¹ See, e.g., Schoeps, H.-J., The Jewish-Christian Argument, trans. Green, David (London, 1963), 28Google Scholar; also O. MICHEL, Fragen zu Thessalonicher 2, 14-16: Anti-jüdische Polemik bei Paulus, in ECKERT, W., et. al., ed., Antijudaismus im Neuen Testament? Exegetische und systematische Beiträge (Abh. z. christl.-jüd. Dialog, München, 1967), 50–59Google Scholar.

² The quotation is the title of chapter in Hodgson'S, Peter C. recent study of Baur, , The Formation of Historical Theology (New York, 1966)Google Scholar; HODGSON'S book is an impressive and sympathetic treatment of that controversial and oft-misunderstood giant of German scholarship. See also Hodgson'S, general introduction in Ferdinand Christian Baur on the Writing of Church History (New York, 1968), 3–40Google Scholar.

³ Baur, F. C., Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, trans, from 2nd German ed. Menzies, A. (London, 1875), 87fGoogle Scholar.

⁴ Ibid., 88; cf. also 320.

⁵ See, e.g., G. Lünemann, ad loc. ( Meyer'S, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the New Testament, 8, American ed., New York, 1889)Google Scholar.

⁶ In an article in Halle'sche allg.Lit-Ztg. (1847)Google Scholar, cited in Schmedel, P., Die Briefe an die Thessalonicher und an die Korinther (Hand-Com.NT, Freiburg, 1892), 2Google Scholar. Ritschl is mentioned in the critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland ed. of the N.T. (Stuttgart, 1963²⁵), ad loc. All references to the Greek text of the N.T. in this article are to this edition.

⁷ Amongst the 20th-Century scholars by Moffat, J., An Introduction to theLiterature of the New Testament (New York, 1918 ²), 73; alsoGoogle ScholarBaiey, J. in The Interpreter's Bible, (New York, 1955), 280Google Scholar.

⁸ Schmedel, , loc. citGoogle Scholar.

⁹ In his Einleitung in das N.T., 214, according to Frame, J., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (I.C.C., 38, Edinburgh, 1912), 109Google Scholar. HOLTZMANN'S book was unavailable to me. According to S. BRANDON, vv. 14-16 is understandable as ”an interpolation made by some Gentile Christians, with an anti-Semitic bias, such as Marcion”; see The Fall of Jerusalem and the Christian Church (London, 1957), 93Google Scholar.

¹⁰ E.g., Dibelius, M. (Handbuch N.T., Tübingen, 1925)Google Scholar; E. v. Dobschüz (Meyer, , Kr.-ex.Kom.N.T., Göttingen, 1909 ⁷)Google Scholar; Frame, J., op. cit.Google Scholar; Masson, C. (Com. N.T., Neuchâtel, 1957)Google Scholar; Miligan, G., St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalo-nians (London, 1908)Google Scholar; Neil, W. (Moffatt N.T. Com., New York, 1950)Google Scholar; Oepke, A. (N.T. Deutsck, Göttingen, 1949)Google Scholar; Ricaux, B. (Et.Bibl., Paris, 1956)Google Scholar; and Wohlenberg, G. (Kom.N.T., Zahn, Leipzig, 1903)Google Scholar.

¹¹ Cf. W. KÜMMEL'S sneering comment about the 19th-century love of dissecting.the Pauline letters, Das literarische und geschichtliche Problem des ersten Thessa-Lonicherbriefes, , in Neotestamentica et Patristica, Freundesgabe 0. Cullmann (Nov. T., Suppl. 6, Leiden, 1962), 214Google Scholar.

¹² To my knowledge the only previous argument suggesting 13-16 as an interpolation is that of Eckart, K.-G., Der zweite echte Brief des Apostels Paulus an die Thessalonicher, Z.Th.K. 58 (1961), 33fGoogle Scholar. For criticisms, see KÜMmel, , ^{op. cit.}, 218ffGoogle Scholar. On ECKART'S argumentation see below, n. 65.

