of 1 Thessalonians as Paul wrote it? There is none. We do not of course have the original of l Thessalonians; we have only later copies made by scribes. But in not a single one of these manuscripts is the line (let alone the paragraph) missing. Every surviving manuscript includes it. If the passage was added sometime after the fall of Jerusalem, say, near the end of the first Christian century or even in the second, when Christians started blaming the fall of Jerusalem on the fact that the Jews had killed Jesus, why is it that none of the manuscripts of l Thessalonians that were copied before the insertion was made left any trace on the manuscript record? Why were the older copies not copied at all? I think there needs to be better evidence of a scribal insertion before we are certain that it happened. And recall, we are not talking about the entire paragraph but only the last line.

I find this reasoning to be strained, particularly since the one who is making it is Bart Ehrman. First of all, it is not “we” but Ehrman who is only talking about the last line. It is he who has quickly travelled from “if the only part … is the last sentence” to “only the last line”. Secondly, are we only to suspect forgeries in those cases where we actually have textual evidence that the text is forged? This would mean that all forgeries could in fact be detected, since they all would show up as textual variants. Thirdly, the oldest manuscript containing First Thessalonians is p46 from c. 200 CE, and this does not even include 1 Thess 2:14-16. In fact, as far as I can tell, 1 Thess 2:14–16 is not attested anywhere until Codex Sinaiticus in the fourth century and this might even be the only evidence from the fourth century of this passage. Even though it is not missing in any single manuscripts where the lines are preserved and though it of course could be quoted by some Church Father, there really are not many early witnesses to this passage.

In fact, we can think of this as a three-stage rocket. First we have those few instances where we can be fairly certain that a word, a line, a chapter or an entire book is forged. For instance the ending of Mark (16:9–20) and the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 8:1–11) has so much textual evidence that we “know” they were not originally in the Gospels of Mark and John respectively. Then we have those instances where we have ambiguous textual evidence, supporting different readings. They are (I suppose) more numerous and we can often guess the more probable reading. Finally we have those passages which have no or nearly no textual support for any other reading than the normative. In some of these cases the text looks really suspicious, but we have no way of knowing if an original reading has been altered. In fact, if the analogy with increasing number is valid, this group should include the majority of all alterations, although we have only a remote possibility of spotting most of them. If there are no obvious signs of forgery and no textual support for this, then we must assume that the text is genuine, although it might not be what the author actually wrote.

The problem here is what to do with quite obvious forgeries without any textual support? Are we to believe without textual evidence that the Jesus-saying in Matthew 16:18, that “you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church”, was actually written by the author of the Gospel of Matthew, although this looks like a perfect example of something added to support the Roman Church?

Ehrman himself thinks that Second Thessalonians is a forgery because the author of that letter holds views that are opposed those that Paul holds in First Thessalonians:

It is particularly interesting that the author of 2 Thessalonians indicates that he taught his converts all these things already, when he was with them (2:5). If that’s the case, then how can one explain 1 Thessalonians? The problem there is that people think the end is supposed to come any day now, based on what Paul told them. But according to 2 Thessalonians Paul never taught any such thing. He taught that a whole sequence of events had to transpire before the end came. Moreover, if that is what he taught them, as 2 Thessalonians insists, then it is passing strange that he never reminds them of this teaching in 1 Thessalonians, where they obviously think that they were taught something else. (Bart D. Ehrman, Forged: Writing in the Name of God–Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 107)

In his exposition of the Testimonium Flavianum, Ehrman on the other hand accepts (or at least postulates) that there originally was a different and peeled-off version of the Testimonium written by Josephus, although not in a single one of the preserved manuscripts is this reconstruction supported. To paraphrase Ehrman, what is the hard evidence for that version in Josephus? There is none. We do not of course have the original of the Antiquities of the Jews; we have only later copies made by scribes. But every surviving Greek manuscript includes the normative version of the Testimonium. If an original passage was altered sometime before Eusebius in the third century, why is it that none of the manuscripts of either Josephus or Eusebius has left any trace on the manuscript record? Why were the older copies not copied at all?

Then what are we to make of 1 Thess 2:14–16? Is it really that important that the text is present in every one of the later manuscripts? I do not think so; because there are solid indications that Paul could not have written this.

