Dating of 1 Thesselonians

[rgprice]

It seems that most scholars put 1 Thessalonians among the earliest of the Pauline epistles, if not the first. But I don't really understand why this is. It seems that a major argument for this is how different 1 Thess is from everything else, but to me this seems less an argument for primacy and more an argument for inauthenticity.

Of course 1 Thess 2:13-16 causes many problems, but it seems that most scholars are willing to see this as a later interpolation into the work. But why not see 1 Thess 2:13-16 as an authentic indication that the whole letter was written after 70 CE?

So why, exactly, do so many see this as perhaps the first Pauline epistle? Is it really all because of Acts?

[Irish1975]

Of course 1 Thess 2:13-16 causes many problems, but it seems that most scholars are willing to see this as a later interpolation into the work. But why not see 1 Thess 2:13-16 as an authentic indication that the whole letter was written after 70 CE?

Even if 1 Thss is inauthentic, the arguments for 2:14-16 being an interpolation still hold. It still sticks out like a sore thumb. It doesn’t match the rest of the letter in tone or purpose. In subject matter, it doesn’t match anything else in the Pauline corpus. Nothing in the rest of the letter indicates that the Thessalonians—as distinguished from Paul and his co-workers—suffered any persecution whatever. The statement at 1:6 that they received the gospel “in affliction” (NRSV, tendentiously: “in persecution”) could mean anything, given the semantic breadth of the term thlipsis. It can mean anything. In 1 Cor, Paul describes the banal struggles of married life as a thlipsis.

I would ground the positive case for authenticity on the tight match between the pastoral style, tone, and content of 1 Thessalonians and the Corinthian epistles. The former is less developed. But the author, “Paul,” is ecstatic that these gentiles have received and believed his gospel. That’s the whole substance of it. It’s a love letter. What 1 Corinthians says about the life of faith, hope, and love in general poetic terms, 1 Thessalonians says in very personal, immediate, contextual terms. Even the parousia theme in chapter 4 is treated only in passing, as a pastoral follow up to what he had already laid down with them in person.

FC Baur thought that the pastoral banality and lack of dogmatic weight—as compared with the 4 major epistles—was itself an argument against authenticity. But to reason that way is to make Paul out as principally a thinker, and not originally an apostle to the gentiles, a preacher of the gospel, a founder of churches.

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.”

[rgprice]

It seems to me that the early dating of 1 Thess has more to do with external factors than internal ones. Of course Acts portrays the missions to the Thessalonians as the earliest relating to the existing letters. But also we have the issue of 2 Thess, which itself seems to be a pre-70s epistle, though itself a forgery. As Ehrman argues, 2 Thess is a rebuttal to 1 Thess, written by someone who has read 1 Thess. As Ehrman puts it, 2 Thess is a likely counter forgery written against Paul within his own lifetime. So if 2 Thess is a pre-70s forgery, then of course 1 Thess has to have been written early enough to give someone time to read it and counter it.

But other than this, I'm not really sure why so many people put 1 Thess as the first or second Pauline epistle.

[davidmartin]

If 2 Thessalonians is a rebuttal to Paul things are even more fragmented than I thought, but the Barnabas conflict does hint at this I suppose

For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven.. and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord

Maybe this "word of the Lord" a version of "the first shall be last and the last first" saying
If so it has more in common with Thomas's version than the synoptics which has "and they shall become one" which is the "for ever be with the Lord" above?
So, if sayings like those in Thomas were circulating, then Thomas isn't on board with 1 Thessalonians criticising anyone who thinks the kingdom of heaven is "in the sky". But Thomas is as unaware of many of the same themes as 1 Thessalonians is

[Irish1975]

It seems to me that the early dating of 1 Thess has more to do with external factors than internal ones.

Not sure what this means. All we have is the text.

But other than this, I'm not really sure why so many people put 1 Thess as the first or second Pauline epistle.

Not sure whether to read this as a dismissal of the reasons I gave. Usually when someone gives a thoughtful response to your OP it’s polite to acknowledge, at least “gee I dunno let me think about that” or something.

If you want to clarify the discussion, maybe separate the issue of authenticity from priority.

[rgprice]

@Irish1975

Sorry about the indirect reply. I simply don't find arguments about the development of Paul's theology convincing. If anything they seem to me to be more arguments that 1 Thess wasn't written by Paul. When I say that there is nothing in 1 Tess that really helps us put it in order, I mean nothing like what we read in 1 Colossians: "Now concerning the collection for the saints: you should follow the directions I gave to the churches of Galatia." (1 Cor 16.1)

Goodacre argues that this shows 1 Cor was written before Galatians, because by the time Paul writes his letter to the Galatians, the Galatians are leaving Paul's ministry and abandoning him, thus they would no longer serve as a model to follow.

It's conjectural, but at least it makes some sense. So far as I know, as you pointed out, the only argument for 1 Thess being the first or second epistle is that it "seems primitive", which is obviously pretty subjective.

[Irish1975]

So far as I know, as you pointed out, the only argument for 1 Thess being the first or second epistle is that it "seems primitive", which is obviously pretty subjective.

Seems, madam? Nay, it is. I know not seems.

The theology of Christ’s death in 1 Thessalonians really is (not seems) more primitive than that of the major epistles. How is that a “subjective” conclusion?

It’s more evident to me than Goodacre’s claim about the Galatians in 1 Cor 16:1, which at any rate could only date the 16th chapter.

[rgprice]

So, do you think that 1 Thess was written prior to Paul having had any supposed revelations? There is no mention of a Pauline conversion. No mention of Paul's prior persecutions. No mention of any great revelation. So is your view that something dramatic happened between the writing of 1 Thess and Gal? This would seem to be the implication.

[robert j]

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?

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.

The Thessalonians apparently accepted Paul’s story of the death and resurrection of his Jesus Christ (1 Thessalonians 1:10). They were focused on what Paul promised would come next, and they apparently expected it, like yesterday.

[John2]

I think 1 Thessalonians could date to the late '60's CE (perhaps around the time of Vespasian's campaign) and I don't have any problem with 2:13-16 or think it is an interpolation. I think 2:13-16 and the reference to "we who are alive and remain" in 4:15 could fit this context just as well as a post-70 CE one.