^{page 481 note 1} Barth, M., ‘Was Paul an Anti-Semite?’, JES 5 (1968) 98.Google Scholar

^{page 481 note 2} For a recent summary of work on 1 Thessalonians, see Collins, R. F., Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians (BEThL 66; Louvain: Louvain University, 1984)Google Scholar; also Jewett, R., The Thessalonian Correspondence: Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986)Google Scholar and Trilling, W., ‘Die beiden Briefe des Apostels Paulus an die Thessalonicher. Eine Forschungsübersicht’, ANRW 2. 25.4 (1987) 3365–403.Google Scholar

^{page 482 note 1} The corrected third edition of The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1983)Google Scholar now conforms (p. x) to Nestle-Aland²⁶ even in matters of punctuation. ‘The Punctuation Apparatus’, which is a distinction of the format of The Greek New Testament designed especially as an aid for modern translators, includes some 600 passages where punctuation (p. xli) ‘seems to be particularly significant for the interpretation of the text’. No variant punctuation is recorded (but see n. 4, p. 487 below) for 1 Thess 2. 14–15. There are no textual variants that would complicate the issue here. On the text of Nestle-Aland²⁶, cf.Google ScholarCollins, Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians, 79–95. All other modern Greek texts that I have seen, such as those of Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort, also put a comma between vv. 14 and 15.Google Scholar

^{page 482 note 2} See, e.g., Jespersen, O., A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles 3: Syntax 2 (London: Allen & Unwin, 1954) 85–96. I can find no ‘History of Punctuation’ to answer specific questions about exactly how and when this convention developed in English.Google ScholarSimpson, P. (Shakespearian Punctuation [Oxford: Clarendon, 1911] 42–3) discusses the ‘Comma before the “defining”, relative’Google Scholarand gives examples to show that the printers, if not the author, of the First Folio were inconsistent in their usage. It seems that use of a colon, semi-colon, or comma to indicate a non-restrictive element became frequent in the seventeenth century and was standardized in the eighteenth by grammarians who were influenced by the French. The usage certainly was conventional by the advent of modern critical exegesis. Cf.Google ScholarMichael, I., English Grammatical Categories and the Tradition to 1800 (Cambridge: University Press, 1970) 162–8, 261, 510, 517.Google Scholar

^{page 482 note 3} Frame, J. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC; New York: Scribners', 1912) 59.Google Scholar

^{page 482 note 4} Cf. 2 Cor 5. 18 for a similar compound phrase.Google Scholar

^{page 482 note 5} Ed. Weigle, L. A., The New Testament Octapla (New York: Nelson & Sons, 1962) vii.Google ScholarThe slash, used as we use the comma, is found also after ‘Jewes’ in manuscripts of Wycliffite versions of the Bible from ca. 1400, housed in the Bancroft Library of the University of California at Berkeley. I am indebted to Anthony Bliss, rare books librarian at the Bancroft, for making copies of these and of other, printed editions of the Bible available to me even while they were in showcases as part of an exhibit of the Bancroft's rich collection of early Bibles.Google Scholar

^{page 483 note 1} Weigle, , The New Testament Octapla, 8.Google Scholar

^{page 483 note 2} The New Testament in Modern English (London: Collins).Google ScholarPartridge, A C. (English Biblical Translation [London: Deutsch, 1973], 196–202) compliments Phillip's work, especially on the epistles, noting (p. 202) that the translation ‘merits the respect it has received among biblical scholars’.Google Scholar

^{page 483 note 3} I mean French, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese. I am ignorant of the conventions of, for example, Rumanian, Catalan, Romansh, or Gallego. Hereafter ‘Romance languages’ refers simply, and I hope not unfairly, to the first four.Google Scholar

^{page 484 note 1} As in Marxsen, W., Der erste Brief an die Thessalonischer (ZBK, NT 11:1; Zürich: Theologischer, 1979) 49Google Scholar: ‘Es geht ihm [Paul] also nicht um “die Juden”, sondern er expliziert an “den Juden”, die die judäischen Gemeinden verfolgt haben, dass diese Verfolgung ein Teil des Endgeschehens ist …’. Marxsen, however, did no more than assert that this was the meaning of the passage, and his assertion had no discernible effect on the comprehensive commentary of Holtz, T. (Der erste Brief an die Thessalonicher [EKK 13; Zürich: Benziger, 1986])Google Scholar. Marshall, I. H. (1 and 2 Thessalonians [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983] 82–3)Google Scholar and JewettThe Thessalonian Correspondence, 38 with n. 24) explicitly reject Marxsen's reading.Google Scholar

