In these next two sections, Doherty appeals to the idea that two specific verses or sets of verses are interpolations. It is worthwhile to take a quick look back at some relevant general data.

To charge that any selection is a late interpolation is quite serious. Textual critics will seldom, if ever, identify any selection as an interpolation without hard, textual evidence - e.g., a manuscript of early enough provenance without the text in question. This is especially important in the letters of Paul, for as we have noted here, the literary conventions of the day would suggest that Paul himself was the first to collect his letters. Custom further dictated that Paul would make a copy of any letter he sent for his own personal reference - a safeguard not only against loss of the letter in transit, but also a guarantee that he possessed an authoritative copy, should any misfit church decide to make their own changes to the text.

Now of course some person may well have made changes in the text of Paul's letters; but such a person could not by any means take the whole of the textual tradition under his influence. Only Paul himself, with the authoritative collection he had assembled of his own works, had any chance of doing that. It is quite nearly impossible that someone or some group could insert new material and at the same time wipe out all contrary textual witnesses. (Although this may not stop some from making rampant speculations about various widespread conspiracies - charges which, being unreasonable, have no reasonable answer.)

It is therefore, ultimately, the only true test of interpolation that hard, manuscript evidence be found in favor. All other considerations, if they are to overcome this lack of data at all, must do so in strong cooperation.

So now to our texts. Our verse set of concern is 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16:

For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

This passage, we are told, contains an "obvious interpolation" in verses 15-16. Now it is true that there is (or has been) some scholarly support for this quaint notion, and several reasons have been offered. Doherty, however, deals with only two of these reasons, and that is as far as we shall pursue the matter as well. (For an overview of all of the arguments in favor of interpolation, and the answers to them, see Schu.1Th2.)

The first reason appealed to is that this passage, referring to the wrath of God coming on the Jews as last, contains "an unmistakable allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in verse 16, an event which happened after Paul's death." One suggests that this is rather a strained interpretation to begin with, but let us take the objection seriously for a moment. Is there any reason to see this verse as referring to the destruction of Jerusalem?

Several suggestions have been tendered as to what Paul refers to here. Some have suggested, as Doherty notes, the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by Claudius. Doherty rejects this suggestion, however, saying that this "gleeful, apocalyptic statement is hardly to be applied to a local event which the Thessalonians may or may not have been aware of several years later." He adds that, since verse 14 refers to persecution by Jews in Judea, "Offering a local event in Rome as a punishment for either crime (i.e., the persecution or the Crucifixion) seems somehow inappropriate." Finally, Doherty adds a bit of sauce by alluding to assertions by Hare and Pearson that "question whether any such persecutions of Christians took place prior to 70" A.D., which would support the idea of an interpolator who did not know he was being anachronistic.

This set of arguments requires several responses:

• First, we see here a splendid example of how Doherty has not interacted with arguments on all sides. The assertions of Hare and Pearson that there was perhaps no persecution of Christians by Jews prior to 70 is widely disputed. Indeed, it is countered by the evidence of Paul himself, who admits in his own letters that he was once a persecutor of Christian churches! As Schlueter notes, quoting Sanders: "The best-attested fact (for such persecution) is that Paul himself carried out such persecution." [Schu.1Th2, 47]

  Hare and Pearson have correctly counteracted the notion that persecution of the church was always of the same sort as highlighted in Acts - i.e., Stephen's martyrdom was an unusual case, rather than the rule. (As Acts itself, with a careful reading, tells us: For Luke indicates that there were extended periods of peace for the church as well! - cf. Acts 9:31.) Their arguments do NOT, however, support the idea that there was no persecution at all; the testimony of Paul of his own actions (cf. Gal. 1:13, Phil 3:6, referring to his "zeal" in persecuting the church), the persecution he himself suffered after his conversion (cf. 1 Cor. 4:12; 2 Cor. 11:24, 12:10), and the reference to the death of James found in Josephus, by themselves are sufficient evidence of the church's early difficulties at the hands of their Jewish brethren. But it would be correct to say that the overwhelming majority of the persecutions were of a much lesser nature than the stoning of Stephen. (Admittedly, this could result in one saying that the persecutions were no big deal for Paul to fuss about - but tell that to Paul and the Thessalonians! Don't judge the easy fit of someone else's shoes until you've worn them yourself!!!)

• Re a "gleeful, apocalyptic statement" - The former is simply Doherty reading his own emotive values into the text; the tone within the context of the letter, as we shall see, offers an entirely different interpretation. However, let us grant the "gleeful" interpretation for the sake of further argument.

  What event, first, is Paul referring to? It may indeed be the Claudian expulsion; despite Doherty's assertion, this was hardly a "local" event, since the Jews in question undoubtedly scattered to the four winds. (Priscilla and Aquila, after all, went as far as Corinth!) Some indeed may have settled in Thessalonica, and the disgrace associated with being a member of a group expelled from Rome may well have had repercussion on Jews throughout the Empire - just as surely as oppressed African-Americans throughout our own nation "felt the sting" in a variety of ways in the aftermath of riots and inhumane police actions in the South.

