The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

I see that I commented on Neil's post and thought I'd put it here:
Sounds plausible to me. I have no issue with it. But I’ve just gone along with the idea that it’s not a genuine letter of Paul’s, so I haven’t given it much thought, but now I want to take a closer look at it.

It is interesting that it was part of Marcion’s canon (so I’m learning), which could mean that just because he used something -like the supposed absence of the brother of the Lord reference in Galatians- it does not mean that it is “early” or authentic.

I will have to check this information, but right off the bat it is interesting that it also says on wikipedia:

“there is more evidence from early Christian writers for [Paul’s] authorship of Second Thessalonians than that of First Thessalonians. The epistle was included in Marcion’s canon and the Muratorian fragment; it was mentioned by name by Irenaeus, and quoted by Ignatius, Justin, and Polycarp.”

It’s the Ignatius reference that’s catching my attention, since (I think?) he died before the Bar Kochba revolt, though there might be nothing definite about that. But I can’t wait to find out.
And:
I’ve been thinking about this a little more, and I still agree that the “Man of Sin” sounds like Bar Kochba. All the ducks seem to be in a row, like the “apostasy,” the man of sin sitting in the temple, and the fire breathing (though I didn’t see the source for that concerning Bar Kochba, I assume it’s in the Talmud).

However, one thing seems a little “off” about this idea, 2 Thessalonians being in Marcion’s canon. It seems strange that the letter would be accepted so quickly by him and his contemporaries as Pauline. I still lean towards Bar Kochba, but I wonder if it could possibly refer to Lukuas from the Kitos Revolt of 115-117:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukuas

I know we don’t know much about him, but that might explain why Ignatius (if he does, and if it’s genuine)
“quotes” 2 Thessalonians, and why 2 Thessalonians was accepted by Marcion and other church fathers.
I don't know of any evidence that Bar Kokhba reconquered Jerusalem or the Temple and I'm inclined now to think that he did not. But Bauckham notes the miracles claims here and says Jerome (Ad. Rufin. 3.31) refers to the fire breathing.

https://books.google.com/books?id=MKMJn ... rs&f=false
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

Now that I think about it, maybe it's the other way around, that Christians living after Bar Kokhba (Eusebius, Jerome) read him into 2 Thes. 2:1-4.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

John2 wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:57 pm I see that I commented on Neil's post and thought I'd put it here:
Sounds plausible to me. I have no issue with it. But I’ve just gone along with the idea that it’s not a genuine letter of Paul’s, so I haven’t given it much thought, but now I want to take a closer look at it.

It is interesting that it was part of Marcion’s canon (so I’m learning), which could mean that just because he used something -like the supposed absence of the brother of the Lord reference in Galatians- it does not mean that it is “early” or authentic.

I will have to check this information, but right off the bat it is interesting that it also says on wikipedia:

“there is more evidence from early Christian writers for [Paul’s] authorship of Second Thessalonians than that of First Thessalonians. The epistle was included in Marcion’s canon and the Muratorian fragment; it was mentioned by name by Irenaeus, and quoted by Ignatius, Justin, and Polycarp.”

It’s the Ignatius reference that’s catching my attention, since (I think?) he died before the Bar Kochba revolt, though there might be nothing definite about that. But I can’t wait to find out.
And:
I’ve been thinking about this a little more, and I still agree that the “Man of Sin” sounds like Bar Kochba. All the ducks seem to be in a row, like the “apostasy,” the man of sin sitting in the temple, and the fire breathing (though I didn’t see the source for that concerning Bar Kochba, I assume it’s in the Talmud).

However, one thing seems a little “off” about this idea, 2 Thessalonians being in Marcion’s canon. It seems strange that the letter would be accepted so quickly by him and his contemporaries as Pauline. I still lean towards Bar Kochba, but I wonder if it could possibly refer to Lukuas from the Kitos Revolt of 115-117:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lukuas

I know we don’t know much about him, but that might explain why Ignatius (if he does, and if it’s genuine)
“quotes” 2 Thessalonians, and why 2 Thessalonians was accepted by Marcion and other church fathers.
I don't know of any evidence that Bar Kokhba reconquered Jerusalem or the Temple and I'm inclined now to think that he did not. But Bauckham notes the miracles claims here and says Jerome (Ad. Rufin. 3.31) refers to the fire breathing.

https://books.google.com/books?id=MKMJn ... rs&f=false
Jerome comes several centuries after Bar Kokhba. And Bauckham comes right out in that book and says that he is tracing the Christian tradition, not necessarily any historical claim by Bar Kokhba to have worked miracles. (He qualifies everything he says about the later sources, Eusebius and Jerome, by saying things like, "this tradition may well go back to Aristo" and so on.)
Now that I think about it, maybe it's the other way around, that Christians living after Bar Kokhba (Eusebius, Jerome) read him into 2 Thes. 2:1-4.
That is definitely something to consider.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 3:52 pm to Ben,
I do not think a Pauline Christian would consider the Jewish temple of Jerusalem (even if still existing) as the temple of God.
If Romans 9 is original to Paul (an open question, in my judgment, given its apparent absence from the Marcionite version), then Paul speaks of Israelites as possessing "the adoption as sons, and the glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law and the worship and the promises." The "worship" here doubtless means the temple rites (as some translations attempt to make clear). So for this author to call the temple "of God" seems fine, especially since it is called that in the LXX (as well as synonyms, such as "house of God").
But by claiming to be Lord & God, Domitian would appear wanting himself to replace the "true" Christian God in the spiritual temple of God of the Christians.
This just seems like a reach to me. It feels like a deliberate evasion of the more obvious meaning of the phrase, "taking a seat in the temple of God."
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sat Feb 17, 2018 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Stuart
Posts: 878
Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2014 12:24 am
Location: Sunnyvale, CA

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Stuart »

lawlessness is ἀνομίας "against the Law." Opposition to the Law (i.e., Law of Moses, from the OT God) is a trait of Gnostic and Marcionite type Christians in nearly every usage in the NT. Why do we assume it is different here.

In fact this is considered a textually difficult case, and is cited by Metzger {B} rating. It seems ἁμαρτίας ("sin") is supported by three text types A; D, G it vg; K L P most miniscules. Metzger incorrectly says Marcion reads ἀνομίας based on Tertullian, but I think he is wrong per my footnote for verse 2:13:
AM 5.16.4 Quis est autem homo delicti, filius perditionis, quem revelari prius oportet ante domini adventum, extollens se super omne quod deus dicitur et omnem religionem, consessurus in templo dei et deum se iactaturus? Tertullian reworks verse here. But he reads homo delicti which Metzger thinks supports ἀνομίας. However Tertullian in eleven other cases in AM only uses delict* for the Greek ἁμαρτία (sin) or παράπτωμα (transgression), (see 2 Samuel 12.13, Galatians 3:22, Romans 7:8, 8:10, Colossians 2:13); never is it used for ἀνομία (lawless). This is a misreading of the source by Metzger, Marcion in fact reads ⌐ ἁμαρτίας for ἀνομίας.
I am still thinking about the temple, but if the Marcionite text is original, then the ἀνομίας replaced ἁμαρτίας to switch the target of the anti-Christ type figure from a "Jewsih Christian" or Catholic type of Jesus to a Gnostic/Marcionite type of Jesus. The Temple would probably symbolic in this reading of internal Christian debate.
“’That was excellently observed’, say I, when I read a passage in an author, where his opinion agrees with mine. When we differ, there I pronounce him to be mistaken.” - Jonathan Swift
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3964
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Bernard Muller »

to Ben,
There is great resemblance in Eze 28:2 where the prince of Tyrus, claiming to be a God and sit in the seat of God, is blamed:
Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Stuart wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:54 pm lawlessness is ἀνομίας "against the Law." Opposition to the Law (i.e., Law of Moses, from the OT God) is a trait of Gnostic and Marcionite type Christians in nearly every usage in the NT. Why do we assume it is different here.

