Robert said

It is just my general impression gathered over the course of my studies. No statistics. If you like, I can look up and cite some experts for you, but so could you.

I only have one reasonably well respected commentary on Thessalonians handy:

I & II Thessalonians by Abraham J. Malherbe (2004), pp 164-165.169.174:

These theories have been advanced over the last two hundred years and have frequently been rejected, not least of all, on methodological grounds (Broer 1983; 1990; Jewett 1986: 33–46; ** you do not have permission to see this link **). The position of this commentary is that the pericope was written by Paul and that it belongs in the position in which the textual tradition has transmitted it (see also Holmstrand, 42–46). … [Details presented over the course of the following section.] … He does not speak of all Jews, but of those who acted against their fellow Jews. The comma that is printed between vv 14 and 15 in Greek editions of the text and in modern translations is wrong … Paul does not speak of hostility by all Jews, as is evident from the fact that he has just implicitly complimented the Judean churches. He is speaking specifically of those Jews who were preventing him from preaching to the Gentiles … The term [‘Ioudaioi] therefore does not describe a race or a people with a particular history, but persons who are known from the particular actions Paul details. For Paul, the immediately defining action is their violent obstruction of his efforts to preach the gospel.”

Full disclosure: Ray Collins, mentioned above, was one of my professors in graduate school, by the way. I’ve already mentioned Gerd Lüdemann. He also defends the view that Paul is using traditional language at the end of the diatribe:

In the Testament of Levi—which is usually dated in the second century BCE—we come across an announcement similar to that in v. 16. The text of TestLev 6:1 reads:

But the wrath of God has come upon them unto the end.¹²⁷ Either this text was interpolated into 1 Thess 2: 16 or Paul and the author of the Testament of Levi used “a standard Jewish formula for declaring God’s judgment.”¹²⁸

Be that as it may, Paul in 1 Thess 2:16 is clearly employing a tradition that his problems with non-Christian Jews would naturally have inclined him to adopt; and his personal experience is reflected in the added comment in v. 16a: “preventing us from speaking to the Gentiles that they may be saved.”

Lüdemann, Gerd. The Earliest Christian Text: 1 Thessalonians (Kindle Locations 1059-1066). Polebridge Press. 2013

There are several different ways of distinguishing traditional Christian exegesis from what I consider better, more independent critical scholarship. Hard to summarize, but I will try to give you a thumbnail sketch.

The most obvious distinction, perhaps, but not necessarily always applicable to the question of interpolation here, is simply apologists who have a vested interest in upholding a doctrinal or even confessional line of interpretation vs critical scholars who have no such commitment or some who come to the text of Paul from a thoroughly Jewish or atheist perspective. The apologetic approach might manifest itself with respect to the degree that a scholar feels bound to abide by Luke’s portrait of Paul and his ministry in the book of Acts. Critical scholars vary in the extent to which they give weight to Luke’s narrative but in general they give Acts much less consideration. Gerd Lüdemann is representative of one of the more skeptical approaches to Acts, the perspective in which I find myself most comfortable.

The so-called New Perspective on Paul is much less critical of 2nd Temple ‘Judaism’ and less likely to see ‘Christianity’ as the divinely ordained replacement for Judaism, which characterized the older supersessionist theological approach to Paul. EP Sanders was perhaps the most well known proponent of this approach, but he certainly had his predecessors (eg, Johannes Munck, Nils Dahl, and Krister Stendahl). More recently a growing school of interpretation of Paul is found in the ‘Paul within Judaism’ perspective, which is sometimes considered a radically new perspective, but this has always struck me as the most obvious and best context for understanding Paul. ** you do not have permission to see this link ** gives a lot of materials for familiarizing your self with some of these trends in Pauline scholarship.

Another more specific trend in scholarship that has affected my own reading of this section of 1 Thessalonians, as I’ve already mentioned, has been the growing realization that ‘Ioudaioi/Ioudaismos’, must be read in its proper historical context with a variety of connotations. This has been a matter of great debate among Johannine scholars, but perhaps the scholar most well known for advancing this trend is Steve Mason, who raised some eyebrows when he translated Josephus’ work as Judean War. The connotation that fits the most clearly here is something like ‘Judean authorities’. 

Sorry for the length, but you did ask a lot of very broad questions and I just gave you a thumbnail sketch. You mention that so far you have heard nothing convincing. What are your qualifications for judging among the many different opinions of scholars? Have you read a lot of the scholarship in this area? Surely you would not want to just choose opinions based on whether or not they might support a mythicist agenda, right?  

Thanks for the information Robert. The link to the Paul Page was useful and gave me some answers on the questions I asked. Additionally, I read some material from Ludemann (free, but maybe I get what I pay for). ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Ludemann indeed articulates a defense for the authenticity of 1 Thess 2:13-16 as described by yourself. That gives me the rationale for the interpolation opposing argument. Otherwise, I find Ludemann very similar to Ehrman. Just like Ehrman, he creates narratives explaining Paul’s actions, thoughts and motivations, based on, in my opinion, very little hard data. I’ll just call him the German Ehrman.