  The key, however, is that in an apocalyptic/eschatological context, ANY event of any sort that caused harm to the Jews would or could be seen by Paul as a demonstration of God's final wrath, and critics in modern times simply fail to see this. Schlueter, referring to Jewett [Schu.1Th2, 106], notes the expectation of the parousia in 1 Thessalonians (1:10, 3:13, 4:15, 5:2, 5:23) and writes:

  ...(G)roups which expect an imminent end to the age and various catastrophes to signal that impending event, would interpret any fateful happening, however small, as part of the beginning of the end.

  Jewett [Jewe.Ths, 37] adds that there is, in the argument to see a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem:

  ...an unmistakable quality of retrospection...From the perspective of those who know about the Jewish-Roman War, it is surely the most appropriate choice. But to someone who lived before that catastrophe, several of the other events could easily have appeared to be a final form of divine wrath.

  Let us use two examples to further clarify the matter. Suppose that the eschatologically-oriented Essenes learned of a Roman military disaster in Germania which caused the loss of several legions. This would be a "local" event, and would not be connected to any event local to the Essenes; on the other hand, they would undoubtedly report it with glee. Would they not have seen such an event, disconnected as it logically was to their own situation, as an example of the "final wrath" of God on the hated Romans?

  To use a more modern and extreme example: Suppose that during the Branch Davidian siege, an FBI office in Bangor, Maine had collapsed and killed several agents. Need we point out that the Davidians would have gleefully cited this as evidence that God was displeased with the FBI and was dispensing His final wrath upon it?

  Thus, we may suggest, the Claudian expulsion; a riot/massacre referred to by Josephus in 48 AD in which 20,000-30,000 Jews were massacred; a famine particularly afflicting Judea - any one of these or a combination thereof, or any given event of some seriousness, may have been thought of as the beginning of the "final" wrath upon the Jewish persecutors from Paul's perspective. Paul may have even been speaking proleptically of the wrath he knew was coming due to the rejection of Jesus, without having an event in mind! [WillD.12Thess, 48; cf. Rom. 1:18] To see in this citation a reference to the destruction of Jerusalem is a wish fathering a thought.

We move now to the second objection tendered by Doherty against this passage: "It does not concur with what Paul elsewhere says about his fellow countrymen, whom he expects will in the end by converted to Christ."

Such objections as these I would think are familiar to my readers: They are simply the old "cardboard cutout" theory of human personality! Is it to be supposed that Paul never got angry, even at his countrymen? As Jewett remarks, "only those desiring a sanitized picture of Paul and the early church" could accept this argument. [Jewe.Ths, 39] And Williams [WillD.12Thess, 47] adds: "A frank recognition of guilt does not preclude love for the guilty."

To put this in perspective: Romans was written some 7-10 years after 1 Thessalonians, according to the general dating schema. Even if Paul's sentiments in these letters are so incompatible as to be impossible to be held at the same time - and we would say that they are not - does it not occur to critics that Paul is a human being who was capable of having "second thoughts" on a subject? At the time 1 Thessalonians was written, it appears that Paul had reason to be angry at the Jewish establishment: Acts reports that he had been chased out of several cities by Jewish persecutors; 1 Thess. 3:3 notes that other trials were taking place. Is it not possible that Paul here is "venting" his frustrations? Would such venting preclude the love he has for his countrymen as displayed in Romans 11? Is it not possible that Paul is experiencing some "cognitive dissonance" as he wrestles with the multi-fold problem of the persecution of the Thessalonian church, the need to bond with the Thessalonian community and give it support, and his own troubled feelings regarding his personal, incomplete break with traditional Judaism? Anyone who says "no" simply lacks insight into the complex and dynamic motivations of human personality. Conflicted feelings, changes in attitude, are part of our everyday life, and Paul was no exception, not even as an apostle of the Lord.

This alone is enough to validate our passage, but we can get into more detail:

• We may add that Paul's condemnations here are no more serious or "hateful" than that found regularly in other Jewish or Greco-Roman writings. Condemnations of Jews killing the prophets, as Doherty admits, are found in works penned by Jews (cf. 1 Kings 19:10; Neh. 9: 26; Jer. 2:30), even if he denies (without any justification given) that the condemnations have any historical basis. (Paul here, however, clearly "follows a rhetorical tradition of exaggeration," a subject we shall embark upon momentarily. - Schu.1Th2, 66)

  The charge of the Jews as "hostile to all men" is used by Tacitus, Juvenal, and Apion - and is not surprising in Paul's mouth, in light of his confrontation with Peter in Antioch. The association of a small segment of contemporary Jewish persecutors with past Jewish persecutors is found elsewhere in the NT (cf. Acts 7:52a; Luke 13:34//Mt. 23:37). Weatherly points out [Weath.Au1Th2, 89]: "One need not look far in Jewish sectarian literature to find examples of Jewish groups that excluded opponents from the benefits of the covenant." Johnson [JohnLT.AP] offers a comprehensive study of Jewish "slander" written by Jews, to Jews. Scott [Sct.PUDT] demonstrates that Paul's "slander" directly parallels condemnations offered in the Deuteronomic tradition of the Old Testament. There is simply no reason why Paul, as a Jew, could not have written these verses against his countrymen, Romans 11 notwithstanding. The point is that all of these descriptions are instances of rhetorical hyperbole that exaggerate kernels of truth in order to make a point - and such descriptions are found in literature throughout the Greco-Roman and Jewish world, as we allude to in our next point below.