1)      First of all, the fact that the wrath of God is said to have finally come upon the Jews definitely looks like it is referring to some catastrophic event that befell the Jews in the past. The obvious catastrophe is the destruction of the Templein 70 CE and the banishment of the Jews. And since First Thessalonians is believed to have been written by Paul c. 50 CE, he cannot possibly have known about this. One can therefore assume that this was written by someone other than Paul at any time after 70 CE. Any attempts to link this to Claudius’ expulsion of Jews from Rome maybe in the late 40’s are vain, not least because this letter of Paul is written to the church members of Thessaloniki.

2)      Nowhere else is Paul writing that the wrath of God already has come or is coming. At other occasions he writes about God’s wrath as something that will come in the future. See for example, Romans 2:5, 3:5, 4:15, 5:9 and so on.

3)      The anti-Jewish tone where the Jews are enemies [Ehrman translates this as “not pleasing”, however ἐναντίος rather means “opposed”] of all mankind, is in glaring contrast to what Paul writes elsewhere. Paul is depicted here as really intransigent, while elsewhere he hopes that the Jews eventually will turn to Christ. One could say that Paul here is taking the opposite position of the one we encounter in Romans chapter 9 to 11. In Romans 11:25–28, Paul says that all the Jews will be saved: “And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written”. 1 Thess 2:14–16 reflects thus seemingly a later and more Hellenistic anti-Jewish view, compared to Paul’s more pro-Jewish view. This argument is quite the same as the one Ehrman advances in order to deem 2 Thessalonians as non-Pauline; and besides, this sentence is also found in verse 15, the part which Ehrman sees no reason to suspect that Paul did not write.

4)      The line that it was the Jews who “killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets” also implies that Paul himself was not a Jew, which he obviously was and also said he was. In fact it was “the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus” and “they persecuted us”, and “they are not pleasing to God” and “they might be saved” and “wrath has come upon them”. In for instance Romans 11:1 Paul writes: “I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin.” (see also Rom 9:3–5, 1 Cor 9:20 and Gal 2:15). Even more, many members of the congregations to which Paul wrote were also Jews. (see for instance Rom 9:24, 10:12 and 1 Cor 12:13). Why would he say to them that the Jews were enemies of all mankind?

5)      And finally, only in this passage does Paul blame the Jews for the death of Jesus. For example in 1 Corinthians 2:8, he instead argues that Jesus was killed by lower spiritual beings (“the rulers [archontes] of this age”). It is also quite obvious in Romans chapter 11 that Paul does not know that the Jews killed Jesus. In 11:3 he cites the words of Elijah in 1 Kings, namely that the Jews in the past had killed God’s prophets. Paul probably wrote Romans several years after he wrote 1 Thessalonians. If Paul already several years earlier when he wrote 1 Thessalonians had known that the Jews had killed Jesus, it is almost inevitable that he would have said so in Romans chapter 11 when he claimed that they killed God’s prophets. But Paul does not even hint at that. This is an additional indication that he had never heard that the Jews would have killed Jesus, and therefore did not write in 1 Thessalonians that they did.

There are accordingly good reasons to suspect that not only the last sentence in 1 Thess 2:16 is an addition, but that the entirety of 1 Thess 2:14–16 was not written by Paul.

Neil Godfrey lists even more arguments from Birger Pearson in favour of the passage being a forgery. Apart from the reasons I already have given, he says …

a)      The passage begins a second “thanksgiving section” in the letter — something that appears to be an anomaly in Paul’s letters

b)     This same passage begins with a repetition of the same words and phrases (or identical ones) as had been already written in 1:13ff [sic! 2:13ff?].

c)      The passage intrudes into a ‘travelogue’ or ‘apostolic parousia’ section, something used by Paul to declare his travel plans and desire to be with the congregation, etc. — Paul nowhere else breaks up a ‘travelogue’ section

d)     The passage urges one church to follow another church as an example — while elsewhere (including in chapter one of this same letter) Paul commands his churches to follow him, or praises them for doing so, as he follows Christ

e)      This passage points to a period of persecution of Christians in Judea between 44 and 66 (when the Jewish War against Rome began) CE — there is no other evidence for such persecution

Nevertheless, Ehrman gives additional reason to why he believes the passage was indeed written by Paul. He says:

