Conference Report and a New Reading of 1 Thess 2.16?

My first experience of the annual meeting of the Canadian Society of Biblical Studies was an enjoyable one. I didn't make it to all the presentations I had hoped to, but I was satisfied with the pace I set for myself. There were many excellent presentations; the two most obvious were Terrence Donaldson's Presidential Address on the topic of "Supersessionism in Early Christianity" and Amy-Jill Levine's guest lecture, "Resurrecting Late Judaism: Archaeology, Analysis, and Apologetic."

I'm not sure how my own presentation went (well, I hope). I had to run out fairly quickly after our session, since I had a plane to catch. I spent an inordinate amount of time continuing to revise my paper even at the conference, and the night before I was to present a colleague with whom I was rooming made some excellent suggestions for how to improve my introduction (thanks Ralph!). So here's the greatly improved introduction. Following it, I will highlight two issues that came up in question time. I'm very interested in your own view of the second of these issues, so please read on!

1 Thess 2.14-16 contains Paul’s most severe and sustained polemic against the Jewish people. But that Paul is capable of losing his cool—sometimes exceeding the bounds of polite discourse—will come as no surprise to those who have read his letter to the Galatians. But whereas in Galatians we know exactly what is at stake, the present invective appears to emerge out of thin air. We know that his Thessalonian converts have suffered, and that he is concerned for their welfare. But if, as I will argue, Paul lays direct responsibility for their suffering at the feet of Gentiles, not Jews, his attack against the Jews appears all the more gratuitous and mystifying. Strikingly, however, even though Paul vilifies the Jews, he begins this text with a statement to the effect that the Thessalonians, in their suffering, have become imitators of the Judean churches. So, the question I will probe here is “What social circumstances and theological convictions lie behind the negative polemic against the Jews, on the one hand, and the model Judean churches, on the other?”

Scholars explain Paul’s polemic against the Jews in primarily one of two ways. On the hand some believe that Paul must have credited the Jews of Thessalonica with an active role in instigating or carrying out the persecution of his converts. Here we could point to Rainer Riesner and Charles Wanamaker. Others argue that the polemic has little or nothing to do with the suffering of the Thessalonian converts or the Jews of Thessalonica. Markus Bockmuehl, for instance, points to verse 14 and argues that the polemic arises from the bitter situation of churches in Judea; one could also point to Paul’s conflicts with Jews in general and not necessarily in Thessalonica. I would suggest, however, that we cannot separate Paul’s invective against the Jews from the situation of his addressees, and yet nor can we say that their suffering was the result of direct persecution on the part of Jews. Instead, we must focus on the ramifications of Jewish rejection of the Pauline mission in Thessalonica. Paul sees an indirect connection between the suffering of his address and their rejection by the Jews. This contributed to the vulnerability and isolation of Paul’s converts, leaving both Paul and them in something of a social and theological predicament, which I aim to describe. Understanding the dynamics of this situation will greatly illuminate the text of 1 Thess. 2.14-16. I begin by putting a few questions to the text itself, proceed with a reconstruction of the social realities of the Thessalonian church, and, finally, allow this reading to inform the interpretation of 1 Thess. 2.14-16.

Afterward I was challenged on two issues. One gentleman was rather distressed that I made it through the whole presentation without mentioning that many have regarded this text as an interpolation. And that is true. That part was in the 8 pages I had to cut out. But I could have (and perhaps should have) included it in the introduction above, where it would have followed in the second paragraph as a third option to deal with Paul's polemic: erase it. There is of course no external evidence for this view and a key peg of the argument, that v. 16 refers to 70 CE, is in no way a necessary reading of the text.

But this leads to a second question I was asked. What if the second half of verse 16 refers to Gentiles, not Jews? Then the argument from v. 16 against the text's authenticity vanishes nearly as quickly as the text itself had under the interpolation theory. Here's the whole verse:

"[The Jews] displease God and oppose everyone 16 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved (ἵνα σωθῶσιν). Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins (εἰς τὸ ἀναπληρῶσαι αὐτῶν τὰς ἁμαρτίας πάντοτε.); but God's wrath has overtaken them (αὐτοὺς) at last." (NRSV)

The one who put this question forward made the case that "their sins" and God's wrath overtaking "them" referred not to the Jews but to the Gentiles, the nearest possible antecedent (cf. "so that they may be saved"). The logic then is that since the Jews hinder the Gentile mission the result is that the Gentiles are constantly filling up the measure of their sins and become the objects of God's wrath.