• Finally, we refer our reader to the thorough study of Schlueter [Schu.1Th2], who has demonstrated that a) Paul's words here are perfectly in line with Greco-Roman and Jewish hyperbolic/polemical conventions of the day; b) Paul made use of such polemic on very specific occasions that were similar in urgency to the Thessalonian situation. Let's take a closer look at this evidence.

  What evidence is there that Paul made use of polemic/hyperbole? Well, let's have a look at some choice selections:

  2 Cor. 11:13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, masquerading as apostles of Christ.

  Gal. 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified.

  Gal. 5:12 As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

  (Hint: Look up "emasculate" in the dictionary - this is NOT a pleasant wish for someone!)

  Phil. 3:2 Watch out for those dogs, those men who do evil, those mutilators of the flesh.

  Throughout these "attacks" Paul is clearly following both Jewish and Greco-Roman methods of polemical exaggeration, as elucidated by such Greco-Roman instructors in polemic as Quintillian. 2 Cor. 11:3 and Phil. 3:2 above, for example, exemplify the tactic of "accumulation" - piling up words for effect - as does our Thessalonians passage.

  But would Paul use such polemic even against his own countrymen? Well, if he calls his brothers in Christ, the Galatians, "foolish" and refers to fellow apostles as "false" and wishes emasculation upon them, then where could there be an objection to his language in Thessalonians towards the Jews, especially as much as it is similar to condemnation ALREADY made against the Jewish people in their own sacred writings? Not only so, there should be no objection to Paul seemingly "contradicting" himself in Romans, for as Schlueter notes [Schu.1Th2, 126]:

  The reader of Paul's letters can identify many passages in which he used extreme language which, on some other occasion, he might modify or even retract.

  ...we can readily find another context in which he takes a more moderate position on the same topic.

  As an example, consider these verses in Gal. 1:8-9 -

  But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

  Paul sounds like one mightily peeved individual here! But consider this sentiment from Romans 12:14 -

  Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.

  Whoops! It seems here that emotional consistency was "not a virtue" of Paul's after all. But keeping in mind the purpose of Galatians - as an "article of defense" for his own apostleship - it is not surprising here to find Paul dipping into the polemical well just a bit. Indeed, it is precisely the sort of nuanced reading that knowledge of polemical tactics allows that helps us understand why Paul wrote the way he did in 1 Thessalonians.

  Consider the nature of the Thessalonian problem: At this time of trial Paul must show unity with his beloved church, and he who said that he "became all things to all men" would certainly use every resource at his disposal to their benefit. Schlueter [Schu.1Th2, 112] sums up the picture nicely:

  ...(T)he symmetry of Paul's statements, the urgency of the current opposition the Thessalonians were facing, and the eschatological nature of the letter would induce readers to assent to the climax of the passage. To gather such assent seems to denigrate the opponents and to lead to the identification of the readers as among the suffering righteous.

  Thus, Paul intends to encourage his congregation by identifying them with himself and the righteous prophets, the churches in Judea, and the Lord Jesus, who were killed and persecuted by hostiles of the same affiliation (and this, we may add, perfectly in line with the "group orientation" of the ancient world, within which the Pharisees can on the one hand warn Jesus of Herod's intentions, while also ideologically opposing him - the enemy of their enemy was their friend). It is his way of saying: I empathize. And it is in precisely such "hardship" situations that Paul resorts to polemical language [Schu.1Th2, 164]: The defense of his apostleship in Galatians; the problem of the "false apostles" in Corinthians; the persecution of the Thessalonians; his use of "bipolar" language that drops out any possibility of middle ground, in several places (1 Thess. 5:5; 2 Cor. 11:23; Gal. 4:31; Phil. 3:15; Rom. 6:16-18, 9:22-3). Rather than being unusual for Paul, his statements in 1 Thess. 2 are actually reflective of his normal modus operandi, showing Paul to be a child both of the Judaism and the educated Greco-Roman literary conventions of his day. There is simply no grounds to deny him these verses.

• Added note: In addition, I now would maintain that there is greater reason to see these verses as authentic, as they make sense of an issue related to Pauline eschatology.

A final objection from Doherty is of the general sort he will make later; we include it here because of its relevance to our verse in question:

We might also note that in Romans 11, within a passage in which he speaks of the guilt of the Jews for failing to heed the message about the Christ, Paul refers to Elijah's words in 1 Kings, about the (unfounded) accusation that the Jews have habitually killed the prophets sent from God. Here Paul breathes not a whisper about any responsibility on the part of the Jews for the ultimate atrocity of the killing of the Son of God himself. This would be an inconceivable silence if the passage in 1 Thessalonians were genuine and the basis of the accusation true.