¹³ See, e.g., Schelkle, K., Die Passion Jesu in der Verkilndigung des Neuen Testa-ments (Heidelberg, 1949), 37Google Scholar. For the views of E. BAMMEL see below.

¹⁴ For a good discussion with numerous parallels see MILLIGAN'S commentary ad loc.

¹⁵ Ackroyd, P., είς είς τελος, Exp.T. 80 (1968-1969), 126Google Scholar. ACKROYD cites Ps. 73(74):3 as an example. For the various Hebrew expressions translated in LXX by the phrase είς (τό) τελος see HATCH/REDPATH, Concordance, 1344f.

¹⁶ See Munck, J., Christ and Israel, trans. Nixon, Ingeborg (Philadelphia, 1967), 64Google Scholar.

¹⁷ The v.I. ἔΦθακεν is only weakly attested, and does not commend itself.

¹⁸ So v. Dobschüiz; see also FRAME, Lünemann, NEIL, OEPKE, and WOHLEN-BERG in their commentaries, cited in n. See now also Michel, O.: “Paulus spricht nicht im Sinn der Liturgie oder einer Geschichtsbetractung, sondern im prophetischen Sinn des sich erfüllenden apokalyptischen Gerichtes.” Op. cit. (above, n.), 58Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Dbelius, , Op. Cit., IIGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Bammel, E., Judenverfolgung und Naherwartung, Z.Thk. 56 (1959), 294ffGoogle Scholar. The phrase ”apokalyptische Maschinerie” occurs on p. 301.

²¹ Ibid., 308f.

²² Bacon, B., Wrath ”unto the Uttermost,” Expositor, Ser. 8, 24 (1922), 356ff.Google Scholar, accepting the past-tense force of ἓΦθασεν finds a whole list of ”current events” to which he believes Paul is referring: the death of Agrippa in 44, the insurrection of Theudas ca. 44-46, the famine in Judaea in 46-47, and the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius in 49. These events are a sign that God's patience with rael has come to an end. Johnson, S., Notes and Comments, Angl. Theol. Rev. 23 (1941), 173ff.Google Scholar, adds to BACON'S list a riot in Jerusalem between 48 and 51 (Jos. Ant. 20.5.3) and a famine in Greece and Rome ca. 49 A.D.

²³ The relationship between Thess. 2:16c and T. Levi 6:11 is beyond the scope of this paper to define. For discussion, see Rigaux, , op. cit., 456ffGoogle Scholar. also Bammel, , op. cit., 309, n.I. Cf. also Daniel 11:36. Both T. Levi 6:11 and Daniel 11:36 refer to God's punishment of the persecutors of his peopleGoogle Scholar.

²⁴ See the commentaries. For a recent discussion see R. SCIPPERS, The Pre-Synoptic Tradition in Thessalonians II 13-16, Nov.T. 8 (1966), 223–34Google Scholar. The notion of ”pre-synoptic” tradition has to be qualified at the point of distinguishing traditional formulae from the way in which these formulae are put together. See on this further below.

²⁵ See especially Dibelüs' commentary for discussion and for a list of texts from Greek and Latin authors illustrating pagan anti-Judaism, op. cit., 11, 29-31. See also the texts assembled by Reinach, Th., Textes dauteurs grecs et romans relatifs ou judaisme (Paris, 1894, r. p. Hildesheim, 1963)Google Scholar, with the aid of the index entry, ”misoxénie.”

²⁶ For discussion see Tchekover, V., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, trans. Applebaum, S. (Philadelphia, 1966), 357ffGoogle Scholar.

²⁷ Schoeps, H.-J., Die jüdischen Prophetenmorde, in Aus frühchristlicher Zeit (Tübingen, 1950), 126-43Google Scholar.