All this leaves a contradictory reference as to who killed Jesus. I’m not sure if the comma removal between 14 and 15 makes much of a difference. In my mind, if authentic, verse 15 says that the Jews killed the Lord Jesus, aka Jesus of Nazareth. Contradictory, because elsewhere, Paul identifies in 1 Cor 1:6-10 that, “the rulers of this age” who are doomed to perish, mistakenly killed the Lord. Mythicists identify the rulers of this age as Satan’s sky demons, and Historists claim it refers to the Romans.

I’ve read a sufficient variety of NT scholarship, mostly non-mythicist, to hold a discussion on the subject. More importantly, I read the NT, which is rarely done by non-scholars commenting on the subject. Unlike you, I’m not a NT scholar. My credentials are that I was brought up without any exposure to Christianity and therefore free of the Christian meme. I have a post-graduate science degree and the ability to critically analyze. Moreover, I’m arrogant enough to audaciously question the very basis of NT scholarly assumptions.

Let me give you an example of he latter. This is from Ludemann, but it goes across NT scholarship. In the article link Ludemann states: “He (Paul) expects the second coming of Jesus to happen during his own lifetime”. The fact is, that neither in 1 Thess nor anywhere else in Pauline letters is there any reference to a second coming or return by Jesus. The Pauline Jesus will be arriving for the first time only.  Similarly, Ludemann says about Paul: “Paul never met Jesus personally and had little familiarity with his deeds and teachings. In short, he cared but little about the itinerant preacher from Galilee”. Yes, he cared not about the Gospel Jesus, but could not shut up about the Lord Jesus. This is where I found Mythiscism providing a much cleaner and obvious answer. However, mythicism is not a welcomed hypothesis and may never find acceptance in scholarly circles.

Is it any wonder Paul believed Jesus to be the Son of God given that he saw himself in the prophetic scriptures? 

Reading rulers as demonic powers does not make sense when reading 1 Corinthians in its entirety. Paul uses the actual word for Satan when he means to say Satan. Sophia is just a general word meaning wisdom that’s used throughout the NT. 

Totally disagree that NT historians are engaged in some type of group think considering the vast array of differing viewpoints which exists among them. 

Pattycake1974 said

1) Reading rulers as demonic powers does not make sense when reading 1 Corinthians in its entirety. Paul uses the actual word for Satan when he means to say Satan. Sophia is just a general word meaning wisdom that’s used throughout the NT. 

2)Totally disagree that NT historians are engaged in some type of group think considering the vast array of differing viewpoints which exists among them.   

1) No idea why you say that.  Here is the Ascension of Isaiah on the subject. See the connection with 1 Cor 2:6-10 ?

..until the Beloved descends in the form in which you will see him descend. The Lord will indeed descend into the world in the last days, (he) who is to be called Christ after he has descended and become like you in form, and they will think that he is flesh and a man. And the god of that world will stretch out [his hand against the Son], and they will lay their hands upon him and hang him upon a tree, not knowing who he is. And thus his descent, as you will see, will be concealed even from the heavens so that it will not be known who he is. And when he has plundered the angel of death, he will rise on the third day…   

2) These differing viewpoints are only within the confines of the accepted narrative. For example, that the Jesus in Paul and the gospels is one and the same person. 

Robert said

Look at the larger context of 1 Cor 2,6-10. While it is indeed about divine wisdom, it most certainly is also about contemporary Jews and Greeks in the world not being able to understand Paul who was …

“… sent to preach not by means of wordy wisdom …  For the message about the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing (ἀπολλυμένοις) [Paul is not evangelizing demonic spirits in the heavens, but people here on earth] … For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise (Ἀπολῶ τὴν σοφίαν τῶν σοφῶν) … Where is the one who is wise (σοφός)? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, God decided, through the foolishness of our proclamation, to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.

Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise …

“When I came to you, brothers and sisters, I did not come proclaiming the mystery of God to you in lofty words or wisdom.  For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I came to you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling. My speech and my proclamation were not with plausible words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God.

Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God’s wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”

In this context, Paul is clearly contrasting his message with the human wisdom of this age, as typified by both Jews seeking signs  and Greek philosophy. The rulers of this age with the wisdom of this age did not understand. The immediately following context is still this same worldly context. See, for example, 

For what human being knows what is truly human except the human spirit that is within? So also no one comprehends what is truly God’s except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God, so that we may understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. And we speak of these things in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual things to those who are spiritual.

Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. Those who are spiritual discern all things, and they are themselves subject to no one else’s scrutiny. …

And so, brothers and sisters, I could not speak to you as spiritual people, but rather as people of the flesh, as infants in Christ. … 

Do not deceive yourselves. If you think that you are wise in this age, you should become fools so that you may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God.