^{page 484 note 2} Saint Paul. Les épîtres aux Thessaloniciens (EBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1956).Google Scholar

^{page 484 note 3} Among the exceptions are Marxsen (see n. 1, above) and Davies, W. D. (‘Paul and the People of Israel’, NTS 24 [1978] 4–39 = idemCrossRefGoogle Scholar, Jewish and Pauline Studies[ Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 123–52)Google Scholar, who apologetically suggests (p. 127) that Paul's comment ‘was unsophisticated, perhaps the unreflecting (and impetuous?) reaction of an early Paul, not to the Jewish people as a whole but to Jews who were violently opposing the preaching of the gospel …’.

^{page 484 note 4} Baur, , Paul. The Apostle of Jesus Christ (German original, 1845; 2 vols.; London: Williams & Norgate, 1875–1876).Google ScholarOn Baur cf. Pearson, B., ‘1 Thessalonians 2:13–16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation’, HTR 64 (1971) 79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jewett, , The Thessalonian Correspondence, 3–5Google Scholar; Hurd, J., ‘Paul Ahead of His Time’, in edd. Richardson, P. and Granskou, D., Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity I: Paul and the Gospels (Waterloo, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier University, 1986) 23–4.Google ScholarSee also, on ‘The Tübingen School and Paul’, Munck, J., Paul and the Salvation of Mankind (Richmond: John Knox, 1959) 69–86.Google Scholar

^{page 485 note 1} ‘1 Thessalonians 2:13–16’.Google Scholar

^{page 485 note 2} ‘The Form Critical Study of Paul's Letters: I Thessalonians as a Case Study’, NTS 22 (1975–1976) 140–58.Google Scholar

^{page 485 note 3} ‘1 Thess 2:13–16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation’, JBL 102 (1983) 269–79.Google Scholar

^{page 485 note 4} E.g., Collins, R. F., Introduction to the New Testament (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1987)141.Google Scholar

^{page 485 note 5} E.g., Koester, H., Introduction to the New Testament (2 vols.; New York: De Gruyter, 1982) 2.113Google Scholar; Gager, J., The Origins of Anti-Semitism: Attitudes toward Judaism in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (New York: Oxford University, 1983) 255–6Google Scholar; Beck, N. A., Mature Christianity: The Recognition and Repudiation of the Anti-Jewish Polemic of the New Testament (Selinsgrove: Susquehanna University, 1985) 40–50, 90–2Google Scholar; Gaston, L., Paul and the Torah (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1987) 137, 195.Google Scholar

^{page 485 note 6} Gager, The Origins of Anti-Semitism Beck, Mature Christianity.Google Scholar

^{page 485 note 7} Faith and Fratricide: The Theological Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York: Seabury, 1974)92.Google Scholar

^{page 486 note 1} Hurd, ‘Paul Ahead of His Time’; Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence, 35–46Google Scholar; Collins, Studies on the First Letter to the Thessalonians, 135.Google ScholarNote also the critique of Pearson by Lüdemann, Gerd, Paulus und das Judentum (TEH 215; Munich: Kaiser, 1983) 25–7.Google Scholar

^{page 486 note 2} On the significance of such Kleinigkeiten: K. and Aland, B., The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 282–4.Google Scholar For similar but much better known cases: Aland, K., ‘Über die Bedeutung eines Punktes: Eine Untersuchung zu Joh. 1,3.4’, in idem, Neutestamentliche Entwürfe (Munich: Kaiser, 1979) 351–91Google Scholar; and Metzger, B. M., ‘The Punctuation of Rom. 9: 5’, in edd. Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S., Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973) 95–112Google Scholar = Metzger, , New Testament Studies: Philological, Versional, and Patristic (Leiden: Brill, 1980) 57–74.Google Scholar

^{page 486 note 3} Pfeiffer, R., History of Classical Scholarship from the Beginnings to the End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon, 1968) 178–81Google Scholar; Reynolds, L. D. and Wilson, N. G.Scribes & Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek & Latin Literature (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1974) 214–5, passim.Google Scholar

^{page 486 note 4} Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 277.Google ScholarBludau, A. (Die Schriftfälschungen der Häretiker [Münster: Aschendorf, 1925] 29)Google Scholar quotes Clement of Alexandria's complaint (Stromateis 7. 16) that certain Gnostics corrupted scripture by changing accents and punctuation to suit their pleasure, and he notes that unfortunately Clement gave no examples. (I thank William Adler for this reference.)