²⁸ SCHOEPS cites the following passages as representative of all parts of the N.T.: Mt. 23:31ff.; Acts 7:52; Heb. 11:36ff.; Thess. 2:15. Ibid., 126.

²⁹ See, e.g., Acts 7:52; Mt. 21:34ff,. (Matthean allegorization: see below); ICN., Magn. 8.2; BARN., 5.11; Justin, , Dial. 6Google Scholar; Mart. Pionii 13.2; Hipp, ., De antich. 30f., 58Google Scholar; Tert, ., De res. earn. 26Google Scholar; Clem, . Alex., Strom. 6.15.127; etcGoogle Scholar.

³⁰ As, e.g., RIGAUX, citing Acts 2:36. Op. cit., 446.

³¹ Wickens, U., Die Missionsreden der Apostelgeschchte (Wiss.Mon.A.N.T., 5, Neukirchen, 9Google Scholar), see esp. 120f.

³² See below for a discussion of the historical context in Jewish-Christian polemics post-70.

³³ See, e.g., BARN., 512; Justin, , Apol. 1. 47Google Scholar; Tert, ., Adv. jud. 13Google Scholar; Apol. 25; Oricen, , Contra Cels. 148Google Scholar; 4.23; and cf. Ev. Ptr 7.25 and the v.I. at Lk. 23:48. For discussion see Schoeps, H.-J., Die Tempelzerstörung des Jahres 7° in der jüdichen Reiigiosgeschichte, in Aus jrühchristlicher Zit, esp. 145ffGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ R.Meir: ”The citizens of Jerusalem were also smitten because they despised the prophets, for it says, 'But they mocked the messengers of God’ (2 Chron. 36.16)Google Scholar, and it is written 'They have made their faces harder than a rock' (Jer. 5.3),” Exodus Raba 31.16( Tras. Lehrman, S., London, 1939)Google Scholar; 'be reference is cited by Schoeps, , Aus jr. Zeit, 150Google Scholar. He also cites Pes. de Rab. Kah. 14 (R. Levi).

³⁵ Note that this passage is partially quoted by Meir, R. in Ex. Rabba 31.16Google Scholar.

³⁶ In Munck'S, J. view, op. cit., 115, Paul's quotation of Ps. 69:22f. ( = LXX 68:23f.) in Rom. 11:9f. implies also a reflection on Ps. 69:21 and ”a common early Christian interpretation” of the Psalm connecting it with the crucifixion of Jesus by the Jews. But Paul does not quote Ps. 69:21; it is quite unacceptable to read it into the text of Romans. The only other passage in Paul that MCNCK uses to support the statement that ”the Jews had killed the Messiah'” is Thess. 2: 14-6, op. cit., 99Google Scholar.

³⁷ So the passage is interpreted by ORICEX in his commentary on Mt. (13.8, on Mt. 17:22). The ”gnostic” interpretation, as argued, e.g., by Wilckens, U., Weisheit und Torheit (Beitr. Hist. Th., 26, Tübingen, 1959, 71ff.)Google Scholar, reads too much into the text.

³⁸ See, e.g., Feuilet, A., Les ”chefs de ce siècle” et la Sagesse divine d'apès I Co. 11, 6–8Google Scholar, in Le Christ Sagesse de Dieu daprès les épitres pauliniennes (Paris, 1966), 25–36Google Scholar.

³⁹ The best discussion of the historical problems connected with the execution of Jesus is that of Winter, P., On the Trial of Jesus (Studio. Judaica, I, Berlin, 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ According to Mansson, N., Paulus och judarna (Uppsala, 1947), 205Google Scholar. ”Ίονδαίοι in Thess. 2:14 does not refer to the Jewish people as a whole, or even to the inhabitants of Judaea. They are the ”fanatic Torah-Jews” (faatiska lag-judarna), whom the apostle identifies with Messiah- and prophet-murderers. If indeed there is such a ”theological” meaning attached to ”the Jews” in Thess. 2:14 — see also Michel, , op. cit., 53 —it is that of the interpolator and not of Paul, for such an interpretation of ”the Jews” is without parallel in the Pauline epistlesGoogle Scholar.

