Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by Irish1975 »

robert j wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:36 am
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 8:31 am
The theology of Christ’s death in 1 Thessalonians really is (not seems) more primitive than that of the major epistles.
More primitive? How so?

Do you find statements in 1 Thessalonians about the death of Paul’s Jesus Christ that are explicitly more primitive compared to Paul’s other letters? Or is your argument primarily one from silence?
I explained this earlier,
Irish1975 wrote: Sun Jan 03, 2021 10:58 am As for priority, the major question in my mind is how the theme of JC’s death compares in this epistle with all the other Paulines. In the four major epistles, and in Philippians too, Paul is constantly participating in the death of Christ. He carries the death of Jesus in his body. He bears the stigmata, etc. Finally, in Romans, the struggle with death and sin becomes cosmic, the salvation through the cross all-encompassing.

But not in 1 Thessalonians! Here there is no participatory mysticism at all. No sacrament of the Lord’s death. No “in Christ” langauge at all, except that the “dead in Christ” will soon rise with him at his imminent coming. That is to say, only the dead are in Christ, for the author of 1 Thss.

There appear to be two options. (1) say that there are two “Pauls” or that one Paul is a fake Paul, or (2) conclude that Paul’s gospel of Jesus Christ exhibits in 1 Thss an earlier stage of development. He simply hasn’t yet received the visions and revelations that fill out the later epistles, including the sacrament of the the Lord’s supper. In this earliest epistle, the whole substance of the Pauline faith consists only in the expectation of the imminent parousia. The believers are not yet living and dying “in Christ.”
I mean "primitive" not in a pejorative but in a descriptive sense, i.e., earlier in a sequence of development. Paul is looking for Jesus in the skies, not (yet) in his own body.

Paul's theology of the cross, of dying in Christ, of bearing the death of Christ in our mortal bodies, etc. etc., which pervades his 4 major epistles, is nowhere evident in 1 Thessalonians.

In 1 Thss he does speak a great deal about his own sufferings and afflictions (as always). He does affirm the death of Jesus. But there is no mystical connection between the two, and this is a critical fact about the development of Paul's gospel. It came in stages, not all at once (assuming that 1 Thessalonians is in fact authentic).

To make the contrast perfectly clear, notice the difference between these two texts about the reason for Paul's glory and boasting:

Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

1 Thessalonians 2:19-20
For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you? For you are our glory and joy.

And here Paul doesn't sound too eager to fill up what is lacking in Christ's sufferings--

1 Thessalonians 5:9-10
For God has not destined us for wrath [οὐκ ἔθετο ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς εἰς ὀργὴν], but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ, who died for us so that whether we wake or sleep we might live with him.

Granted, how we explain the peculiarly minimal theology of Christ's death in 1 Thss is up for debate. But we should at least acknowledge the obvious bare fact that it is minimal by comparison with the major epistles.
Paul’s letters to his congregations were of an occasional nature, not theological treatises. Paul apparently taught his congregations about his Jesus Christ during his evangelizing visit. In his subsequent letters, he focused on issues and problems that arose within each group after his visit. We are able to patch together bits-and-pieces of his Christology --- and his own backstory --- when Paul found such information useful in his letters in support of, or to supplement his specific arguments addressing the specific issues that arose within each group.
I think this is overblown. Paul's epistles are not mere reactions to circumstances. There is a whole lot more than "bits and pieces of his christology" in the epistles. They reflect Paul's gospel at the time of writing, and their occasional nature can't be used as a pretext for the idea that Paul's gospel never evolved or that he is somehow holding back what he really believes. I assume that's what you mean by "an argument from silence."

This is an argument from the text.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by robert j »

Irish1975 wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:17 pm
robert j wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:36 am
Paul’s letters to his congregations were of an occasional nature, not theological treatises. Paul apparently taught his congregations about his Jesus Christ during his evangelizing visit. In his subsequent letters, he focused on issues and problems that arose within each group after his visit. We are able to patch together bits-and-pieces of his Christology --- and his own backstory --- when Paul found such information useful in his letters in support of, or to supplement his specific arguments addressing the specific issues that arose within each group.
I think this is overblown. Paul's epistles are not mere reactions to circumstances.
I guess we’ll have to disagree on this. And that will certainly shape differing views of what the letters would be expected to include.