^{page 486 note 5} Ed. Sanders, H. A., A Third-Century Papyrus Codex of the Epistles of Paul (University of Michigan Studies, Humanistic Series 38; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1935) 16–19.Google ScholarCf. Metzger, B., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (2nd ed.; Oxford: Oxford University, 1968) 26–7.Google Scholar

^{page 486 note 6} Kenyon, F. G., Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (5th ed., rev. Adams, A. W.; New York: Harper, 1958) 157.Google ScholarCf. Aland, and Aland, , The Text of the New Testament, 56–64.Google Scholar

^{page 487 note 1} For example, Phil 4. 14 to Col 1. 2: Kenyon, F. G., The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: Descriptions and Texts of Twelve Manuscripts on Papyrus of the Greek Bible, Fascicle 1, General Introduction (London: E. Walker, 1939).Google ScholarZuntz, G. (The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition Upon the Corpus Paulinum [London: Oxford University, 1953] 14–57) discusses errors, corrections, etc. of the Pauline portion of the Chester Beatty papyriGoogle Scholar. Cf. Aland, and Aland, , The Text of the New Testament, 99 for bibliography, and pl. 21, a page from Romans.Google Scholar

^{page 487 note 2} Edd. Vercellone, C. and Cozza, G., Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus 5 (Rome: Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, 1868)Google Scholar; ed. Cozza, G., Novum Testamentum e Codice Vaticano 1209 Nativi Textus Graeci Primo Omnium Phototypice Repraesentatum (Rome: Bibliotheca Vaticana, 1889)Google Scholar; The Codex Alexandrinus in Reduced Photographic Facsimile 1: New Testament and Clementine Epistles (London: Oxford University, 1909)Google Scholar. Both codices do show more punctuation (usually the raised dot that in modern texts is equivalent to a semi-colon) than the earlier papyri, but they are not congruent in their placement of the marks.

^{page 487 note 3} Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 27.Google Scholar

^{page 487 note 4} According to Aland, and Aland, (The Text of the New Testament, 47Google Scholar; cf. also 239, 277, 282), in matters of punctuation the Nestle-Aland²⁶ editors tried ‘to represent Greek usage, departing from it only when strict consistency might cause difficulties for the modern reader’. But they must have tried to represent medieval or modern usage, applying it to ancient Greek. The more developed Punctuation Apparatus of the UBSGNT, ‘designed especially for the convenience of translators’ (ibid. 225–6), records variations of punctuation found in some printed editions of the GNT, beginning with that of Erasmus. Erasmus' text (with annotations; Basel: 1516) has a comma after ‘Iουδαίων, as does the Editio Regia of R. Estienne (Paris, 1550). The Complutensian Polyglot (Alcalá de Henares, 1522?), a much more carefully done work than that of Erasmus, shows no mark of punctuation after ‘Iουδαίων’. On the date of the introduction of commas into Greek manuscripts: Metzger, B. M., Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Greek Palaeography (New York: Oxford University, 1981) 32.Google Scholar

^{page 488 note 1} It is at least twice as long (eight-and-a-half lines of Nestle-Aland²⁶) as the average (not quite four lines) sentence in 1 Thessalonians 2.Cf. Lattey, C. and Burkitt, F. C., ‘The Punctuation of New Testament Manuscripts’, JTS 29 (1927–1928) 396–8.Google Scholar Ancient NT manuscripts sometimes show marks inserted by later hands as an aid to public reading: Sanders, A Third-Century Papyrus Codex, 17. There may well have been a customary break between 1 Thess 2. 14 and 15. The evidence of lectionaries, some perhaps as early as the third century, might be enlightening in this regard. Cf. Metzger, B. M., ‘Greek Lectionaries and a Critical Edition of the Greek New Testament’, in ed. Aland, K., Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare (New York: De Gruyter, 1972) 479–97Google Scholar; and Junack, K., ‘Zu den griechischen Lektionaren und ihrer Überlieferung der katholischen Briefe’Google Scholar, in ibid. 498–591.