⁴¹ Stauffer, E., New Testament Theology, trans. Marsh, J. (London, 1955), 190Google Scholar, speaks of ”an astonishing volte face,” from the thoughts expressed in Thess. 2 to those expressed in Rom. II.

⁴² ”Judaea” here refers to the Roman province, which includes all of the territory formerly ruled by Herod Agrippa I (41-44 A.D.); cf. Milligan, , op. cit., 29Google Scholar. In addition to the texts he cites (Lk. 4:44; Acts 10:37; Jos., Ant. 1.160) see also Jos., Ant. 19.363.

⁴³ So, e.g., Frame, , op. cit., 110Google Scholar; Milligan, , op. cit., 29Google Scholar; also Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind, trans. Clarke, F. (London, 1959), 120Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ ”'Contribulibus' ut dicat 'Gentibus'”; Com., ad loc. (ed. Swete, , Cambridge, 1880)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ BACON interprets the account of the death of James in Acts 12:iff. as referring to. systematic pogrom against the Christians, op. cit., 37°. There is no evidence that it was any such thing. See on this Hare, D., The Theme oi Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St. Matthew (Soc. N.TS., Mon., Cambridge, 1967), 305Google Scholar. Goguel, M., The Birth of Christianity, trans. Snape, H. (New York, 1934), 123Google Scholar, suggested that Thess. 2:14 refers to the persecution of the ”Hellenists” (Acts. 8:I; cf. 6:1ff.), but this event had occurred almost 20 years prior to the time of the writing of 1 Thess.

⁴⁶ See Hare, , op. cit.Google Scholar, and Brandon, , op. cit.Google Scholar; also Goppelt, L., Jesus, Paul and Judaism, trans. Schroeder, E. (London, 1964), 105fGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁷ 2 Cor. II:2ff., on which see Hare, , op. cit., 62Google Scholar. Brun, L., Segen und Fluch im Urchristentum (Norsk vidensk.-ak. Oslo, Hist.-fil. kl., 1.1, Oslo, 932), 127, argues with reference to Rom. 9:3 that Paul was under a curse by the Diaspora Jews, and sees a hint of this also in Cor. 4:12. This interesting theory goes beyond the evidence. On the Birkhath ha-Minim see belowGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ So also Hare, , op. cit., 64Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ B. Gerhardsson asserts that Thess. 2:14 implies that Paul expects the Thessalonian congregation to ”receive” from the Judaean churches the word of God and to ”imitate their halakic practice.” Memory and Manuscript (Acta Sem. Neot. Ups., 22, Uppsala, 1961), 274Google Scholar. I am unable to understand how such a conclusion could be suggested by the text.

⁵⁰ ”For a full-scale treatment see Boer, W. De, The Imitation of Paul (Kampen, 1962)Google Scholar. See also Stanxey, D., ”Become Imitators of Me”: The Pauline Conception of Apostolic Tradition, Biblica 40 (1959), 859–77Google Scholar; and Edem, E., ”Imitatio Pauli,” in Teologiska Stidier tillägnade Erik Stave (Uppsala, 1922), 67–85Google Scholar, unfortunately unavailable to me.

⁵¹ On the ”imitation of Christ” see now Betz, H., Nacfolge und Naehahmung Jesu Christi im Neuen Testament (Beitr. Hist. Th., 37., Tübingen, 1967)Google Scholar.

⁵² Against Betz, , op. cit., 143Google Scholar.