The other point to stress is that Paul did think the wrath of God was already manifesting itself in this world. A key passage is Romans 1:18–32, where Paul states unequivocally, “For the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven on all human ungodliness and unrighteousness, among those who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.” When Paul says that God’s wrath is “being revealed,” he does not simply mean that it is there to be seen in some ethereal way. He means it is being manifested, powerfully made present. God’s wrath is even now being directed against all godless and unrighteous behavior. In this passage in Romans Paul is talking about God’s wrath now being directed against pagans who refuse to acknowledge him here at the end of time before Jesus returns from heaven. It would not be at all strange to think that he also thought that God’s wrath was being manifest against those Jewish people who also acted in such ungodly and unrighteous ways. And he has a full list of offenses against which God has responded.

This is though something quite different, as it here is said that he wrath of God is being revealed, while in 1 Thess 2:16 the wrath of God already has struck the Jews, meaning he already has “punished” them. This really suggests that the author had the destruction of the temple in mind. Further, we still have the statement in 2:15 that the Jews are opposed to (the enemies of) all people.

This is anyway how Ehrman summarises his discussion of the passage:

In short, I think that Paul originally wrote l Thessalonians 2:14-16. He certainly wrote everything up to verse 16. What this means, then, is that Paul believes that it was the Jews (or the Judeans) who were ultimately responsible for killing Jesus, a view shared by the writers of the Gospels as well, even though it does not sit well with those of us today who are outraged by the wicked use to which such views were put in the history of anti-Semitism.

Did you notice the shift from think to certainly to a fact?

a)      Ehrman thinks that Paul originally wrote l Thessalonians 2:14-16. He gives two reasons for this, there is no textual evidence to the contrary and Paul thought that the wrath of God was already manifesting itself in this world. To me these arguments are weak, but still they are valid arguments and obviously they have made him think that the passage was written by Paul.

b)     It is however a mystery how Ehrman can go from a personal opinion that l Thess 2:14-16 was written by Paul to a “certainty” that all of the verses 14 and 15 plus the beginning of verse 16 is genuine? He has not produced a shred of evidence that this would be the case, simply stated this as a fact of certainty.

c)      The next leap is yet even more breathtaking. From an unwarranted certainty he moves to make his case that “this means …that Paul believes that it was the Jews … who were ultimately responsible for killing Jesus”. To further emphasize this, he calls on the Gospels and thereby tries to prove that Paul was aware of the Gospel stories. But was not that what he was supposed to prove without bringing in the Gospels?

Ehrman thinks that Paul wrote all of l Thess 2:14-16 and from this, his own personal opinion, he draws the conclusion that this means that Paul believes that it was the Jews) who were ultimately responsible for killing Jesus. To this can also be added that Ehrman says that Paul believed that they were responsible for killing Jesus, not that they actually killed him. However, the author of l Thess 2:14-16 does not say that the Jews were responsible for killing Jesus, but that that they actually killed him themselves. Ehrman has made an interpretation of the passage based on the Gospel stories, and thereby managed to find a point of agreement with the Gospel story that is not found in the passage. He can thereby use these circumstances to claim that Paul was aware that the Jews killed Jesus (who then obviously must have been a real person); and that he was killed around the year 30 CE, as is confirmed by “the fact” that he knows the Gospel story (that says that Jesus was killed c. 30 CE) which depicts the Jews as “responsible for killing Jesus” although not actually doing the killing themselves.

However, if there is any passage in the entire New Testament, where there is no textual support but which nevertheless is likely to have been added afterwards by someone else than the original author, then that passage is l Thessalonians 2:14-16.

Roger Viklund, May 2, 2012

14 kommentarer

  1. stephan said,

    3 maj, 2012 den 00:35

    Textual witnesses for 1 Thessalonians 2:14 – 16

    1 Thessalonians 2, 14
    CPG1450 – s. n.0
    201 (1 pole(s))
    Anonyma (1 ancient author(s))
    Anonyma (2 work(s))
    Anonyma De recta in Deum fide (1)
    Date: ca.201 – ca.300
    Genre: Dialogue
    Theme: Heresy
    Clavis: 1726
    Biblio:
    VAN DE SANDE BAKHUYZEN W.H., GCS 4 (1901). (p.196, l.27 – <) BP2