Sure, Paul padded his letters with flowery language, engaged in puffery, and made sure to include a plea for money, but the letters are basically occasional. That is, focused on issues that had arisen within each congregation, be they pastoral or theological.
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:17 pm
robert j wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 10:36 am
Do you find statements in 1 Thessalonians about the death of Paul’s Jesus Christ that are explicitly more primitive compared to Paul’s other letters? Or is your argument primarily one from silence?
There is a whole lot more than "bits and pieces of his christology" in the epistles. They reflect Paul's gospel at the time of writing, and their occasional nature can't be used as a pretext for the idea that Paul's gospel never evolved or that he is somehow holding back what he really believes. I assume that's what you mean by "an argument from silence."
No, what I mean by arguments from silence are the arguments you provided in your post [highlighting yours] ---
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:17 pm
But not in 1 Thessalonians! Here there is no participatory mysticism at all.
No sacrament of the Lord’s death.
No “in Christ” langauge at all, except that the “dead in Christ” will soon rise with him at his imminent coming. That is to say, only the dead are in Christ, for the author of 1 Thss.


Paul's theology of the cross, of dying in Christ, of bearing the death of Christ in our mortal bodies, etc. etc., which pervades his 4 major epistles, is nowhere evident in 1 Thessalonians.
Moving along ---
Irish1975 wrote: Mon Jan 04, 2021 12:17 pm
To make the contrast perfectly clear, notice the difference between these two texts about the reason for Paul's glory and boasting:

Galatians 6:14
May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.

1 Thessalonians 2:19-20
For what is our hope or joy or crown of boasting before our Lord Jesus at his coming? Is it not you? For you are our glory and joy.

Paul boasts about an awful lot of things. But these two examples can serve to support the occasional nature of the letters.

The primary issue with the Galatians, including in the letter, is a difference of opinion on circumcision. So of course, Paul’s teachings about his Jesus Christ having been suspended on a wooden stake is central to that very issue. Paul used Deuteronomy to argue that his Jesus Christ figure, having been hung on wood, provided redemption from the “law”.

But in the letter Galatians, there is nothing about the Parousia beyond perhaps the rather vague “that he might rescue us from the present evil age” (Galatians 1:4) and “eternal life from the Spirit” (Galatians 6:8). Issues surrounding Paul’s teaching about the Parousia were not evidently of high enough concern to the Galatians to merit space in the letter.

But for the Thessalonian congregation, quite far removed from the Galatians in both geography and culture, the Parousia was apparently their main interest. And Paul fed the desires of those Thessalonians that wanted to be swept away into the heavens, like now.

Paul penned his most visually descriptive version of the descent and the harvesting-of-believers to be found in any of his letters, thereby juicing the expectations of the Thessalonians even more (4:15-17). But then Paul went on-and-on for many verses tamping-down the expectations of an immediate rescue (5:1-11). And that was followed immediately by a plea for money (5:12-13).

I think both letters reflect quite well the apparent specific issues of concern among each congregation --- and for Paul. Even in the face of what seemed to be a significant threat to his teaching and authority among the Galatians, Paul managed to slip-in a plea for money near the end of the letter (Galatians 6:6).
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by Irish1975 »

What you seem to be arguing Robert is that Paul’s minimal theology of the death of Christ in 1 Thss—like the content of all Paul’s epistles—is purely accidental. It’s all a function of what the Thessalonians wanted to hear, mere “puffery” and “flowery language.” Everything Paul writes in his epistles is occasional in nature, and so essentially without meaning to him. Paul isn’t preaching the gospel he received by a revelation of Jesus Christ. He’s just a huckster telling people what they want to hear, yada yada yada, so that he can take up a collection.

Do I understand you correctly?
robert j wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 8:25 am
what I mean by arguments from silence are the arguments you provided in your post [highlighting yours] ---
[quote=Irish1975 post_id=116321 time=<a href="tel:1609791472">1609791472</a> user_id=7373]

But not in 1 Thessalonians! Here there is no participatory mysticism at all.
No sacrament of the Lord’s death.
No “in Christ” langauge at all, except that the “dead in Christ” will soon rise with him at his imminent coming. That is to say, only the dead are in Christ, for the author of 1 Thss.


Paul's theology of the cross, of dying in Christ, of bearing the death of Christ in our mortal bodies, etc. etc., which pervades his 4 major epistles, is nowhere evident in 1 Thessalonians.
By calling it an “argument from silence” you’re just dismissing the comparison. As if it didn’t matter how Paul preached Jesus’ death in the very earliest NT scripture. As if the contrast with the major epistles were unimportant, because it’s just an absence, a silence.
But in the letter Galatians, there is nothing about the Parousia beyond perhaps the rather vague “that he might rescue us from the present evil age” (Galatians 1:4) and “eternal life from the Spirit” (Galatians 6:8). Issues surrounding Paul’s teaching about the Parousia were not evidently of high enough concern to the Galatians to merit space in the letter.
It’s in the very greeting of the epistle. There’s nothing vague about it. You’re just contradicting yourself. If the “occasional nature” of Galatians compelled him to writie a treatise on the nullity of Jewish observances, why refer at all to the imminent end of the present evil age? To raise more money, I suppose, and not because it was part of the gospel that he received (in his mind) by divine command.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by Charles Wilson »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:00 amPaul isn’t preaching the gospel he received by a revelation of Jesus Christ. He’s just a huckster telling people what they want to hear, yada yada yada, so that he can take up a collection.
Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, ISBN-10 : 0760707871, ISBN-13 : 978-0760707876

An absolutely great read.