Here is an example of how Doherty assumes that what he finds "inconceivable" must automatically be inconceivable for all other readers! Is Doherty the benchmark for all literary expectations? But we need not even go that far: There is no place in Romans 11 for a reference to the killing of Jesus, for the point of the passage is not, as Doherty asserts, the guilt of the Jews for not heeding the message of Christ, but rather that there is indeed a remnant who will heed the message:

I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don't you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah--how he appealed to God against Israel: "Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me"? And what was God's answer to him? "I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal." So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.

There is obviously no room for a reference to Jewish guilt concerning Jesus in this chapter - the thrust of the passage is in precisely the opposite direction!

To close out this section, we shall now, just for kicks, apply to this passage Robert Price's tests for determining if a passage is an interpolation. (See here.)

1. Textual evidence. Doherty admits that there is no hard, textual evidence for this passage being an interpolation. In response Doherty again resorts to the opinion of "many scholars" who say that the Pauline corpus was first assembled in Marcion's time, so that there was time for an interpolation to be added. This assertion is decisively against the evidence (see link above), and at any rate, has little to do with the textual tradition of 1 Thessalonians itself. Record: 0-1.
2. Ideological disparities. Doherty believes that there is evidence of this; we have shown that there is not. Record: 0-2.
3. Stylistic/linguistic differences. This is an argument that is used by others who favor interpolation, including one of Doherty's recorded sources, Pearson. Doherty himself does not appeal to this argument, but answers to it may be found in the sources we have referenced. Record: 0-3.
4. Incongruity of passage in context. This argument has not been made by any critic that I have found, although it may be intertwined with the objections recorded under item 2 above. Record: 0-4.
5. Dependence on later literature/historical context. (Two tests combined.) Doherty alludes to the idea that this passage reflects later anti-Judiasm, and the appeal to the destruction of Jerusalem may come in here. We have shown that these arguments fail: It is just as "anti-Judaic" as contemporary polemic of that type - and certain passages in the OT! Record: 0-6.
6. External attestation. If the passage is found in literature dated shortly thereafter, then the chances of it being an interpolation are much slimmer. Here there is no evidence for the specific passage in the nearest time period, but obviously this does not qualify as a "win" for Doherty since this argument builds upon the others.Record: 0-7.
7. Textual variations. I have noted no argument on this issue in either direction, and so will consider this not proven. Record: 0-8.
8. Explanation for the interpolation. Although not directly offered as an explanation, Doherty alludes to anti-Semitism as a reason for the interpolation. As we have seen, this is not a viable interpretation. Record, and final score: 0-9.

Therefore, by the standards of textual criticism, Doherty's argument for interpolation fails, and our pillar remains standing. We move now to our third pillar, which contains one of the most clear and informative references to the death of Jesus in the epistlatory corpus.

|

Auto-Pilate, Redux

Our verse of concern is 1 Timothy 6:13-15 -

In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, which God will bring about in his own time--God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords...

The reference to Jesus before Pilate is a gorilla of tremendous proportions for Doherty to deal with, and it is no surprise to find him turning every available gun on it - indeed, devoting a special appendix to this verse.

Now naturally, Doherty does not believe that the Pastorals were authored by Paul, and he alludes to all of the same old arguments that we have dealt with in here: Vocabulary, teachings, church organization, lack of inclusion in P46, etc. He does not explicate upon these arguments, nor does he deal with counter-objections - and I would not expect him to do so. Of course, he could no doubt argue for interpolation of our specific verse anyway.

Let us get to the arguments in this regard. We must begin with an extended citation of Doherty:

Timothy's confession of faith before many witnesses (verse 12) is interpreted as referring to one of two possible occasions: either the baptismal ceremony upon his conversion to the faith, or his ordination as a minister. Scholars usually choose the former, since baptism is the more likely event at which one is "called to eternal life". The sacrament was publicly administered before the congregation, providing the "many witnesses" referred to. Timothy is confessing his faith before God and fellow Christians. The content of that statement of faith no doubt had to do with a belief in Christ.

This is a possible explanation, but another is possible, as we shall see shortly.

The way the reference to Pilate is introduced into the text shows that it is intended as a parallel to Timothy's confession in the previous sentence. But there is much which scholars find to fuss over in this assumption. Jesus' situation on trial before Pilate is hardly the same as Timothy's at his baptism. Timothy's confession is before God and friendly witnesses; Jesus' is not, and it puts Pilate in parallel to God, which is at best inappropriate, at worst irreverent. Jesus' declaration before Pilate is presumably a statement about himself, which is an awkward equivalent to the believer's declaration of faith in Jesus. With all of these difficult features in such a comparison, what would have led the original writer even to think of making it?

Commentators discount the possibility that the occasion of Timothy's confession was before a magistrate, when he might have been on trial for his Christian beliefs. No such event, from which the writer could have drawn, appears in the genuine Pauline letters. Besides, such a trial would hardly be called a summons to eternal life. However, some who suggest that the phrase in 6:13 looks suspicious have considered the possibility that a later scribe may have misinterpreted things in this way.