⁵³ So. W. MICHAELIS understands Paul's use of μιμείσθαι to imply a claim to obedience, in his article, μιμέομαι, Th. Diet. N.T., a, 668f. DE BOER argues against this interpretation, op. cit., 138, 1851., 209f., but Michaelis' view is preferable. On Paul's apostolic consciousness see especially Windisch, H., Paulits und Christus (Unters. NT., 24, Leipzig, 1934)Google Scholar, still a very important study; on ”imitation” see 250ff., and cf. Betz, , op. cit., 154ffGoogle Scholar.

⁵⁴ K. THIEME, in his structural analysis of Thess., places v. 13 at the end of a subsection beginning in 2:1; Die Struktur des ersten Thessalonicherbriefes, in BETZ, O., et. al., ed., Abraham Unaer Vater (Festscher. O. Michel, Leiden/Köln, 1963), 450–58Google Scholar. I cannot see any merit at all in his analysis.

⁵⁵ Schubert, P., Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgiving (Beih. ZNW., 20, Berlin, 1939)Google Scholar. For study of the liturgical background of the thanksgiving formula see Robenson, J., Die Hodajot-Formel in Gebet und Hymnus des Frühchris-tentums, in ELTESTER, W., ed., Apophoreta (Festschr, Ernst Haenchen, Berlin, 1964), 94–235Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ I find Wrede'S, W. thorough study of 2 Thess. entirely convincing, Die Echt-heit des II Thess. (Texte u. Unters., 24, Leipzig, 1903)Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ WREDE already remarked about this peculiarity in 1-2 Thess., ibid., 20.

⁵⁸ Op. cit., 18ff. He further concluded that in the case of Thess. the ”thanksgiving” period itself constituted the main ”body” of the letter. Ibid.,:26.

⁵⁹ J. SANDERS, The Transition from Opening Epistolary Thanksgiving to Body in the Letters of the Corpus, Pauline, JBL 81 (1962), 348ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 356. For theories dividing Thess. into two separate letters, see Eckart, K.-G., op. cit., andGoogle ScholarSchmithals, W., Die Thessalonicherbriefe als Briefcompositionen, in DINKLER, E., ed., Zeit und Geschichte (Festschr. R. Bultmann, Tübingen, 1964), 295–5Google Scholar. ECKART, rejecting the authenticity of 2 Thess., deals only with Thess., dividing it into two genuine letters, and marking off as non-Pauline interpolations 2:13-16; 4:-8; 4:10b-12; 5:12-22. Schmitals finds four genuine Pauline letters in 1-2 Thess. Neither study demonstrates any form-critical control. For criticism of ECKART, see Schmithals, , op. cit.Google Scholar, and KÜMmel, , op. citGoogle Scholar. For criticisms of SCHMHALS, see Bjerkelund, C., Parakalò. Form, Funktion und Sinn der parakalô-Sätze in den paulinischen Brieien (Bibl. Theol. Noru.,, Oslo, 1967), 125ffGoogle Scholar. and Funk, R., The Apostolic ParousiaGoogle Scholar: Form and Significance, in FARMER, W., et. al., ed., Christian History and Interpretation (Festschr. John Knox, Cambridge, 1967), 249–68Google Scholar, see 263, n. 1.

⁶¹ Funk, R., Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God (New York, 1966), 263ffGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Op. cit. (above, n. 60).

⁶³ Ibid., 250.

⁶⁴ Schubert, , op. cit., 23Google Scholar. Micel, O., op. cit., 51Google Scholar, and Richardson, P., Israel in the Apostolic Church (Soc. N.TJS., Mon., Cambridge, 1969), 105, n. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar, see a connection between the anti-Jewish polemic of 14-16 and v. 8, ”but Satan hindered us.” Paul is undoubtedly referring to his illness in v. 8, whatever it was (cf. 2 Cor. 12:7), and I and MICHEL and RICHARDSON'S interpretation impossible. There may, indeed, be a connection between v. 6 and v. 8, but it is to be explained in a different way. See below.