^{page 488 note 2} Kenyon, , Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 161.Google Scholar

^{page 488 note 3} Robertson, A. T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman, 1934) 1106.Google Scholar

^{page 488 note 4} Robertson, , A Grammar of the Greek New Testament, 953–62.Google Scholar

^{page 488 note 5} Blass, F., Debrunner, A., and Funk, R. W., A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961) sec. 412.Google Scholar

^{page 488 note 6} Turner, N., Syntax (= vol. 3 of ed. Moulton, J. H., A Grammar of New Testament Greek [Edinburgh: T.& T. Clark, 1963]) 152–3.Google Scholar

^{page 488 note 7} Dana, H. E. and Mantey, J. R., A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament (New York: Macmillan, 1927; repr. 1946) 224–5. Emphases in the original. Cf. n. 1, p. 493 below.Google Scholar

^{page 489 note 1} As examples they give Matt 2. 7 (ήκρίßωσεν τόν χρόνον το ϕαινομένου άστάρος = He ascertained the time of the appearing star) for the attributive; Gal 1. 22 (ἥμην δέ άγνοούμενος τ προσώπῳ ταîς έκκλησίαις = But I was unknown by face to the churches) for the predicate; and Acts 10. 35 (ό ϕοßούμενος αύτόν δεκτός αύτῷ έστιν = The one fearing him is acceptable to him) for the substantive.Google Scholar

^{page 489 note 2} Emphasis added.Google Scholar

^{page 489 note 3} With help from an anonymous reader, I have identified some sixty-eight articular participles: Rom 1. 3,1.4, 1.18, 2.9, 2.10, 2.14, 3. 5, 4.17 (bis), 5.5, 7.23, 9.30, 12.3, 12.6, 13.2, 14.20, 15.15, 16.11, 16.12; 1 Cor 1. 2, 1.4, 2.6, 2.7, 3.10, 8.10, 12. 6, 15.37, 15. 54, 15.57; 2 Cor 1.1 (bis), 1. 4, 1.6, 1.8, 1.9, 1.19, 3.7, 4.6, 5.5, 5.18, 8.1, 8.16, 8.19, 8.20, 11. 31; Gal 1.1, 1.4, 1.11, 1.15, 2.9, 2.20 (bis), 3.21; Phil 1.1, 4.7, 4.17; 1 Thess 1.10 (bis), 2. 4, 2. 12, 2.14, 2.15, 4.5, 4.8, 4.13, 4.17 (bis), 5.10; Phlm none. Non-articular participles: Rom 9.31, 16.1; 1 Cor 6.1; 2 Cor 3.2, 3.3; Gal 4.4 (bis).Google Scholar

^{page 489 note 4} Rom 12.3, 12.6, 15.15; 1 Cor 1.4, 3.10; 2 Cor 8.1; Gal 2.9. Cf. 2 Cor 8.19.Google Scholar

^{page 490 note 1} Blass, , Debrunner, , and Funk, , A Greek Grammar, sec. 254.Google Scholar

^{page 490 note 2} Rom 16.12.Google Scholar

^{page 490 note 3} 2 Cor 1.19; Gal 1.3–4; 1 Thess 1.10 and 5.9–10.Google Scholar

^{page 490 note 4} Moulton, , A Grammar of New Testament Greek, 174Google Scholar; Blass, , Debrunner, , and Funk, , A Greek Grammar, sec. 254.Google Scholar

^{page 490 note 5} I would include in the ‘divine’ group, denoting one of a kind, ‘the peace of God’ in a (liturgical?) passage such as Phil 4. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 490 note 6} Rom 1.18, 2.9, 2.10, 2.14, 7.23, 9.30, 12. 3, 12. 6, 13. 2, 15.15, 16.11; 1 Cor 1.2, 1.4, 3.10, 15.37, 15. 54; 2 Cor 1.1 (bis), 1.8, 8.1, 8.19; 2 Cor 8.20; Gal 1.11, 2.9; Phil 1.1, 4.17; 1 Thess 1.10, 2.14, 4.5, 4.13, 4.17 (bis). (I take the comma before the second clause in 1 Thess 4.17 to be a serial comma before a clause as restrictive as the first one in the series.) Relative clauses were not used to translate the participial phrases, which also seem clearly restrictive, in Rom 14.20, 1 Cor 8.10, and 2 Cor 3.7.Google Scholar