    Prologi epistularum Pauli (1)
    Date: ca.201 – ca.400
    Genre: Preface, Prolog
    Theme: Heresy
    Clavis: 0
    Biblio:
    DE BRUYNE D., Prologues bibliques d'origine marcionite, Revue Bénédictine 24 (1907), 13-16. (p.14, l.11 – /) BP2

    248 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Origenes (3 work(s))
    Origenes Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri X-XVII (1)
    Date: ca.248 – ca.249
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1450
    Biblio:
    KLOSTERMANN E., BENZ E., GCS 40 (1935). 10 18 (p.23, l.17 – <) BP3

    Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri XII-XIII (lat.) (2)
    Date: ca.248 – ca.249
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1450
    Biblio:
    KLOSTERMANN E., BENZ E., GCS 38 (1933). 28 (p.50, l.16 – <) BP3
    28 (p.50, l.28 – )) BP3

    Epistula ad Iulium Africanum (1)
    Date: ca.248 – ca.248
    Genre: Letter
    Theme: Faith and Christian Reflection
    Clavis: 1494
    Biblio:
    PG 11 (1857), 48-85. (p.72 – <) BP3

    363 (1 pole(s))
    Italy (1 ancient author(s))
    Ambrosiaster (2 work(s))
    Ambrosiaster Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas C (3)
    Date: ca.363 – ca.384
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 184
    Biblio:
    VOGELS H.I., CSEL 81,3 (1969). (p.211, l.3) BP6
    (p.218, l.13 – < )) BP6
    (p.257, l.5) BP6

    Quaestiones Veteris et Noui Testamenti (numero CXXVII) (1)
    Date: ca.363 – ca.390
    Genre: Treatise
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 185
    Biblio:
    SOUTER A., CSEL 50 (1908), 3-416. 98 § 3 (p.188, l.16) BP6

    387 (1 pole(s))
    Antioch, Syria (1 ancient author(s))
    Iohannes Chrysostomus (1 work(s))
    Iohannes
    Chrysostomus De statuis homiliae homiliae 1-20 et 22ad populum Antiochenum (1)
    Date: ca.387 – ca.387
    Genre: Homily
    Theme: Christian life
    Clavis: 4330
    Biblio:
    PG 49, 15-222. 1 (p.27, l.32 – <) BPH

    398 (1 pole(s))
    Antioch, Syria (1 ancient author(s))
    Iohannes Chrysostomus (1 work(s))
    Iohannes
    Chrysostomus Homilia dicta in templo s.Anastasiae (Novarum hom. 8) (1)
    Date: ca.398 – ca.400
    Genre: Homily
    Theme: Faith and Christian Reflection
    Clavis: 4441
    Biblio:
    PG 63, 493-500. (p.497, l.33 – <) BPH

    1 Thessalonians 2, 15
    CPG1426 – CPL185
    201 (1 pole(s))
    Anonyma (1 ancient author(s))
    Anonyma (1 work(s))
    Anonyma De recta in Deum fide (1)
    Date: ca.201 – ca.300
    Genre: Dialogue
    Theme: Heresy
    Clavis: 1726
    Biblio:
    VAN DE SANDE BAKHUYZEN W.H., GCS 4 (1901). (p.196, l.27 – <) BP2
    207 (1 pole(s))
    Africa (1 ancient author(s))
    Tertullianus (1 work(s))
    Tertullianus Aduersus Marcionem (1)
    Date: ca.207 – ca.213
    Genre: Treatise
    Theme: Faith and Christian Reflection
    Clavis: 14
    Biblio:
    KROYMANN Aem., CCL 1 (1954), 441-726. 5 15 § 1 (p.708, l.2) BP1
    222 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Origenes (1 work(s))
    Origenes Fragmenta in diversos Psalmos in catenis (1)
    Date: ca.222 – ca.252
    Genre: Fragment
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1426
    Biblio:
    PG 12 (1862), passim 1085-1637. (p.1108) BP3

    239 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Origenes (1 work(s))
    Origenes Homiliae in Ps. XXXVI (latine interprete Rufino) (1)
    Date: ca.239 – ca.242
    Genre: Homily
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1428
    Biblio:
    PG 12, 1319-1368. 5 4 (p.1362) BP3