CW
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by Irish1975 »

Charles Wilson wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:09 am
Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:00 amPaul isn’t preaching the gospel he received by a revelation of Jesus Christ. He’s just a huckster telling people what they want to hear, yada yada yada, so that he can take up a collection.
Hyam Maccoby, The Mythmaker: Paul and the Invention of Christianity, ISBN-10 : 0760707871, ISBN-13 : 978-0760707876

An absolutely great read.

CW
Cool. Haven’t read it.

How does this bear on the current discussion? I don’t see anything in this Wikipedia summary (which could be faulty, of course) about Paul’s motivations or sincerity or the “occasional nature” of his epistles:

Maccoby's theories on Paul
According to Maccoby, the founding of Christianity as a religion separate from Judaism was entirely the work of Paul of Tarsus. In this Maccoby's view is largely based on that of Heinrich Graetz.

Maccoby claimed that Paul was a Hellenized Jewish convert or perhaps even a Gentile, from a background in which he had been exposed to the influence of Gnosticism and the pagan mystery religions, such as the Attis cult, a myth involving a life-death-rebirth deity. The mystery religions, according to Maccoby, were the dominant religious forms in the Hellenistic world of that age and strongly influenced Paul's mythological psychology. Maccoby partially derived this theory from fragments of the writings of opponents of Ebionites, particularly the treatise on Heresies by Epiphanius of Salamis.

Maccoby considered Paul's claims to an orthodox Pharisaic Jewish education to be false, asserting that while many of Paul's writings sound authentic to the uninitiated, they actually betray an ignorance of the original Hebrew scripture and the subtleties of Jewish Law. Maccoby claimed that an examination of the New Testament indicates that Paul knew no Hebrew at all, and relied entirely on Greek texts that no actual Pharisee would ever use because they were not properly translated from the Hebrew originals.

According to Maccoby, Paul fused the historical story of Jesus' crucifixion with elements of contemporary mystery religions and Gnosticism, developing such new non-Judaic mythic ideas as the Trinity and the Last Supper. Paul also made an attempt to find prophetic justification for his newly created myth in the Old Testament. Paul came to present Jesus as a dying and rising saviour deity similar to those from the Hellenistic mystery cults, fused with the historical pedigree of Judaism, thus giving birth to a powerful new myth whose preaching gained him a large following. As the Jerusalem group of the original disciples of Jesus gradually became aware of Paul's teachings, bitter hostility ensued between them.

Maccoby interpreted certain New Testament passages (for example Paul's account of his quarrel with Peter in the Incident at Antioch) as remnants of authentic accounts of this hostility. However, the Jewish Rebellion of 66–70 soon brought a violent end to the Jerusalem sect, and the Gentile Church founded by Paul emerged as the winner by default. Maccoby viewed the Book of Acts as a later attempt by the Pauline Church to present the relations between Paul and the Jerusalem disciples as harmonious, thus presenting the Pauline Church as legitimised by the chain of apostolic succession reaching back to the original disciples of Jesus. Maccoby also conjectured that the Jewish-Christian sect of Ebionites may have been an authentic offshoot of the original Jerusalem community.

Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by Charles Wilson »

Now I'm gonna have to find my copy of Mythmaker and find some good quotes!
The first and third paragraphs of the ever politicized Wiki-P article are important. I consider it accurate on these points.

Maccoby, BTW, believes the Eucharist was an invention of "Paul" as well. (I trace "Paul" to Mucianus, Procurator of Syria and the Eucharist to Dio, Epitome 64).

My objection to Maccoby is that he considers "Paul" to be a liar, cheat and adventurer but that "Paul" existed. I don't believe that "Paul" existed, at least not as we normally believe the concept of personal "Existence" to encompass.

I note that Mucianus wrote Acta and Epistolae but my Latin ain't so swell so, "What could that possibly mean"? /S

CW
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by Irish1975 »

Charles Wilson wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 11:13 am Maccoby, BTW, believes the Eucharist was an invention of "Paul" as well.
Paul tells us that himself:

1 Cor 11:23
Ἐγὼ γὰρ παρέλαβον ἀπὸ τοῦ κυρίου, ὃ καὶ παρέδωκα ὑμῖν, ὅτι ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ ᾗ παρεδίδετο ἔλαβεν ἄρτον, etc.