^{page 491 note 1} Cf. the commaless translation of Furnish, V. P. (II Corinthians: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 32A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984]):‘… it is for your comfort which expresses itself in your endurance…’.Google Scholar

^{page 492 note 1} Cf. pp. 499–500 below.Google Scholar

^{page 492 note 2} I do not mean to imply that Paul necessarily had a clearly developed grammatical idea of restrictive versus non-restrictive clauses or phrases. As far as I know, the earliest explicit reference to restrictive clauses is that of Peter of Spain, an almost exact contemporary of Thomas Aquinas, in his Summulae Logicales. The relevant passage is quoted and discussed by Michael, , English Grammatical Categories, 43.Google Scholar

^{page 492 note 3} Gaston, , for instance (Paul and the Torah, 142), translates: ‘God has not repudiated his people, whom he previously chose.’Google Scholar;

^{page 493 note 1} Cf. Moule, C. F. D., An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek (2nd ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1959) 106–7Google Scholar: ‘Note that a key to many uses of the article is the recognition that it often puts a word in apposition with another. Thus, ό βασιλεύς έρχόμενος, (the participle not preceded by the article) means the king as he comes (or came); but ό βασιλεύς ό έρχόμενος means the king — (namely) the coming (one), the king who is coming. The article, by changing the use of the participle from a verbal or adjectival to a substantival one, alters the meaning of the phrase.’ Cf. ibid. 104.

^{page 493 note 2} Granted that the article may be omitted with the names of peoples (cf. n. 4, p. 497 below), there still should be some accommodation to the correlation here of ‘Jews’ with ‘Gentiles’.Google Scholar

^{page 493 note 3} 5.15.1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 494 note 1} Tertullian, , Adversus Marcionem (2 vols., ed. & tr. Evans, E.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1972) 1. xvii.Google Scholar

^{page 494 note 2} Efroymson, D. P., Tertullian's Anti-Judaism and Its Role in His Theology (Ph.D. Diss., Temple University 1976) 218–30Google Scholar. Efroymson notes (p. 218) that although anti-Judaism was not a new phenomenon, it was remarkable in Tertullian for ‘its substantive permeation of so much of his thought’.Cf. also idem, ‘The Patristic Connection’, in ed. Davies, A., Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity (New York: Paulist, 1979) 98–117.Google Scholar

^{page 494 note 3} He thought he knew it well enough to charge Marcion with adding an ‘heretical’ suos to prophetas in his Latin translation — an addition that was made also by the VL, although not by Jerome in the Vg. The VL translator(s), and Marcion, may have been following a text with the variant ίδίους. For Tertullian's knowledge of Greek, cf. Aland, and Aland, , The Text of the New Testament, 182–3:Google Scholar he ‘evidently translated his scripture quotations (even in passages cited from Marcion) directly from Greek, in which he was quite competent, making no use of any manuscripts of the Latin New Testament. Not until Cyprian (about 250 C.E.) is there any evidence of the use of such manuscripts.’ Contra, see Metzger, B., The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Oxford University, 1977) 327–9, with the citations in n. 1, p. 329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

^{page 494 note 4} Barnes, T. D., Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study (2nd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) 215.Google Scholar

^{page 494 note 5} Adversus Marcionem 5. 15. Tertullian says that Paul, in saying qui et dominum interfecerunt et prophetas suos, charged the Jews (or Israel) with slaying their prophets and the Lord.Google Scholar