    248 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Origenes (2 work(s))
    Origenes Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri X-XVII (1)
    Date: ca.248 – ca.249
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1450
    Biblio:
    KLOSTERMANN E., BENZ E., GCS 40 (1935). 10 18 (p.23, l.17 – <) BP3

    Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri XII-XIII (lat.) (2)
    Date: ca.248 – ca.249
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1450
    Biblio:
    KLOSTERMANN E., BENZ E., GCS 38 (1933). 28 (p.50, l.16 – <) BP3
    28 (p.50, l.28 – )) BP3

    338 (2 pole(s))
    Greek historians (1 ancient author(s))
    Eusebius Caesariensis (1 work(s))
    Eusebius
    Caesariensis Vita Constantini (2)
    Date: ca.338 – ca.339
    Genre: Panegyric
    Theme: Biography
    Clavis: 3496
    Biblio:
    WINKELMANN F., GCS (1975). 3 18 § 4 (p.90, l.27) BP4
    3 19 § 1 (p.91, l.24) BP4

    Palestine and Cyprus (1 ancient author(s))
    Eusebius Caesariensis (1 work(s))
    Eusebius
    Caesariensis Vita Constantini (2)
    Date: ca.338 – ca.339
    Genre: Panegyric
    Theme: Biography
    Clavis: 3496
    Biblio:
    WINKELMANN F., GCS (1975). 3 18 § 4 (p.90, l.27) BP4
    3 19 § 1 (p.91, l.24) BP4

    363 (2 pole(s))
    Greece, Minor Asia (1 ancient author(s))
    Basilius Caesariensis (1 work(s))
    Basilius
    Caesariensis Regulae morales (1)
    Date: ca.363 – ca.378
    Genre: Rule
    Theme: Christian life
    Clavis: 2877
    Biblio:
    PG 31, 691-869. 19 § 1 (p.733 – )) BP5

    Italy (1 ancient author(s))
    Ambrosiaster (2 work(s))
    Ambrosiaster Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas C (1)
    Date: ca.363 – ca.384
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 184
    Biblio:
    VOGELS H.I., CSEL 81,3 (1969). (p.257, l.5) BP6

    Quaestiones Veteris et Noui Testamenti (numero CXXVII) (1)
    Date: ca.363 – ca.390
    Genre: Treatise
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 185
    Biblio:
    SOUTER A., CSEL 50 (1908), 3-416. 98 § 3 (p.188, l.16) BP6

    387 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Didymus Alexandrinus (1 work(s))
    Didymus
    Alexandrinus Commentarii in Zachariam (1)
    Date: ca.387 – ca.393
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 2549
    Biblio:
    DOUTRELEAU L., SC 83 (1962) : livre 1 ; SC 84 (1962) : livres 2 et 3 ; SC 85 (1962) : livres 4 et 5. 5 364 (p.982, l.12) BP7

    398 (1 pole(s))
    Antioch, Syria (1 ancient author(s))
    Iohannes Chrysostomus (1 work(s))
    Iohannes
    Chrysostomus Homilia dicta in templo s.Anastasiae (Novarum hom. 8) (1)
    Date: ca.398 – ca.400
    Genre: Homily
    Theme: Faith and Christian Reflection
    Clavis: 4441
    Biblio:
    PG 63, 493-500. (p.497, l.33 – <) BPH

    1 Thessalonians 2, 16
    CPG1426 – CPL184
    201 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Origenes (?) (1 work(s))
    Origenes
    (?) Fragmenta e catenis in Psalmos (1)
    Date: ca.201 – ca.300
    Genre: Fragment
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1426
    Biblio:
    PG 12 (1862), passim 1097-1685. (p.1480 – <) BP3

    222 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Origenes (3 work(s))
    Origenes Fragmenta e catenis in Ioannem (1)
    Date: ca.222 – ca.252
    Genre: Fragment
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1453
    Biblio:
    PREUSCHEN E., GCS 10 (1903), passim 483-574. (p.525, l.29 – < )) BP3

    Fragmenta e catenis in Romanos (1)
    Date: ca.222 – ca.252
    Genre: Fragment
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1457
    Biblio:
    STAAB K., Neue Fragmente aus dem Kommentar des Origenes zum Römerbrief, Biblische Zeitschrift 18 (1929), 74-82. 13 (p.81, l.2 – <) BP3