⁶⁵ As indicated above (nn. 12 and 60) K.-G. Eckart has also suggested that 13-6 is an interpolation. He sees in 15-16 a programmatic ”Judenpolemilc” which exhibits a quasi-poetic parallelism. V. 13, too, shows ”einen ähnlich straffen Sãtz-parallelismus” which in content is general and unspecific. V. 14 deals generally with suffering, and is not specific enough for the Thessalonian situation. Thus 13-16 is an interpolation. (Op. cit., 32-34.) However, Paul may just as easily have used ”traditional'” material as a later interpolator, and there is lacking in Eckart's study both form-critical control and Sachkritik. Incidentally I wish to point out that my own study of the text had led me to the conclusion that 13-16 is an interpolation before I was aware of Eckart's article.

⁶⁶ See in addition to Wrede's Work the unpublished dissertation by Petersen, Robert J., The Structure and Purpose of Second Thessalonians (Harvard Divinity School, 1968)Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ Cf. my remarks re MICHEL and RICHAKDSON, n. 64. Only in a time of intense Jewish-Christian polemic could such a connection be made. See below on the situation post-70.

⁶⁸ Schippers, R., op. cit., 224Google Scholar, refers to the quasi technical language of paradosis in v. 13, and interprets the phrase παραλαβόντες λόγον ⋯κοής to mean ”tradition,” the substance of what is contained in 14-16.

⁶⁹ Using the work of Orchard, J., Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels, Biblica 19 (1938), 20ff.Google Scholar, but disagreeing fundamentally with his conclusions.

⁷⁰ On Mt. 24:2b see Hummel, R., Die Auseinandersetzung zuischen Kirche und Judentum im Matthäusevanlelium (Beitr. Ev. Theol., 33, München, 1966), 85Google Scholar.

⁷¹ See, e.g., Hare, , op. cit., 167ff., and passim; alsoGoogle ScholarTrilling, W., Das wahre Israel (Stud. A.N.T., München, 1943), 751f.Google Scholar, and Stendahl, K., The School of St. Matthew (Philadelphia, 1968 ²) XIIfGoogle Scholar. Probably all of the N.T. writings, with the exception of the genuine letters of Paul, were written after 70 A.D.

⁷² See Parkes, J., The Foundations of Judaism and Christianity (Chicago, 1960), 224ffGoogle Scholar. For a full discussion of the developments in Jamnia see Davies, W., The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge, 1964), 256ff. See alsoGoogle ScholarSandiel, S., The First Christian Century in Judaism and Christianity (New York, 1969), 53ffGoogle Scholar.

⁷³ On the Birkhath ha-Minim, the twelfth ”benediction” of the synagogue prayer Shemoneh Esreh cursing Christians and heretics composed by Samuel the Small under the direction of R. Gamaliel II ca. 85 A.D. (Berakhoth 25b), see Davies, , op. cit., 275fGoogle Scholar. As this relates to ⋯ποσυναγωγός in Jn. 9:22 see especially the brilliant treatment by Martyn, J., History and Theology in the Fourth Gospel (New York, 1968), 18ffGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁴ According to Schoeps', H.-J. interpretation of Abodah Zarah 17a, Jewish Christianity, trans. Hare, D. (Philadelphia, 1969), 33Google Scholar. Cf. also Tos. Sank 13-4, 5, quoted in R. T. HERORD, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash (r.p. Clifton, New Jersey, 1966), 118f.

⁷⁵ Cf. Justin, , Dial. 108Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ See on this and other edactional elements in Mt. Hummel, R., op. cit., 82ffGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁷ Stendal, , op. cit., xiiiGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁸ See especially the treatment by Trilling, W., op, cit. That the church is the ”true Israel” seems to be a universal assumption in the Christian literature of this and subsequent periodsGoogle Scholar.

⁷⁹ For general remarks on how Christians fared in the Roman world of the period, see Frend, W., Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (Garden City, N.Y., 1967), 155ffGoogle Scholar.