^{page 495 note 1} On these early Latin versions of the NT: Metzger, , The Early Versions of the New Testament, 285–362Google Scholar, and Aland, and Aland, , The Text of the New Testament, 182–8Google Scholar. The scholarly editions of the VL (ed. Frede, H. J., Epistolae ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum [VL 25.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1975–1982])Google Scholar and the Vg of Jerome (edd. Wordsworth, J. and White, H. J., Nouum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Latine Secundum Editionem Sancti Hieronymi [Oxford: Clarendon, 1889] print 1 Thess 2. 14–16 without punctuationGoogle Scholar. Jerome translated our participial phrase as a iudaeis qui et dominum occiderunt iesum et prophetas. The Clementine Vg (Bibliorum Sacrorum Iuxta Vulgatum Clementinam Nova Editio [Rome: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1951])Google Scholar puts a comma before qui. The VL tradition is more complex, with some but not all strands agreeing with the Vg of Jerome. Frede, opted for the following composite version in his Ein neuer Paulustext und Kommentar (AGLB 8; Freiburg: Herder, 1974)Google Scholar: quia eadem passi estis et vos a contribulationibus vestris. quomodo et ipsi a Iudaeis quia ipsum dominum occiderunt Iesum et prophetas. et nos persecuti sunt … But quia is used regularly to translate ὃτι, as it is at the beginning of the quotation. Using it after Iudaeis gives a Latin meaning that does not correspond to the meaning of Paul's Greek. Of course the quia may be a typographical error for qui.

^{page 495 note 2} Metzger, , The Early Versions of the New Testament, 289: the ‘Pauline Epistles were circulating in a Latin version by AD. 180 …’Google Scholar

^{page 495 note 3} Souter, A. (The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul [Oxford: Clarendon, 1927])Google Scholar discusses Marius Victorinus (with extant commentaries on Galatians, Philippians, and Ephesians), Jerome (extant on Philemon, Galatians, Ephesians, and Titus), Augustine (extant on Romans and Galatians), and Ambrosiaster and Pelagius (both extant on all the Pauline epistles).

^{page 495 note 4} See Fischer, B., ‘Limitations of Latin in Representing Greek’, in Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament, 362–74 = ‘Das Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache’, in ed. Aland, , Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments.Google Scholar

^{page 495 note 5} Simon, M., Verus Israel (New York: Oxford University, 1986) 135–78, 202–33Google Scholar; Reuther, , Faith and Fratricide, 117–82. CfGoogle Scholar also Williams, A. L., Adversus Judaeos: A Bird's-Eye View of Christian Apologiae until the Renaissance (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1935)Google Scholar; and Schreckenberg, H., Die christlichen Adversus-Judaeos-Texte und ihr literarisches und historisches Umfeld (1.–11. Jh.) (European University Studies, Series 23, Theology 172; Frankfurt am Main: P. Lang, 1982)Google Scholar. For the twentieth century especially in German scholarship (but with a chapter on Anglo-American authors), Klein, C., Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978).Google Scholar

^{page 495 note 6} Ed. Vogels, H. J., Ambrosiastri qui dicitur commentarius in epistulas paulinas (CSEL 81; 3 vols.; Vienna: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1966–1969)Google Scholar; ed. Souter, A., Pelagius's Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St Paul (TextsS 9; 3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1922–1931).Google Scholar

^{page 495 note 7} Souter, , The Earliest Latin Commentaries, 61, 214–15.Google Scholar

^{page 496 note 1} Both suggestions come from Morin, Dom G.: Souter, The Earliest Latin Commentaries, 44–8.Google Scholar

^{page 496 note 2} Zahn, T. (Der Brief des Paulus an die Galater [KNT 9; Leipzig: Diechert, 1905] 25Google Scholar) made the assertion, but without substantiation; he was followed by Smith, A. J. (‘The Commentary of Pelagius on “Romans” Compared with That of Origen-Rufinus’, JTS 20 [1918–1919] 127Google Scholar) and Souter, (Pelagius's Expositions, 175, 193–5)Google Scholar. Courcelle, P. (Late Latin Writers and Their Greek Sources [Cambridge: Harvard University, 1969] 145)Google Scholar accepts the conclusion of Chapman, H. J. (‘Pélage et le texte de S. Paul’, RHE 18 [1922] 469–81)Google Scholar, that Pelagius learned Greek only after he had written his commentary on the Pauline epistles. Chapman's argument is vitiated, however, because it was developed from inferior sources. Only in 1922 did Souter begin to publish his definitive text of Pelagius (see n. 6, p. 495 above), based heavily on the two authoritative manuscripts A and B, which were not among those used by Chapman, I assume that Evans, R. F. (Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals [New York: Seabury, 1968] 19–20) was following Chapman and Courcelle when he observed that ‘it is very doubtful that Pelagius either did or could read Origen in the original’.Google Scholar

^{page 496 note 3} Courcelle, , Late Latin Writers, 145Google Scholar; Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 677.Google Scholar