Doherty goes on to offer an explanation for this supposed interpolation, but there is really no need to consider it, for he is off the beam well enough as is:

• Re the comparison of Pilate/God being "at best inappropriate, at worst irreverent" - I fear here that Doherty shows himself to be both a poor reader as well as analogically-challenged: The analogy would be Timothy/Jesus and the witnesses/Pilate, not Pilate/God. God enters the equation not as someone before whom Timothy made a confession, but as someone Paul charges Timothy before. Paul is not saying that the nature or circumstances of Tim's confession is to be exactly paralleled with Jesus'. (Indeed, how could anyone's confession exactly match that of Jesus before Pilate?) The basic thought is this: "`Just as Jesus testified to the truth, so you, Timothy, are charged to testify to the truth as well.'' Doherty is trying to force Paul into making an exact comparison in order that he can shoot down a straw man. The point of the passage, ultimately, is a public confession of import, and as we shall see in a moment, the consequences of that profession were rather far-reaching.
• This relates to the comment re a confession before a magistrate. This possibility can hardly be ruled out on the grounds offered by Doherty:
  1. That no such event is recorded in the Pauline letters means nothing. Is it to be supposed that every event in the life of Timothy, and every significant test of faith he had, is recorded therein? How much are we to demand from these minimal Pauline windows onto the lives of others? Can we reconstruct anybody's life accurately based on doctrinal and admonitional letters? It is foolhardy and arrogant to think so.
  2. Re "a summons to eternal life" - actually, considering that such a confession before a magistrate might well lead to execution, as it eventually did for Paul, there is every possibility that admitting to being a Christian would end up being a "summons" to eternal life! Doherty here, as elsewhere, simply fails to take into account the Roman attitude towards Christianity as a highly subversive superstition. (More on this particular in a later chapter.)

It has also been pointed out that in the account of the trial before Pilate in the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus barely says anything, maintaining a stoic silence. His simple agreement, "It is as you say," in answer to the question "Are you the king of the Jews?", is hardly a "noble confession" to inspire such a comment as we find in 1 Timothy 6:13.

From here, Doherty goes on to speculate that John's extended speeches by Jesus are the source of this "noble confession" idea, but we need not look beyond his simple category error above. Nobility lies not in the simplicity of the agreement, but in the content: In agreeing to the charge that he was the King of the Jews, Jesus was, in Roman eyes, admitting guilt to a capital crime - sedition! This made death virtually certain for Jesus, just as much as it made it a distinct possibility for Timothy - wherever and before whomever his confession took place! (I'd like to see Doherty tell Jesus to his face that his was not a "noble confession"!)

We are then treated to this rather amusing misreading:

Moreover, only a few verses later (6:16), when speaking of God, the epistle makes this sweeping statement: "No man has ever seen or ever can see him." If the man Jesus of Nazareth had recently been on earth, the one he has just placed before Pilate, a man who had in fact seen and come from God, I hardly think the writer could have said such a thing.

If Doherty were reading the text carefully and in cultural/theological context, I hardly think he would make such absurd statements: As Jesus is identified as the Lord and Christ, not merely a man, this verse hardly includes him under the rubric of men who cannot see the immortal God. (Even then, we should note the tension in the OT between the advisement that one "cannot see God and live" and the fact that several OT figures - Moses, Jacob, etc. - wrestled with the apparent contradiction of having "seen" God themselves. This particular dichotomy obviously refers to something that transcends literal human sensibilities, and thus this verse, while polemically and factually true, does allow for special "exceptions" in terms of the OT background. God did appear before human men in various theophanies; however, that is quite a different thing than God revealing Himself in all of His glory, the "light which no man can approach''. Doherty is blurring the basic distinction here. )

Piling speculation upon speculation, a final appeal for interpolation is made by reference to another possible interpolation, to wit:

The possibility of interpolation is supported by something suspicious which occurs a few verses earlier. In six places in the Pastoral letters the writer uses a phrase like "wholesome teaching". In five of these, there is no indication where such teaching comes from; in fact, the first time the phrase appears, in 1 Timothy 1:10, the writer (speaking as Paul) says that such teaching "conforms with the gospel entrusted to me, the gospel which tells of the glory of God." This pointedly ignores any identification of Jesus as the source of such teaching.

By way of remarks, before we go to more substantial aspects of the case:

• Even granting this argument, it is hardly a hallmark of textual criticism that an interpolation in one place supports the notion that there is an interpolation in another place, no matter how close they are!
• Re the use of the "wholesome/sound teaching" phrases - let's have a look. 1:10 is an example of what we alluded to elsewhere: God as the primary source; Jesus as the Word of God, His mouthpiece. Not even Jesus took credit for the content of his own teaching, but identified the Father as his source, as is quite clear within the Jewish context of the Father-Son relationship.