    Fragmenta in diversos Psalmos in catenis (1)
    Date: ca.222 – ca.252
    Genre: Fragment
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1426
    Biblio:
    PG 12 (1862), passim 1085-1637. (p.1108 – <) BP3

    248 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Origenes (3 work(s))
    Origenes Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri X-XVII (2)
    Date: ca.248 – ca.249
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1450
    Biblio:
    KLOSTERMANN E., BENZ E., GCS 40 (1935). 17 15 (p.629, l.30 – < )) BP3
    17 23 (p.647, l.32) BP3

    Commentarii in Matthaeum, libri XII-XIII (lat.) (1)
    Date: ca.248 – ca.249
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 1450
    Biblio:
    KLOSTERMANN E., BENZ E., GCS 38 (1933). 119 (p.252, l.6 – <) BP3
    Epistula ad Iulium Africanum (1)
    Date: ca.248 – ca.248
    Genre: Letter
    Theme: Faith and Christian Reflection
    Clavis: 1494
    Biblio:
    PG 11 (1857), 48-85. (p.72 – <) BP3

    300 (2 pole(s))
    Greek historians (1 ancient author(s))
    Eusebius Caesariensis (3 work(s))
    Eusebius
    Caesariensis Commentarii in Esaiam (3)
    Date: ca.300 – ca.339
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Faith and Christian Reflection
    Clavis: 3468
    Biblio:
    ZIEGLER J., GCS (1975). 1 § 11 (p.6, l.12 – <) BP4
    1 § 33 (p.30, l.31 – <) BP4
    1 § 39 (p.34, l.27 – <) BP4

    Commentarii in Psalmos (PG 23) (7)
    Date: ca.300 – ca.339
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 3467
    Biblio:
    PG 23 (1857), passim 76-1393. (p.304 – <) BP4
    (p.560 – <) BP4
    (p.753 – <) BP4
    (p.852 – <) BP4
    (p.853 – <) BP4
    (p.865 – <) BP4
    (p.965 – <) BP4

    Generalis elementaria introductio (Eclogae Proph.) (1)
    Date: ca.300 – ca.313
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 3475
    Biblio:
    PG 22 (1857), 1021-1261 ; 1272-1273. 1 15 (p.1073 – <) BP4

    Palestine and Cyprus (1 ancient author(s))
    Eusebius Caesariensis (3 work(s))
    Eusebius
    Caesariensis Commentarii in Esaiam (3)
    Date: ca.300 – ca.339
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Faith and Christian Reflection
    Clavis: 3468
    Biblio:
    ZIEGLER J., GCS (1975). 1 § 11 (p.6, l.12 – <) BP4
    1 § 33 (p.30, l.31 – <) BP4
    1 § 39 (p.34, l.27 – <) BP4

    Commentarii in Psalmos (PG 23) (7)
    Date: ca.300 – ca.339
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 3467
    Biblio:
    PG 23 (1857), passim 76-1393. (p.304 – <) BP4
    (p.560 – <) BP4
    (p.753 – <) BP4
    (p.852 – <) BP4
    (p.853 – <) BP4
    (p.865 – <) BP4
    (p.965 – <) BP4

    Generalis elementaria introductio (Eclogae Proph.) (1)
    Date: ca.300 – ca.313
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 3475
    Biblio:
    PG 22 (1857), 1021-1261 ; 1272-1273. 1 15 (p.1073 – <) BP4

    350 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Didymus Alexandrinus (1 work(s))
    Didymus
    Alexandrinus Fragmenta in Psalmos (2) (1)
    Date: ca.350 – ca.398
    Genre: Catena
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 2551
    Biblio:
    MUHLENBERG E., Psalmenkommentare aus der Katenenüberlieferung, 2 (Patristische Texte und Studien 16), Berlin – New York 1977. § 808 (p.128, l.30 – <) BP7

    363 (2 pole(s))
    Greece, Minor Asia (1 ancient author(s))
    Basilius Caesariensis (1 work(s))
    Basilius
    Caesariensis Regulae morales (1)
    Date: ca.363 – ca.378
    Genre: Rule
    Theme: Christian life
    Clavis: 2877
    Biblio:
    PG 31, 691-869. 19 § 1 (p.733 – )) BP5