^{page 496 note 4} Ed. Swete, H. B., Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Minor Epistles of St. Paul (2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1880–1882).Google Scholar

^{page 497 note 1} Justin Martyr mentions the killing of‘the just one and before him his prophets’ and of ‘the prophets’ (Dialogus 16.4 and 73.6), but whether he had reference to 1 Thess 2. 14–16 is questionable.Google Scholar

^{page 497 note 2} Cf. Turner, C. H., ‘Greek Patristic Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles’, HDB 5 (1904) 484–531.Google Scholar

^{page 497 note 3} Two references in Comm. in Matthaeum 28 (GCS 38, p. 50); one each in Horn, in Psalmos 5.4 (PG 12.1362), Comm. in Matthaeum 17.23 (GCS 40, p. 647), Comm. in Matthaeum 119 (GCS 38, p. 252), and Fragmenta e catenis in Psalmos (PG 12.1480).Google Scholar

^{page 497 note 4} Ep. ad Iulianum Africanum 23 (PG 11.72A), Fragmenta e catenis in Psalmos (PG 12.1108A), and Comm. in Matthaeum 17.15 (GCS 40, p. 629). The middle citation of the foregoing seems most clearly to be restrictive: περί ‘Iουδαίων τών στανπωσάντων τόν κύπιονφησίν … I admit that the argument is tenuous, because (Blass, , Debrunner, , and Funk, , A Greek Grammar, sec. 262) names for peoples, ‘if they denote the group as a collective whole, do not require the article any more than do personal names’.Google Scholar

^{page 497 note 5} Turner, , ‘Greek Patristic Commentaries’, 490–6.Google Scholar

^{page 497 note 6} Reuther, , Faith and Fratricide, 173.Google ScholarWilliams, (Adversus Judaeos, 132)Google Scholar says that these homilies are for those who love ‘eloquence — and zeal untempered by knowledge’. Simon, (Verus Israel, 217)Google Scholar calls Chrysostom ‘the master of anti-Jewish invective’ who employed ‘such a coarseness of language as to be without parallel’. Cf. Wilken, R. L., John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century (Berkeley: University of California, 1983) 123–7Google Scholar; and Meeks, W. A. and Wilken, R. L., Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era (Sources for Biblical Study 13; Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1978) 25–36, 83–126.Google Scholar

^{page 498 note 1} Cf. Simon, , Verus Israel, 219Google Scholar: ‘The methods by which Chrysostom blackens the Jews are apparent enough. When he is not simply retailing gross and gratuitous slanders, he is taking prophetic condemnations, isolating them completely from the context in which they are recorded and the circumstances in which they were uttered and from which they derive their meaning, and applying them to the present. The texts that speak appreciatively of Israel, in which the Bible abounds, are never called in evidence.’

^{page 498 note 2} De statuis 1.19, Horm, in 2 Cor. 16.2, and Comm. in Gal. 2.10. In Horn, in Mt. 69.1, he begins a quotation in the middle of the sentence, with 1 Thess 2.15. By interrupting and beginning in medias res Chrysostom was anticipating not only Theodore of Mopsuestia's handling of the passage (cf. above, pp. 496–7) but the practice of some modern commentators. For example (but not with an adversus Judaeos intention), Nida, E. A. (A Translator's Handbook on Paul's Letters to the Thessalonians [HeTr 17; Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1975] 41–3) discusses v. 14, then v. 15.Google Scholar

^{page 498 note 3} Frame, , A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 111.Google Scholar

^{page 499 note 1} Recent discussions of the trial of Jesus include Brown, R., The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI (AB 29A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1970) 843–96Google Scholar; Winter, P., On the Trial of Jesus (SJ 1; 2nd ed., rev. Burkill, T. A. and Vermes, G.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Betz, O., ‘Probleme des Prozesses Jesu’, ANRW II.25.1, 565–647Google Scholar; and Sanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 294–318. Cf.Google Scholar also Klein, , Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology, 92–126, 150–5Google Scholar

^{page 499 note 2} Metzger, , A Textual Commentary, 630Google Scholar. A similar textual variant occurs in Matt 13.57 and Mark 1.16: cf. Aland, and Aland, , The Text of the New Testament, 289.Google Scholar