So let no one boast about human leaders. …

There is nothing in this context about “satanic demons living in the lower heavens” not being able to understand Paul’s gospel, but normal human reasoning of Jews and Greeks not understanding. Certainly Paul does speak elsewhere about all of the powers and principalities also being destroyed but that is in the future, not in the distant past. In the passage you bring up, 1 Cor 15,23-28, Paul is describing what will happen in the future …

“… at [Christ’s] coming … Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. … When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him …”

Think how your words, mutatis mutandi, might sound to a scientist:

The fact that the majority of “critical” [naturalist scientists] somehow read [atheistic evolutionary biology into the fossil record] tells us that, 1) these scholars are not very critical and, 2) they’re desperate to read [atheistic evolutionary biology into the fossil record]. The latter is not all that surprising considering that the vast majority of [scientific theory] originates from a pool of highly motivated [atheistic humanist naturalist scientists educated in godless secular universities].

Given the performance of [naturalist scientists], and the embarrassing quantity of [evolutionary theories/incorrect predictions of global warming, etc] they’ve been able to create, the notion that these individuals are [true scientists], in the normal academic sense, is an overstatement. Their inability to overcome massive group-think has allowed these individuals, who consider themselves part of an in-crowd, to treat those who question their dogmas with condescension and derision.  And that is why [creation science] will not find wide acceptance with this group. 

The fact that there competing portraits of the historical Jesus does indeed point to the fact that ancient history in general and Leben Jesu Forschung in particular are not objective like the hard sciences. But the multiplicity of portraits points to the relative lack of group think even within this sphere.

Personally, I come from a much more rigorous tradition of critical scholarship that has largely abandoned Leben Jesu Forschung since the end of the 19th century in favor of historico-critical and literary analysis of texts as historical artifacts to be examined as evidence primarily for the views of a given author, secondarily the views of his intended audience or adversaries, and perhaps, in a tertiary but very limited and prescribed way, something of the tradition history prior to these texts. Reconstructing plausible portraits of an historical Jesus, for me, is much more of leisurely hobby than even an ever so soft social science. There are indeed important historical contexts that can and must be studied to test the plausibility of various portraits, but not much in the way of independent attestation. John cannot be shown to be independent of even indirect familiarity with the synoptic gospels or tradition. Likewise with the writings and influence of Paul, Q, and the gospel of Thomas.

But even among those of us who practice this more rigorous methodology, there are many competing and diametrically opposed views of every text and 1,500 page dissertations are regularly written to challenge the illusive attempt at a scholarly consensus. And yet, the mythicist view, although it deserves to be heard by objective proponents, is about as likely to be seen as credible as creation ‘science’ by evolutionary biologists.  

Gee Robert, you created a lot of stuff! Very impressive, but let’s not confuse quantity with quality.  I’ll just hit a few points.

“Paul is not evangelizing demonic spirits in the heavens, but people here on earth”.  Where in the world did you get that notion?  Jesus was actually handed over by God to Satan in the lower heavens as a sacrifice to atone for the original sin.  That’s what Paul’s religion is all about.

“Paul does speak elsewhere about all of the powers and principalities also being destroyed but that is in the future, not in the distant past. In the passage you bring up, 1 Cor 15,23-28, Paul is describing what will happen in the future …”

Yes, and that’s exactly what I said, as I linked 1 Cor 15:23-28 to 2:6 – “who are doomed to perish”.  Your need to read more carefully Robert. 

Your focus on Jews and Greeks as the object of Paul’s concern is mistaken. Here are later followers of Paul on the real concern:  Eph 6:12   ^“For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”.  Got it?

Your mutatis mutandi, effort is elegant.  Am I understanding correctly that you are a global warming denier, creationist? If so, that might explain some of your more eccentric observations.  I tried to google Robert Gilbert, but I’m not sure I’ve identified the right person. 

Pattycake1974 said
Here’s an excerpt from the Ascension of Isaiah (AscIs): Studies of Early Christianity Apocrypha By Jan Brammer and Thomas Karmann. (Each chapter has a different scholar dedicated to it.)

“The author of the AscIs was certainly a theologically creative exegete of Isaiah. I think we can ow see that he was also a theologically creative exegete of the Pauline literature. He was as highly selective of Pauline texts as he was of Isaianic ones, but, by making the most of all those that suited his purpose, he created a cosmological reading of the story of Jesus that was innovative in several key respects.” (Pg. 41)

He also says it was written late first century and relied on these texts: Philippians 2:6-11; 1 Corinthians 2:7-8; 2 Corinthians 3:18; several passages from Ephesians. This is just in Bremmer’s chapter. He points out that AscIs is theologically motivated in using these passage to prove a cosmological point.   

I like the thinking process of Jan Bremmer and he acknowledges that AoI reflects Paul.  To my knowledge he was (he’s retired) the only scholar who came up with this hypothesis. Other scholars date AoI late first century.  I think that AoI simply states the beliefs of early Christians before Christianity was taken over by the gospels.

Robert said

Sounds like you might be missing Bremmer’s point. ‘Theologically creative’ does not mean ‘reflecting Paul’s views but creating his own. And ‘highly selective’ in his use of Paul means not reading Paul in context.  

Right. The author of Ascension had a theological point to make, so he creatively used Paul’s work to make it. I believe there may have been some reliance on John’s gospel as well, but I need to reread that part. I’ve just barely started Bremmer’s book, but it’s very good so far.