  Three of the instances (2 Tim. 4:3, Tit. 1:9, 2:1) indicate in context references to teaching of church leaders, so that we cannot ascertain with certainty that Jesus could be credited as the source of the teaching. I cannot say where the last of Doherty's six references is, as he has not had the courtesy to provide cites; perhaps he means 1 Tim. 4:16, which clearly indicates Timothy's own personal views and doctrinal standpoints, but there are a few other phrases that might qualify. Nevertheless, even if there were cites Doherty could trace in this regard, there is hardly any reason here to suppose interpolation, unless one has a theory to adhere to that requires it. (Is Paul limited to using the same phrasing in similar situations?)

With that, a linguistic appeal is made regarding 6:3 -

The phrase "those of our Lord Jesus Christ" (tois tou kuriou hemon Iesou Christou) bears the marks of a scribal notation originally made in the margin which later got inserted into the text. (This was a common occurrence in the transmission of ancient manuscripts.) If it were part of the original writer's text, the word "those" (tois) would have been redundant and would not likely have been written. Rather, it conveys the impression of an afterthought. It also seems carelessly done, because the insertion fails to cover the succeeding phrase, "and with pious teaching," which should surely have been identified with Jesus as well. On the basis of these observations some scholars, such as J. N. D. Kelly (The Pastoral Epistles, p.113), opt for interpolation.

Well, I daresay that ANY digressive phrase could be said to "bear the marks of a scribal notation," so this hardly means anything. At the same time, one might ask whether Paul himself could not have added afterthoughts of his own! As for the alleged carelessness, we should recall that Paul throughout the Pastorals has a specific concern for correct teaching and doctrine within the church. The phrase has no intent of covering the "pious teaching" aspect, because Paul is talking about two different things: The teaching of Jesus, and the teaching of the church. (As an added note, Doherty points out that even if 6:3 is NOT an interpolation, it could still fit his theory, since "it need imply no more than that the 'teaching' is considered to be revealed through the spiritual Christ" that he supposes Paul believes in! Since Doherty will repeatedly complain that Paul and others nowhere identify Jesus as a teacher, it seems rather odd that he here posits an explanation that would remove the effect of any such references anyway!!!)

But what of the Greek itself? It is true that the dative plural article tois appears in a non-standard position here; on the other hand, it is not necessary that it be translated those as the Greek article is quite highly idiomatic in its usage. It could very well be that the article is for emphasis; perhaps any tight English translation will not be able to bring this emphasis out. And of course, even if this IS an instance of poor writing - which we do not consent - Paul was no more immune to bad grammar or construction than any other human being, yours truly included!

In any event, though Kelly is a sober scholar worthy of attention, he does NOT, as Doherty asserts, "opt for interpolation" [Kell.PE, 133-4] - he DOES assert that a lack of a definite article in the verse requires a broader interpretation, that regards the teaching referred to as Christian teaching as whole rather than the specific teaching of Jesus; but he does not suggest interpolation at all! Has Doherty misunderstood Kelly here, or is he simply trying to shore up a non-consensus opinion with ghostly citations? (He does go on to claim in a response to this article that he misunderstood his notes.)

The text is evidence, and in that regard, the evidence is clear. There is no attestation against this verse. Furthermore, with due respect to Doherty's alleged proficiency in the Greek language, a check of four Greek grammar texts - including three that are universally referenced, particularly A.T. Robertson's A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research - say nothing about tois in this verse; and I daresay that if there was something unusual in the structure of this verse, one suspects that at least one out of four major grammars would say something about it. But they are silent.

Let us once again review this matter in terms of Price's tests for interpolation:

1. Textual evidence. Doherty admits that there is no hard, textual evidence for this passage being an interpolation.Record: 0-1.
2. Ideological disparities. This appeal is not made. Record: 0-2.
3. Stylistic/linguistic differences. This appeal is not made.Record: 0-3.
4. Incongruity of passage in context. Doherty makes this argument, not for our key passage (6:13), but for another one (6:3), thus arguing for "guilt by association" - but it finds no appeal here. Record: 0-4.
5. Dependence on later literature/historical context. Doherty includes this possibility within his extended explanation for the interpolation, but his admission that no record of Timothy's confession is found in other texts (and this applies both before a magistrate and before friendly witnesses) takes a good chunk out of this argument and precludes any appeal to it. The sword cuts both ways!Record: 0-6.
6. External attestation. Here again there is no evidence for the specific passage in the nearest time period, so the same reasoning applies as before. Record: 0-7.
7. Textual variations. I have noted no argument on this issue in either direction, so we will exclude this argument from consideration. Record: 0-8.
8. Explanation for the interpolation.Doherty offers yet another extended, unproven, and unprovable hypothesis for the interpolation of this passage. As always, this argument is only really usable if a good number of the other eight are strong enough in either quality or quantity - which is not the case here.Record, and final score: 0-9.

