1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 as an Interpolation

With respect to this specific interpolation, required reading remains that argues for it being an interpolation:

• Birger Pearson, “1 Thessalonians 2.13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation,” Harvard Theological Review 64 (1971), pp. 79-94 (reproduced in Pearson’s The Emergence of the Christian Religion). https://www.jstor.org/stable/1508972?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=I%20Thessalonians%202.%2013%E2%80%9316&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3DI%2BThessalonians%2B2.%2B13%25E2%2580%259316&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_SYC-5187_SYC-5188%2F5188&refreqid=fastly-default%3Ae664fb9724fd5677a182a48cb8684562&seq=1

• G.E. Okeke, “1 Thessalonians 2.13-16: The Fate of the Unbelieving Jews,” New Testament Studies 27.1 (1980), pp. 127-36. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/new-testament-studies/article/abs/i-thessalonians-2-1316-the-fate-of-the-unbelieving-jews/31376A5F5F7C425CE13B7A25EB2B250A

• Daryl Schmidt, “1 Thess 2:13-16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation,” Journal of Biblical Literature 102.2 (1983), pp. 269-79. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3261163?seq=1

• Earl Richard, First and Second Thessalonians (Liturgical Press, 1995), pp. 123-27. https://www.amazon.com/First-Second-Thessalonians-Richard-April/dp/B01B98TPCK/?ie=UTF8&tag=richardcarrier-20

Minor Arguments

Many of the arguments for and against this interpolation angle around whether this digression “fits” where it has been placed in this letter. I think it definitely looks awkward where it is. For example, in 1 Thess. 2 (which simply expands on 1 Thess. 1), Paul starts by talking about his worries that the Thessalonians have strayed from the faith and soured on him, and ends by delighting in finding out they haven’t—leaving no truly coherent place for him to insert this anti-semitic rage-post in between, referencing a supposed pagan persecution in Thessalonica he never elsewhere even mentions or consoles them over.

Likewise, there are parallels between 1 Thess. 1 and 1 Thess. 2, yet the remarkable event (and its feared or actual effects) that our doubted passage purports is wholly absent even by allusion in 1 Thess. 1. No recent pagan persecution comes up there, as even a thing to console them over or respond to; not even where logically it should be mentioned: in 1:6-10, when Paul refers to their suffering, he describes only something they were struggling with before Paul converted them, which they overcame by accepting his mission in the first place; he does not describe or mention any subsequent persecution.