    Italy (1 ancient author(s))
    Ambrosiaster (1 work(s))
    Ambrosiaster Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas C (1)
    Date: ca.363 – ca.384
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 184
    Biblio:
    VOGELS H.I., CSEL 81,3 (1969). (p.218, l.13 – < )) BP6

    371 (1 pole(s))
    Antioch, Syria (1 ancient author(s))
    Iohannes Chrysostomus (2 work(s))
    Iohannes
    Chrysostomus Aduersus oppugnatores uitae monasticae libri 1-3 (1)
    Date: ca.371 – ca.397
    Genre: Letter/Treatise
    Theme: Monastic Life
    Clavis: 4307
    Biblio:
    PG 47, 319-386. 1 (p.327, l.23 – <) BPH

    Expositiones in Psalmos (1)
    Date: ca.371 – ca.398
    Genre: Commentary
    Theme: Exegesis, Scripture Commentaries
    Clavis: 4413
    Biblio:
    PG 55 (1862), 39-498. 143 (p.453, l.5 – <) BPH

    387 (1 pole(s))
    Alexandria (1 ancient author(s))
    Didymus Alexandrinus (1 work(s))

    Gilla

  2. 3 maj, 2012 den 07:42

    ”In fact, as far as I can tell, 1 Thess 2:14–16 is not attested anywhere until Codex Sinaiticus in the fourth century and this might even be the only evidence from the fourth century of this passage”

    Tertullian, Against Marcion 5, 15

    ”Who both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets,” although (the pronoun) their own be an addition of the heretics”.

    Marcion knew this passage ca 140, as did Tertullian ca 200.

    Gilla

  3. 3 maj, 2012 den 09:00

    Yes, you are right concerning Tertullian. Thanks! Also thanks Stephan for your thorough compilation of witnesses. That was what I was searching for yesterday. Regarding my statement that as far as I can tell this wording is not attested until Sinaiticus, that was a really bad formulated sentence. I meant that it AFAICT was not attested or witnessed in any New Testament manuscript until Sinaiticus (“though it of course could be quoted by some Church Father”). This was after all Ehrman’s point. I need to examine Stephan’s list to see whether even that statement is true.

    Gilla

  4. 3 maj, 2012 den 09:51

    Wenn Sie Zweifel haben diese verwenden – http://www.biblindex.mom.fr/

    Gilla

  5. Andrew said,

    3 maj, 2012 den 15:45

    ”Nowhere else is Paul writing that the wrath of God already has come or is coming.”

    Wrong. As Ehrman points out, in Romans 1, Paul speaks of the ”wrath of God” being revealed in the present tense, against people who once ”knew God” but do not any longer. It is clear from the context that he is talking about the Jews. This statement is compatible with early Christianity, e.g. Acts, Barnabas, & Justin Martyr all explicitly state that ”the Jews” killed Jesus.

    ”God’s wrath” does not have to refer to the destruction of the Temple.

    Romans 1: The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    Gilla

  6. Andrew said,

    3 maj, 2012 den 15:50

    ”The line that it was the Jews who “killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets” also implies that Paul himself was not a Jew, which he obviously was and also said he was.”

    So later commentators can interpolate 1 Thessalonians to make anti-Semitic remarks, but there’s no possibility that they could interpolate the letters to have Paul say that he’s ”Hebrew”? If Paul was a Jewish Pharisee he was an unusually bad one, since he displays nothing that betrays a knowledge of rabbinical training.

    Gilla

  7. Steven Carr said,

    3 maj, 2012 den 16:31

    ‘the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.’…

    When was Paul driven out of Judea? I thought he only went there once every fifteen years or so.

    Ehrman writes in his recent blog entry – ‘As I will explain in my next post, the kinds of manuscripts we would really need to be able to say with some assurance that we know what the “originals” said – very early and very extensive manuscripts – simply don’t exist.’

    So where does Bart’s assurance comes from that he knows what the original text said?

    Gilla

  8. Soloview said,

    3 maj, 2012 den 17:34

    Hi Roger,
    good work. There is an added irony in arguing for the genuiness of this passage. According to Acts 7-8, Paul (as Saul) would have been one of the ”Jews” who did the ”driving out” of brothers from Jerusalem. Where would this former persecutor of the church get the nerve ?