I had never thought of this before. I can't see that grammar can resolve the issue either way, for Jews or Gentiles as the antecedents of "them". What inclines me toward the reading that seems nearly universal (but not therefore true, of course) is that the text from the end of verse 14 until 16 has been about what Paul considers the transgressions of his fellow-countrymen. It even has the rhythm of a piling up of transgressions: "they did both this and that, and did this, and they do this and they do that, by doing this, and so the result is this".

What do you think?

Acts and Early Christianity

April DeConick of The Forbidden Gospels Blog has been asking some important questions about the Hellenists, Antioch, and the value of Acts for a history of early Christianity. See here, here, and here.

Unlike many scholars, I personally am not convinced that authors such as Craig C. Hill, who is skeptical of there being any significant ideological difference between the Hellenist and Hebrew Christ-believers, have succeeded in accounting for all the evidence in Acts. Martin Hengel seems justified in suspecting that there was more going on between the two groups than a conflict over the distribution of food. (This would not be the only conflict that Acts underestimates, cf. 15.36-41.)

Why should Luke introduce such a disruptive episode into his ideal picture? Is it not clear that Stephen was far more than an administrator? And is it not significant that the charges which are raised against him are distinct from those earlier raised against the apostles (6.13-14)? Finally, Stephen's speech does have an anti-temple ring to it (7.48).

That said, I admit to being uneasy about following Hengel all the way, such that, for instance, the difficulty in Gal 1.22 can be explained by differentiating between Hebrew and Hellenist congregations. Moreover, I am skeptical that he is right to characterize the Hellenists as being closer to the message of Jesus than the twelve because of their greater receptivity to the (purported) Torah and temple critical aspects of his message.

There is much about the Hellenists that remains shrouded in mystery. If, however, they were Greek-speaking Jews from the Diaspora, living in Jerusalem, they may indeed have come to have a slightly different ideology than the twelve because of their different background, experience, and greater contact with non-Jews (with whom, because of their common language, they could communicate). Philip Esler is worth consulting here.

Why did Paul Persecute the Church? Four Types of Answers

I've recently done some work on this and thought I would offer a summary. I haven't included the evidence for each position, as that would make this an even longer post. The categorizations, of course, are artificial, and, yet, I think they fairly represent the emphasis each approach. Representative scholars are included, but for the most part the paragraphs try to spell out general features common to several scholars. If you want to know what a particular scholar says, it's best to look them up. If I feel inclined to do so, I may offer some evaluation later. Your comments, of course, are welcome.

Religio-theological explanations focus on Christology (Hurtado) and/or soteriology (Hengel). Christ, strictly speaking, is central to both, in the first via what is claimed in preaching or reflected in devotion regarding the status of Jesus, and in the second via what is understood to be the effect or meaning of the Christ-event, the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, the Messiah. Whether it was the exalted claims and devotional practices or the very undermining of the salvific system of Judaism, the new sect stood in stark contradistinction with the norm of Jewish tradition. The growth of the sect had to be opposed, and Paul was up to the task.

The socio-theological explanation shifts the focus to ecclesiology, the question of what practices define the sphere of salvation, the community of the elect. For J. D. G. Dunn, Paul opposed the flagrant violation of Torah. For T. Donaldson the conflict between Christ and Torah in terms of community definition was more clear in the mind of Paul than the early Christ-believers. In either case, Paul viewed Christ as vying with Torah as the token badge of covenant membership, and this had to be opposed with righteous zeal.

Socio-political explanations are of two rather different kinds. The first assumes a Palestinian locale and a very Palestinian problem—the subjugation of Judaea to Rome (J. Taylor; N.T. Wright). Paul’s zeal for Torah energizes a militaristic anti-Roman sentiment, which, in turn, provides the rationale for his opposing the Christians, who stand in the way of the Zealot agenda. The second assumes a Diaspora context (P. Fredriksen). Rather than advancing the attainment of freedom, in this scenario Paul protects the possession of freedom(s). Jewish communities of the Diaspora enjoyed and relied on the benefaction of the local and trans-local authorities. When a new sect arrived in their presence, whose allegiance/worship was to a crucified insurrectionist and whose message bore overtones of political conquest, Paul thought it better to discipline them than to allow the whole community to be put at risk of the often fierce discipline of Rome or the potentially equally devastating effects of mob violence.

And, finally, there are socio-psychological means of explanation for Paul’s anti-ekklesia activity. Most common here has been the search for some object or experience that accounts for Paul’s repressed anger: perhaps he was frustrated with the law (an older explanation), tried violently to repress a belief of which he was slowly becoming convinced, or channeled anger with God for personally tragic circumstances at the Christ-believers (Murphy-O'Connor).