Four Insurmountable Hurdles
[Archon Archives (1 Cor. 2:7-8)] [Cardboard Cutout Interpolation (1 Thess. 2:14-16)] [Auto-Pilate, Redux (1 Tim. 6:13-5)] [Secular Sources Shore-Up]

The arguments of Earl Doherty against seeing a historical Jesus in the Pauline Epistles are ineffectual, but there is yet more for them to confront.

In this essay we will take a special look at three key Pauline passages that plainly and unequivocally assert the existence of a historical Jesus who walked the earth. These are passages that Doherty absolutely MUST eliminate in order for his thesis to have a fighting chance.

In highlighting these we are not meaning to imply that there are no other passages of this nature: Some, including a few yet to be referenced by Doherty in any fashion, I would assert manifest similar proving power. Those cites yet unreferenced, however, we shall deal with when/if they are dealt with by Doherty. Here we shall concentrate on cites already addressed by Doherty.

This essay will also concern the testimony of extrabiblical writers and how Doherty addresses those.

1 Corinthians 2:7-8

No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Certainly this refers to an earthly Jesus who was crucified by the political powers of his day. Not so; rather, we are told, that nebulous authority, "Most Scholars", says "that (Paul) is referring not to temporal rulers but to the spirit and demonic forces...which inhabited the lower celestial spheres..."

Two words get our attention. The first, which we translate "rulers" is the Greek archon, is defined thus:

758. pres. part. of G757; a first (in rank or power):--chief (ruler), magistrate, prince, ruler.

Now there is no question that this word is used of earthly rulers; even Doherty freely acknowledges this, and that it is so used by Paul. (Rom 13:3) However, he adds that:

...it is also, along with several others like it, a technical term for the spirit forces, the "powers and authorities" who rule the lowest level of the heavenly world and who exercise authority over the events and fate (usually cruel) of the earth, its nations and individuals.

This, then, is the argument: In our passage, Paul is referring to a spiritual sort of archon grouping that crucified Jesus in the nether-heavens. Does this assessment bear out under scrutiny?

No. Let's see how Doherty's arguments line up.

Doherty rightly rejects the solution (once offered by Cullman) that suggests that Paul is somehow combining earthly and spiritual rulers into one reference, with the latter controlling the former. Truly, there is little need to go beyond the data offered in 1 Corinthians itself. Consider these verses following, 1 Cor. 1:17-2:16:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things--and the things that are not--to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God--that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord."
When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. I came to you in weakness and fear, and with much trembling. My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power. We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. However, as it is written: "No eye has seen, no ear has heard, no mind has conceived what God has prepared for those who love him"-- but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment: "For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Note that the emphasis both before and after our verse of concern is on human wisdom. The context, then, indicates that a reference to some sort of supernatural rulers would be out of order. A reference to human rulers, however, would be especially important for Paul in this context: Earthly rulers, by the thinking of Paul's age, "were those most often assumed to be gatherers and purveyors of the sophia (i.e., wisdom)." [With.JS, 313]

l is thus offering a bipolar contrast between the wisdom of God on one hand, and the wisdom of humans - including those supposedly the wisest: scholars, philosophers, rulers - on the other.[See MillG.NewL; Carr.RA] Or, as Hays [Hays.1Cor, 44] puts it:

Paul's point...is straightforward and rhetorically telling: the human power-wielders were so completely clueless about God's way or working that they actually crucified the Lord of glory. Why, therefore, should we pay attention to human notions of wisdom and power?
On John 12:3

Doherty does not appeal to this argument, but some have suggested that John 12:3, 14:30, and 16:11 [where Satan is called the "`ruler of this world''] is comparable to the Corinthians passage which states "the rulers of this age.'' This is a desperate grasp at straws: First, there is absolutely no linguistic connection between the phrases; second, the phrase "the ruler of this world'' belongs to John's special vocabulary. - Fee.1Cor, 103-4)

Therefore, Doherty's interpretation of the 1 Cor. 2 archonton as referring to above-earthly powers fails. It is supported neither by the context of Paul's arguments nor by Paul's usage of the word itself, both of which clearly indicate a reference to earthly rulers who crucified an earthly, non-mythical Jesus.

Why, then, is Doherty able to find scholars who insist upon supporting the "supernatural view"? It may be, as Fee suggests, that "those interpretations that see Gnostic backgrounds to much of what is being said here are particularly dependent on this interpretation to make them work." [ibid.] We shall have occasion to discuss THAT aspect of the issue before we are through as well.

1 Thess. 2:14-16

In the 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 anyone 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 text -- 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. But Doherty only offers two arguments on this point. (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." 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 alludes 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.

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."

Truly? 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.

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

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.

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.

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...

Now naturally, Doherty does not believe that the Pastorals were authored by Paul, and he alludes to all of the same arguments that we have dealt with in here: Vocabulary, teachings, church organization, lack of inclusion in P46, etc. He does not go into detail on 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.

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 incorrect as is:

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.

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.

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'".

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.

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.

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.

Catch-22?

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 object 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. (Doherty claims 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 chunk out of this argument and precludes any appeal to it.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.

Secular Sources

What of the scholarly consensus that exists favoring the existence of Jesus? 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." Where this leaves independent-minded and non-confessional people like Michael Grant and Morton Smith, we are only left to wonder.

What of the secular references? They are "anything but supportive of (Jesus') existence," we are told, with all the usual arguments repeated which we have answered in more detail elsewhere:

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. Nevertheless the basic premises remain the same: Doherty votes for interpolation on both passages, reciting all the usual arguments. There are a few extra points specifically on Josephus that I'd like to make note of:

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.