^{page 499 note 3} As in Matt 23.34–37 and Luke 11.49–51, 13.34. Beck, (Mature Christianity, 136–47)Google Scholar, for example, argues that Matthew, by numerous redactional emendations of Markan material, increased the intensity of the anti-Jewish polemic. Cf. the survey of Sandmel, S., Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978) 49–70Google Scholar. On the prophets specifically, see Schoeps, H.-J., Die jüdische Prophetenmorde (Supplementhäften till SEA 2; Uppsala: Wretmans, 1943)Google Scholar; Steck, O. H., Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten: Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung des deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbildes im Alten Testament, Spätjudentum und Urchristentum (WMANT 23; Neukirchen: Neukirchner, 1967), esp. 274–8 on 1 Thess 2. 15–16Google Scholar; and Amaru, B. H., ‘The Killing of the Prophets: Unraveling a Midrash’, HUCA 54 (1983) 153–80.Google Scholar

^{page 499 note 4} Goodwin, W. W., A Greek Grammar (2nd ed., 1894; repr. London: St Martin's, 1977) sec. 949Google Scholar. Paul often used an article where we would use a possessive pronoun: e.g., Rom 3.27, 5.3, 7.2, 8.10, etc. It is not necesary that such an article refer to the subject of the clause: cf. Rom 2.17 and 13.7. Cf. the possible reference (see n. 1, p. 497 above) of Justin Martyr to 1 Thess 2.14–16 in Dialogus 16. 4.

^{page 500 note 1} Rom 11.26. Cf. Refoulé, F., ‘…et ainsi tout Israel sera sauve’: Romains 11,25–32 (LD 117; Paris: Cerf, 1984), and 1 Cor 9.19–23Google Scholar, on which and in general: Sanders, E. P., Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983) 171–210Google Scholar. Also: idem, ‘Paul on the Law, His Opponents, and the Jewish People in Philippians 3 and 2 Corinthians 11’, in edd. Richardson, and Granskou, , Anti-Judaism in Early Christianity, 75–90.Google Scholar; Mussner, F., Tractate on the Jews: The Significance of Judaism for Christian Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 133–54 (note citation of literature in n. 1, pp. 286–7)Google Scholar; Jewett, R., ‘The Law and the Coexistence of Jews and Gentiles in Romans’, Interpretation 39 (1985) 341–56Google Scholar; and Gaston, L., Paul and the Torah, 135–50.Google Scholar

^{page 500 note 2} Best, E., A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: A. & C. Black, 1972) 116. Cf.Google ScholarHare, D. R. A., The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew (SNTSMS 6; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1967) 36, 62–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Malherbe, A. J., Paul and the Thessalonians: The Philosophical Tradition of Pastoral Care (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 47, 62.Google Scholar

^{page 500 note 3} Because the distinction between μή and ού had almost completely disappeared by Paul's time, there is no use in trying to wring some significance from the unclassical μή that negates the participle. Cf. Blass, Debrunner, and Funke, A Greek Grammar, sec. 430.Google Scholar

^{page 500 note 4} Rom 11. 257–32. Paul's charge in 1 Thessalonians, against a limited number of Jews, is not the same as the more inclusive charges made by Apion (Josephus, Contra Apionem 2.121), Tacitus (Historiae 5.5.2; cf., against the Christians, Annales 15.44.5), and Juvenal 14.103–4.Google Scholar

^{page 501 note 1} The commas in 2 Cor 1.3, 5.5, and 11.31, which mark off articular participles that modify θεός, perhaps also should be omitted.Google Scholar

^{page 502 note 1} The ‘supersessionistic’ and ‘defamatory’ polemic of Beck, Mature Christianity.Google Scholar

^{page 502 note 2} This paper was begun at Yeshiva University in 1987 at a Summer Seminar of the National Endowment for the Humanities, directed by Feldman, Louis, whose advice and guidance were enormously beneficial. I have been fortunate also in garnering substantial criticism from Moule, C. F. D., Murphy, James, Preuss, Richard, Sinnigen, William, and Smith, Morton. I have profited as well from the comments of Daube, David, Davies, W. D., Gager, John, Gaston, Lloyd, Jewett, Robert, Pearson, Birger, and Sanders, Ed, who saw an earlier draft. I wish to thank them all sincerely, without implying that they agree with my argument or conclusions.Google Scholar