    Gilla

  9. 3 maj, 2012 den 19:18

    Hi Andrew!

    It is true that the word apokalyptô (is revealed) in Romans 1:18 is in the present tense. So grammatically the text could be interpret as if God’s wrath was revealed from heaven the very moment Paul wrote that line. So I could of course have excluded “is coming”. But seen from context, it is clear (at least to me) that Paul is thinking of the future judgment. This would according to Paul happen very soon, in fact in the imminent future, yet in the future. This should be contrasted to 1 Thess 2:14–16, where God´s wrath already has come upon the Jews.

    Paul is more likely to refer to the near end for all men, when God’s wrath is revealed “against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men”. If you believe this to be meant for just the Jews, you actually hold a position contrary to Ehrman, who says that “Paul is talking about God’s wrath now being directed against pagans who refuse to acknowledge him here at the end of time before Jesus returns from heaven.”

    You are principally correct when you say that later commentators instead could have interpolated the letters to have Paul say that he is ”Hebrew”. But as you surely know, one must have at least a valid argument to support a suspected forgery. In the case of 1 Thess 2:14–16, the argument would be that this passage depicts Paul as someone quite different than how he otherwise appears. To make Paul into a non-Jew could not be done by simply removing a line or two, but needs a more thorough rewriting of the Pauline corpus.

    Not only does Paul in Romans 11:1 claim to be an Israelite, descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin, he also in Romans 9:3ff talks of his kinsmen the Israelites according to the flesh: in 1 Corinthians 9:20 he became to the Jews as a Jew; in 2 Corinthians 11:22 he claims to be a Hebrew and an Israelite from the seed of Abraham (like any other Jew); in Philippians 3:5 he says he was circumcised the eighth day, that he is of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews, a Pharisee; and in Galatians 2:15 he includes himself among those who are Jews by nature.

    And since the only support for these and other passages to have been added would be that 1 Thess 2:14–16 was written by Paul, it is much more likely that it was 1 Thessalonians 2:14–16 that was added.

    Gilla

  10. 3 maj, 2012 den 19:45

    Steven Carr quoted and wrote:

    ”the Jews 15 who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out.’…

    When was Paul driven out of Judea? I thought he only went there once every fifteen years or so.

    Good point Steven. Greek: ekdiôkô: to drive out, banish, pursue. This looks like a later Christian belief that “the Jews” (Ioudaios) persecuted Christianity or drove us (hêmas) out.

    Gilla

  11. stephan said,

    3 maj, 2012 den 21:23

    But they did. Even the Jewish writings admit that. Why wouldnt the Jews just say it was all made up if it was indeed all made up? against celsus 1 and 2

    Gilla

  12. 3 maj, 2012 den 23:48

    I would like to add one additional quotation from Ehrman regarding this Thessalonians passage from later in his book:

    “Like Wells before him, Doherty refuses to allow that l Thessalonians—which explicitly says that the Jews (or the Judeans) were the ones responsible for the death of Jesus—can be used as evidence of Paul’s view: it is, he insists, an insertion into Paul’s writings, not from the apostle himself. (Here we find, again, textual studies driven by convenience: if a passage contradicts your views, simply claim that it was not actually written by the author.)”

    Why would Doherty (or Wells) be “driven by convenience” when he argues for a position and Ehrman not be “driven by convenience” when he argues for another position? Is for instance Birger Pearson then also driven by convenience when he argues for about the same position as Doherty (on this issue)?

    Gilla

  13. Conrad said,

    5 maj, 2012 den 21:17

    stephan, please be more specific. Where in Contra Celsum is Celsus quoted as mentioning a Jewish banishment of Christians from Judaea?

    Gilla

  14. 9 maj, 2012 den 23:13

    Not Christians being banished by the Jews but that Jews were persecuting Jesus.

    Gilla


Kommentera

Fyll i dina uppgifter nedan eller klicka på en ikon för att logga in:

WordPress.com Logo

Du kommenterar med ditt WordPress.com-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Twitter-bild

Du kommenterar med ditt Twitter-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Facebook-foto

Du kommenterar med ditt Facebook-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Google+ photo

Du kommenterar med ditt Google+-konto. Logga ut / Ändra )

Ansluter till %s

%d bloggare gillar detta: