More impositions between Luke and Marcion

Richard Carrier is bringing to attention, 1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16. This pericope develops vv. 13-14a into an aside against the Jews. Carrier has an interest in omitting vv. 14b-16: the pericope marks Paul as a witness to the tradition it was the Jews in Judaea who slew Mar Isho'. That's an historical event, thin on the ground with authentic Paul; otherwise Carrier accepts 1 Thessalonians as authentic.

Carrier points out the lack of a witness for the 1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16. He's been pointing out that the state of the text is bad, especially for (initially) less-regarded texts like that Gospel which Saint Mark compiled. But: where are our witnesses against? Besides what contradictions Carrier marks from Paul himself...

I can consider at least one, maybe two: the first Gospels. In Mark it's the Romans who do this deed; Mark elsewhere accepts Paul. In Matthew, although the Jerusalem mob accepts the curse for it, the deed is likewise Roman. We must await Gos'Peter and Gos'Luke, before we see narratives as set the Jews to set the cross. Ep'Barnabas although assuredly writing after Paul did not cite Paul; one imagines the author should have found space for our 1 Thessalonians 2 if he'd known it [UPDATE 5/28/24 at least as "Israel"].

Back to the Pauline corpus proper, the Thessalonian duo of letters isn't the core. The core scroll had Romans, 1-2 Corinthians (minus the intervening Lachrymose), and Galatians. It would be easier to "tweak" the two Thessalonians in codex than to alter the core scroll. Indeed the forgery of "2 Thessalonians" (unknown to, say, Ephesians) demonstrates one drastic tweak.

Even the core suffered alteration; and not just the loss of Lachrymose. Already known is that the Pauline epistles attracted a bid to truncate Paul's mission, to end at Rome.

I may even have a culprit for the anti-Jewish insertion into 1 Thessalonians 2. It wouldn't be the Johannine or Barnabas factions; although they despised Jews (on their way to excommunicating fundamentalists), they also didn't care for Paul - who does not disown Jews as such, instead treating gentiles equally. A Johannine would simply neglect Paul's letters instead copying 1 John.

The Romans deletion agrees with the Gospel of Luke which - hey look, already pulls the Divine Favour from the Jews and from Jerusalem, toward Rome. The epistle to the Romans might not be edited against the Jews as a race-cum-nation, but we might expect that of other epistles. In 1 Thessalonians 2:14b-16 we are looking at that anti-Jewish tradition, as well as Luke-aligned and pre-Bezae.

If this smells like Marcion - remember that I think the Romans deletion preceded him, as a Lucan-party corpus. Marcion would simply have inherited this library. (Bezae will postdate even Marcion, containing other evangelists beyond Luke+Acts.)

That the insertion preceded Marcion might explain how the insertion escaped, say, Tertullian's notice. Tertullian followed the Claromontane tradition of the Core Scroll, against Marcion. Marcion cared about feminism, which Tertullian didn't approve; but Tertullian wasn't about to challenge their mutual text where he didn't have to, especially not for the sake of Jews, accursed in Matthew as well.