Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

corpus-paul - Re: 1st Thesolonians 2:14-16

corpus-paul AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Corpus-Paul

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Mark D. Nanos" <nanosmd AT comcast.net>
  • To: Corpus-paul <corpus-paul AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: 1st Thesolonians 2:14-16
  • Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:00:56 -0600


on 11/18/02 9:28 AM, CoH61PA AT aol.com at CoH61PA AT aol.com wrote:

> Mike Burkhimer wrote:
> The truth of these passages lends creedence to the view that the early
> Christians did indeed blame the Jews for Christ's death. It is insteresting
> that the Romans are not mentioned.

Mike,
I would put this differently, and I think the reasons for doing so are
important. I think that this is an unfortunate if not simply historically
wrong way to frame the implications of taking this passage to be written by
Paul--and with continuing negative implications for universalizing certain
Christian conceptions of certain Jewish responses to Christianity. It is the
view of at least one relatively early Christian, if you will, whether of
Paul or not.

(BTW, I find it hard to make historical sense before 70ce, much less an
expression of the writer of Romans, that wrath has come upon these Judeans.
I do not mind admitting that I wish it was not in the letter, or that it
would be preferred to be found an interpolation, since that statement, on
the surface at least, is so nasty, yet can be used to permit such sentiments
being expressed by the later Christian who looks to Paul's voice to measure
what is appropriate. Even if taken to be Paul's voice, should not Christian
values call for recognition that it was wrong-spirited, and should not be
repeated as if a sacred viewpoint, but challenged as wrong, especially in
view of the history of Christian harm done to Jewish people?)

The view is ostensibly expressed by Paul. If so, then it (arguably)
represents the viewpoint of one Jewish person involved in a Jewish interest
group (or groups) which makes claims that are considered by some Jewish
authorities in Judea--where their authority and thus responsibility for
managing the implications of all Jewish groups in Judea--to be
objectionable.

The role of those authorities almost certainly involves Roman interests, for
this is an occupied territory, if you will, and the claims of this coalition
to hale as the expected Jewish king one killed by the Romans as an apparent
insurrectionist should never be considered far from the historical
interpretation of the events. That is, I think that the role of Romans is
understood, implied, but not the salient feature of the point Paul seeks in
this particular instance to make. If the oppression in Thessalonica for his
audience was by Romans, rather than local Thessalonians and their local
socio-political interests, then I think it likely that he would have
approached his rhetorical point differently, and would expect the role of
Romans in Judea to be central to his point.

That Paul blamed his brethren, whom he believes have made a grave error
after his own change of perspective--but not beforehand--is not surprising;
but he speaks from within, and as one who shared this responsibility for
seeking to control the (ostensibly) dangerous implications of the claims of
Jesus and his followers for other Judeans who had to comply with Roman
occupation. And Paul has suffered severe disciplinary measures for his
change of view, so some resentment is not hard to understand. It is the
correspondence of the Judean groups sharing the claim to believe in
Jesus--and thus the social implications of marginality within their larger
Judean context--with that of the non-Judean believers in Jesus in
Thessalonica, who are marginalized within their Thessalonian context by the
essentially un-Thessalonian social implications of their claims, to which
Paul's rhetoric points.

In other words, is it really helpful or necessary to couch the issue in
terms of Christianity versus Judaism apart from emphasizing the contextual
implications of Paul's rhetoric? Or to leave comments open to suppose that
what Paul (ostensibly) wrote here is what he would write or say in other
contexts, e.g., in the context of his fellow-Judeans, or that it represents
what other Christ-believers in Judea would likely be found saying in any
kind of universal way? I say no. Whether an interpolation or not, it can
(for the most part) be easily understood to represent intra- if not
inter-Jewish socio-political rhetoric in a brief and far from comprehensive
polemical instance offered for the consolation of his audience, who face
marginalization because of their acceptance of Paul's teachings, to which he
seeks to offer a message to endure this and all things that might conspire
to thwart their confidence in its truth claims for themselves in the face of
their own local hardships. Yet it does seem to go too far, at least in the
statement about wrath having come upon them, to be comfortable with the
argument that it was written by the Paul who wrote Romans 11, or in any
pre-70 letter, or that it should represent "the" Christian view thereafter.

Any chance you would agree with this modification of the implications of
taking this passage to represent Paul's original correspondence?

Regards,
Mark
--
Mark D. Nanos, Ph.D.
313 NE Landings Dr.
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
USA
nanosmd AT comcast.net





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page