These positional facts do indeed pose problems for authenticity. As do some others (though with weaker force) that have been noted in the literature. Yes, I can contrive reasons why Paul “might” do things like this, so the position of these sentences in the text does not carry too much weight. But that I have to contrive excuses to get this outcome still entails reducing the probability of authenticity. Because to get the evidence to be likely, I have to assume facts not in evidence (about the surrounding events and Paul’s desires, beliefs, and intentions); and facts without evidence do not typically have a very high probability of being true (usually, at best, it’s 50/50 that any conjecture we contrive is true), so the overall improbability of such assumptions commutes to the probability of authenticity altogether. This is the problem with making excuses to “force” evidence to fit a theory. Here the excuses we can imagine are not too improbable; but they aren’t 100% certain, either. So this all should weigh at least slightly against authenticity; but to argue a fortiori I’ll mostly ignore this (though I shouldn’t).
Though there are some such oddities in verses 14-to-16 (summarized by Schmidt), they are not glaring enough to be conclusive (as outlined by Still). Just look at the stylistic and grammatical oddities in the so-called “Long Ending of Mark” for a contrasting example (I thoroughly survey that point in Chapter 16 of Hitler Homer Bible Christ). Even so, that these kinds of deviations from normal Pauline practice would exist is 100% expected on the theory of “interpolation,” but requires a stack of “excuses” to explain away on the theory of “authenticity,” none of which (much less all of which) are 100% certain, so this evidence is unavoidably less likely on the theory of authenticity (a fact apologists gloss over, ever-confusing “possible” explanations with “probable” explanations of inconvenient evidence). Nevertheless, although this does count against authenticity (see Neil Godfrey’s summary).
1 Thess. 2:14-16 was forged using 2 Thess. 2 as a model, not the other way around—indeed, possibly even by the forger of 2 Thessalonians, although we have no need of that hypothesis. The assembler of the late-second-century anti-Marcionite NT, or even Marcion himself in assembling his earlier NT, may have simply pulled 1 Thess. and 2 Thess. together intending to pass them both off as authentic, and then composed and inserted 1 Thess. 2:14-16, duly inspired by the language of 2 Thessalonians. Since we can’t tell either way, and we cannot base any argument on what we don’t know, there is simply no argument here for the authenticity of these verses.
Another problem is that elsewhere Paul says the authorities (which would have to mean Jewish and Roman) do not but do God’s will (Romans 13), and that the killing of Jesus was God’s will, not something to be condemned for—in fact, Paul says the enemies of God (even the killers of Jesus) would have prevented the killing of Jesus had they known what effects it would have on the universe (1 Corinthians 2:6-8). From even before Paul the Christian credo was to rejoice that Jesus was killed, not condemn it (Philippians 2:8-11; 1 Corinthians 15:1-3; Romans 3:25). Paul’s thinking in either case does not cohere with a “damn the Jews” sentiment; and such contradictions are always improbable.
Finally, it is also peculiar that this passage makes no mention of Romans being involved in the execution of Jesus, or even the persecution of Christians anywhere—despite this all supposedly being about a Roman (i.e. pagan) persecution of the Thessalonians. Instead, the attack, and the blame, and the vitriol—even the very wrath of God—is entirely thrown at “the Jews” (Ioudaiôn) here. This is a peculiarly late Christian notion, of throwing the Jews under the bus and downplaying the role of the Roman police state in actually (or at least supposedly, if we are to believe the Gospels’ storyline) killing Jesus.

1. The Major Arguments

• Paul never blames the Jews for the death of Jesus elsewhere, despite repeated opportunities to, as well as a repeated need to. Such as when he is trying to dissuade Gentile Christians from their hostility toward Jews and explain God’s plan for them throughout Romans 3, 9-10, and 15; or when he says God forgave the Jews even after they killed former prophets, where we find exactly the opposite sentiment than is voiced in 1 Thess. 2:14-16. It is therefore improbable that Paul would say the opposite here, where it isn’t even rhetorically relevant to the argument he is making in 1 Thess. 1-2.
• Paul also never talks about the Jews as if he wasn’t one of them (cf. Galatians 2:15; 1 Corinthians 9:20; Romans 9:1-5, 11:1; Philippians 3:4-5) and to the very end of his career he preached the Jews will be saved, not damned (Romans 11:1 and 11:26; cf. 11:25-28). It is therefore extremely improbable that he would say exactly the opposite here.
• Paul never talks about God’s wrath as having come, but as coming only at the future judgment (e.g. in Romans 2:5, 3:5-6, 4:14-16; even—most relevantly of all— in 1 Thessalonians 1:10 and 5:3 and 5:9; cf. also 1 Corinthians 5:5, Galatians 6:8, Philippians 3:19). It is therefore improbable that Paul would say anything differently here.
• Paul consistently teaches the Jews will be saved, not “destroyed” by God’s wrath (e.g. Romans 11:25-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 1:24, 9:20, 10:32, 12:13; and Galatians 2:17). It is therefore improbable he would say exactly the opposite here.
• Paul was dead by the time the “wrath had come upon them to the uttermost,” a phrase that can only mean the destruction of the Jewish nation, capitol, and temple in 70 A.D.
• And not only does Paul never speak of the Jews as if he wasn’t one of them, Paul even acknowledged Jews as members of his own church, and as salvageable targets of conversion thereto, so he couldn’t have damned them as a group like this, and never does (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:24, 12:13; 2 Corinthians 11:22 and 11:26; Romans 9:24, 10:12, 11:25-28).
• Yes, Paul criticizes Jews a lot, as he also does Gentiles, and expects many of both groups will be damned for their sins; but that is in no way evidence that he damned them all to destruction for the supposed crime of having killed Jesus.