That Ἐγὼ γὰρ really leaps out. The verbal similarity to 1 Thss 4:15 is also striking:

Τοῦτο γὰρ ὑμῖν λέγομεν ἐν λόγῳ κυρίου, ὅτι ἡμεῖς οἱ ζῶντες οἱ περιλειπόμενοι εἰς τὴν παρουσίαν τοῦ κυρίου οὐ μὴ φθάσωμεν τοὺς κοιμηθέντας

The Lord Jesus spoke through Paul. In the earliest NT scriptures. About the Parousia and the Last Supper, the foundation stones of Christianity.

Christianity comes from nowhere else. It really is this simple.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2100
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by Charles Wilson »

A very profound idea.
robert j
Posts: 1007
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 5:01 pm

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by robert j »

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:00 am
What you seem to be arguing Robert is that Paul’s minimal theology of the death of Christ in 1 Thss—like the content of all Paul’s epistles—is purely accidental. It’s all a function of what the Thessalonians wanted to hear, mere “puffery” and “flowery language.”
I see your point, but I would characterize the letters somewhat differently. The content of each letter was shaped by the specific issues that arose within each congregation after Paul had left --- issues that Paul chose to focus-on to best support his authority and his right of patronage within each group. The associated puffery and flowery language was just typical of Paul's style.

For example with the Thessalonians, Paul had sent Timothy to check-in on the group to see how they were doing (1 Thessalonians 3:1-2), and probably to attempt to make a collection as well. Timothy returned and reported back to Paul (3:6). In the letter, Paul responded to the main concerns and issues within the congregation, as is typical, in a manner to address those specific concerns while at the same time promoting his authority and expectations of patronage.
Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:00 am Everything Paul writes in his epistles is occasional in nature, and so essentially without meaning to him.

Do I understand you correctly?
No. Just because Paul's letters are primarily occasional in nature, does not lead to a conclusion that the letters were without meaning to Paul.
Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:00 am He’s just a huckster telling people what they want to hear, yada yada yada, so that he can take up a collection.

Do I understand you correctly?
Now that is getting closer to my position. But the letters as just "telling people what they want to hear" is not the best description. After Paul visited each group and had taught them about his salvific and redemptive Jesus Christ and his easy short-cut for Gentiles to fully participate with the great and ancient God of Israel, Paul wrote letters to address both pastoral and theological issues, questions, and situations that arose within each group after Paul had moved-on. I think Paul's primary purpose with the letters was to maintain a position of authority and to retain patrons.

Irish1975 wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 10:00 am
robert j wrote: Tue Jan 05, 2021 8:25 am

But in the letter Galatians, there is nothing about the Parousia beyond perhaps the rather vague “that he might rescue us from the present evil age” (Galatians 1:4) ... Issues surrounding Paul’s teaching about the Parousia were not evidently of high enough concern to the Galatians to merit space in the letter.
It’s in the very greeting of the epistle. There’s nothing vague about it. You’re just contradicting yourself. If the “occasional nature” of Galatians compelled him to writie a treatise on the nullity of Jewish observances, why refer at all to the imminent end of the present evil age? To raise more money, I suppose, and not because it was part of the gospel that he received (in his mind) by divine command.
That concept was an important part of Paul’s shtick, it’s not surprising that Paul tossed it in there. Just like he tossed in a couple of brief references to the death and resurrection in 1 Thessalonians (1:9 and 4:14).

But the Parousia was apparently not of high concern among the Galatians, so a brief and vague statement was all that was necessary for a concept that Paul had already taught to them.

And of course it is vague ---

“… that he might rescue us from the present evil age” (Galatians 1:4)

There is nothing about how that rescue might be accomplished. If we didn’t have the more detailed descriptions in 1 Corinthians 15, and especially 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17, the nature and mechanism of that rescue would be unknown. Does that mean that at the time of writing Galatians, Paul had not yet formulated the details on the Parousia we find in those other letters? Of course not. Not any more so than Paul’s brief references to the death and resurrection in 1 Thessalonians (1:9 and 4:14) indicate that Paul had not yet formulated the related details we find in other letters. Apparently, the Thessalonians fully accepted those claims, and there was no need for Paul to waste ink defending his teaching on those concepts.
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Dating of 1 Thesselonians

Post by Irish1975 »

Not any more so than Paul’s brief references to the death and resurrection in 1 Thessalonians (1:9 and 4:14) indicate that Paul had not yet formulated the related details we find in other letters. Apparently, the Thessalonians fully accepted those claims, and there was no need for Paul to waste ink defending his teaching on those concepts.
This is based on nothing.
Post Reply