And so it is that the case for interpolation fails; and we now move to our fourth and final pillar - the largest gorilla in our cage.

|

Secular Sources Shore-Up

The award for shabby treatment of the secular references, as a whole - is now with Acharya S. Recently, Doherty issued the first of what we are told will be two essays on the subject of the references by Josephus, and while we find much that is wrong with it, we nevertheless are pleased that the matter is being given more attention. Now in the interest of maintaining thematic unity on this page, many of Doherty's objections will be incorporated into our article on the secular references to Jesus, and we refer the reader there for further information. Here, however, we shall address here a few items from Doherty's essay on Josephus that fit the theme of this article more directly.

What of the scholarly consensus that exists favoring the existence of Jesus? No problem: The Christ-myth is a minority view, we are told, "if only because the vast majority working in the field have been religious apologists, with their own confessional interests." In his latest essay, Doherty further suggests obliquely that the consensus on Josephus might be "due not a little to the operation of peer pressure and herd instinct." (Ah, the old standby: Bias and conspiracy! Where this leaves independent-minded and non-confessional people like Michael Grant and Morton Smith, we are only left to wonder. Maybe they're afraid of being lynched by Christians in white robes.)

What of the secular references? They are "anything but supportive of (Jesus') existence," we are told, with all the usual litanies repeated: The overall silence of Philo and Justus (which means nothing -- Philo may not have lived long enough to see Christianity become a threat, and make Jesus worthy of note; to report nothing about someone in your history was a typical means of oblique insult; and we know Philo at least never mentions Christianity either, so the silence about Jesus is hardly problematic); the silence of Pliny the Elder concerning the darkness at the crucifixion...Lucian? Given barely a mention, and of him, it is merely said that he and Celsus "were as misled by the Gospels as most Christians were, and seem not to have possessed the ability or opportunity to track down sources or analyze the documents themselves." (But of course: If they do not reflect the genius of Earl Doherty, then they must be in error. And remember the standard APAS principle of skepticism: "Ancient People Are Stupid"!) Tacitus? Dismissed in three bare sentences as one who "is not known as a thorough researcher, which is illustrated by the fact that he gets Pilate's title wrong." (Pass the "Vivarin".) Pliny the Younger? Interpreted as saying "nothing about a Christ who was a historical man." Thallus? Put off because he comes to us through Christian commentators, who "undoubtedly put their own spin on reports which originally had nothing to do with Jesus." Ah, the smell of conspiracy! Will we never stop trying to fool these skeptics?

The only truly in-depth (and to any extent original) treatment - that is to say, the only reference given more than three sentences of attention - is to Josephus. This has been given even more attention of late, but no points for guessing, for the basic premises remain the same: Doherty votes for interpolation on both passages, reciting all the usual bugaboos: Josephus' "positive" (or, as Doherty puts it even after the suggested interpolations are removed, "warm and snuggly") attitude towards Jesus; that the passage is not mentioned by Church Fathers; that "so-called" in Josephus is the same as in Matthew; in the newest essay, the usual circular response that our interpolator was clever and practiced enough to imitate Josephus' writing style and insults to the intelligence of the Church Fathers; the same "black-and-white" thinking criticized by Charlesworth - all of these arguments, and those noted above concerning the other cites, we have answered in full between our item linked above and Glenn Miller's related essay. (On a more positive note, Doherty does admit that the standard skeptical argument that the Testimonium is out of place in its context is invalid, for much the same reasons we have noted.) However, there are a few extra points specifically on Josephus that I'd like to make note of:

• It is noted that some argue that Origen may obliquely refer to the Testimonium Flavinium when he observes that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. Doherty counters that:

  If Josephus had said that someone else was the Messiah, Origen could draw such a conclusion and phrase things this way. And in fact, this is precisely what Josephus does: in Jewish Wars VI, 3 12-13, he declares that the Jews were mistaken in interpreting their ancient oracles (i.e. scripture) as promising that one of their own would rule the world; instead, he claims, these predictions about a Messiah were really about Vespasian, the Roman general who conquered Judea...

  Whoa horsey! Saying that Vespasian fulfilled prophecies thought to be of the Messiah, and saying that Vespasian IS the Messiah, is two entirely different things! (But then again, maybe Origen was nearly as bad a reader as Doherty is!)

• Here's another funny one concerning Origen's Contra Celsum, his refutation of the pagan critic Celsus, which is repeated in the newest essay as well:

  In Chapter 46 of Book I he discusses the question of the wonders associated with Jesus. Here Celsus has said that he doubts the reports about the descent of the dove on Jesus at his baptism. In Chapter 67 there is an even more heated discussion about the veracity of Jesus' miracles about which Celsus is skeptical. Origen claims that Jesus' deeds were superior even to those contained in the Greek myths which Celsus accepts. In such debates, Origen would surely wish to draw on any evidence to corroborate the Gospels' claim that Jesus had performed miracles, especially evidence from a disinterested observer, as Josephus would have been.

  Noting, then, that the Testimonium refers to Jesus as one who wrought "surprising feats," Doherty claims: "Any unbiased evaluation of this question must admit that since Origen does not draw on this statement by Josephus, his copy almost certainly did not contain it."

  Any sensible reader of Origen must admit that this objection is nonsensical. What Origen is replying to is NOT Celsus' disbelief in the miraculous power of Jesus as a whole. What Celsus DOES object is that: a) SPECIFIC miracles said to have been wrought by Jesus did not happen; and, b) as for the others, they are attributable to Jesus' skill in magical arts he learned while in Egypt! Now this understood, what possible help is Josephus' simple assertion that Jesus wrought "surprising feats"???? Celsus doesn't disagree with that idea; he simply assigns Jesus' power to another source! Doherty has once again committed a basic category error.

• What of our smaller passage, referring to James as the "brother of Jesus the so-called Christ"? Well, Doherty doesn't rule out the possibility of interpolation, but perhaps realizing how unlikely this is, he has other explanations ready. One is a perversely twisted "guilt by association" argument. Origen tells us that Josephus regarded Jerusalem's destruction as a payback on the Jews for the death of James. Now Josephus does not say this at all, and Josephan scholars have decided that Origen here is simply confusing Josephus' account of James' death with that of the church historian Hegesippus, who did make such a statement. But does Doherty know about this? If he does, he doesn't care: He prefers to suggest that Origen had an entirely different copy of Josephus that DID say that the destruction was a judgment because of James, a copy that had also been doctored by Christians; and therefore, this serves as a pointer to the possibility that Christians inserted the reference to Jesus! What mind-numbing absurdity! Not only does Doherty see fit to speculate about the current, solid textual tradition; now he must also deign to invent texts that are completely unknown and unattested! (In his latest essay, Doherty takes on the argument forwarded by one Peter Kirby that this is some sort of "lost reference" to Jesus no longer found in Josephus. In spite of Doherty's criticisms of my own view of the matter, I would say that it remains a much simpler and more likely explanation that Origen got a little mixed up - rather than positing multiple unknown texts of Josephus to solve the problem.)
• Finally, just in case the interpolation idea falls flat, we are given the litany recited by Dennis McKinsey: That in referring to James as "the brother" of Jesus, Josephus may have meant no more than that James was a member of a group called "the brethren" of Jesus or the Lord. This, too, is a mind-numbing absurdity, and we will take a look later on at instances where Doherty uses this argument regarding passages in the NT. As for Josephus, all we have is speculation piled upon speculation: This peculiar and unusual use of "brother" by Josephus, unexplained by him and found nowhere else in his text; that Christian scribes changed the original reading from "Lord" (as in "God") to "Jesus"; that Josephus didn't explain himself here because he had only superficial knowledge of the group - theory atop theory, speculation upon speculation, a house of cards whose construction attests to the fact that the evidence, as it stands, clearly and unequivocally points to the existence of a historical Jesus. This gorilla is one that Doherty has yet to get off his back - breezy dismissals notwithstanding. With his responses, we are not far away from Eisenman's Josephus the Covert Christian and Price's Mysterious Tomb Patrol. (In his newest essay, Doherty insists that "There is nothing unusual...in an individual or a sect referring to itself as 'brother(s) of the Lord' in reference to a deity." However, he does not offer a single example of this actually being done, neither in a pagan context nor, more importantly, a Jewish context for that period.)

|

Conclusion

Earl Doherty's arguments against our three passages, and against the secular references, are hardly better than a bad joke. Between uncritical acceptance of questionable and/or outdated and/or uninformed arguments, blatant misreadings of texts, and peculiar interpretations - and despite some recent improvements - we are not even a husk of proof worth its weight. Let this serve as a harbinger of things to come, as we now proceed to explore Doherty's arguments in further depth.

|

Sources

1. Carr.RA - Carr. Wesley. "The Rulers of this Age: I Corinthians 2:6-8." New Testament Studies 23, 20-35.
2. Fee.1Cor - Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.
3. Hays.1Cor - Hays, Richard. First Corinthians. Louisville: John Knox, 1997.
4. Jewe.Ths - Jewett, Robert. The Thessalonian Correspondence. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.
5. JohnLT.AP - Johnson, L. T. "The New Testament's Anti-Jewish Slander and the Conventions of Ancient Polemic." JBL 108, 1989, 419-44.
6. Kell.PE Kelly, J.N.D. A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1963.
7. MillG.NewL - "archonton tou ainos toutou - A New Look at I Corinthians 2:6-8." Journal of Biblical Literature 91, 1972, 522-8.
8. Sct.PUDT - Scott, James M. "Paul's Use of Deuteronomic Tradition." JBL 112, 1993, 645-65.
9. Schu.1Th2 - Schluter, Carol J. Filling Up the Measure: Polemic Hyperbole in 1 Thess. 2:14- 16. Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
10. Simp.PP1Th2 - Simpson, John W. "The Problems Posed by 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 And a Solution." Horizons in Biblical Theology 12, 42-72.
11. Weath.Au1Th2 - Weatherly, Jon A. 'The Authenticity of I Thessalonians 2:13-16: Additional Evidence." JSNT 42, 1991, 79-98.
12. WillD.12Thess - Williams, David J. 1 and 2 Thessalonians. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1992.
13. With.JS - Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

---

Go Home!