In fact this is considered a textually difficult case, and is cited by Metzger {B} rating. It seems ἁμαρτίας ("sin") is supported by three text types A; D, G it vg; K L P most miniscules. Metzger incorrectly says Marcion reads ἀνομίας based on Tertullian, but I think he is wrong per my footnote for verse 2:13:
AM 5.16.4 Quis est autem homo delicti, filius perditionis, quem revelari prius oportet ante domini adventum, extollens se super omne quod deus dicitur et omnem religionem, consessurus in templo dei et deum se iactaturus? Tertullian reworks verse here. But he reads homo delicti which Metzger thinks supports ἀνομίας. However Tertullian in eleven other cases in AM only uses delict* for the Greek ἁμαρτία (sin) or παράπτωμα (transgression), (see 2 Samuel 12.13, Galatians 3:22, Romans 7:8, 8:10, Colossians 2:13); never is it used for ἀνομία (lawless). This is a misreading of the source by Metzger, Marcion in fact reads ⌐ ἁμαρτίας for ἀνομίας.
I am still thinking about the temple, but if the Marcionite text is original, then the ἀνομίας replaced ἁμαρτίας to switch the target of the anti-Christ type figure from a "Jewsih Christian" or Catholic type of Jesus to a Gnostic/Marcionite type of Jesus.
I can with some probability see my way clear to accept all of this in principle.
The Temple would probably symbolic in this reading of internal Christian debate.
How this conclusion follows from all of that, however, is less clear to me.
Bernard Muller wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 4:56 pmThere is great resemblance in Eze 28:2 where the prince of Tyrus, claiming to be a God and sit in the seat of God, is blamed:
Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
I agree. There is some precedent there for the idea. But I think the seat of God is heavenly here, in which case the particular parallel to 2 Thessalonians seems to fail, since there the taking a seat in the temple of God is supposed to be something that the Thessalonians can see.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

I can't help but get the impression that 2 Thes. 2:1-4 has something to do with Satan (whether acting through a particular man or not). It even says that outright in 2:9 ("The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works").

And I can't find any evidence that Ignatius knew 2 Thes. 2:1-4, so I suppose it could be argued that it is a post-Ignatian interpolation, but I gather that he did know at least some form of the letter, so that could point to 2 Thes. being earlier than Bar Kokhba's time.

I'm just thinking out loud while I'm distracted at work and I may be seeing connections at the moment where there aren't any, but I also get the impression that the "beast" (though there are two) in Revelation 13 has something to do with Satan, and the last time I looked into Revelation I had the impression that it could have been written in Domitian's time.

Regarding the first beast, it says, "Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”

What if the first beast is Titus and the second his brother and successor Domitian? I don't know if anyone has argued for the former, but the "war" reference makes me think of him since he destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. And Rev. 13:5 says this first beast, "was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months," which is three and half years, which is about the same time that Titus ruled (June 79 CE to September 81 CE). And 13:6-7 goes on to say that this first beast "opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation."

That sounds like Titus to me.

So, maybe Bernard is right that the man "proclaiming himself to be God" in 2 Thes. 2:4 is Domitian, since he did exactly that, and it would fit a post-Pauline but pre-Ignatian context.

Is it out of the question that "God's Temple" in 2 Thes. 2:4 could be metaphorical?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

Bah! I'm sick of thinking about Revelation. I don't know why I brought it up.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Ben C. Smith »

For those on this thread who espouse a symbolic reading for "the temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians 2.4, I would like to attempt to quantify the issue I am having with that approach.

In 1 Corinthians 6.19, "the temple" means the human body. The equation is explicitly given, and the relationship is one to one.

Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 6.16, "the temple" means the assembly of believers. Again the equation is explicitly given, and again the relationship is one to one. One may cleanly replace "the temple" with "the church/assembly" and the meaning will remain crystal clear:

Or what agreement has the temple assembly of God [that is, the Corinthian church] with idols?

Once the metaphor has been cleanly and easily switched out for the referent, there is no confusion at all. Same goes for 1 Corinthians 3.16-17.

But what about 2 Thessalonians 2.4? If the man of sin taking a seat in the temple of God is symbolic of something else, what is that something else? Is it the body? I do not see how. Is it the church? Then the man of sin is taking a seat in the church, which means... what? That he is attending a meeting some nice Sunday morning? That he is making himself Pope? Once one has switched out the metaphor (the temple) for the referent (the church), there still remains symbolic work to be done, it seems. It is not at all a clean symbol; therefore, its meaning is muddy, which makes me think that this meaning is actually an unintended one which we want to read in so that we do not have to date 2 Thessalonians so early. Unless someone can clear it up for me.

A different problem arises with trying to make this temple a heavenly one (as appears in Revelation 11.9). The man of sin taking a seat in the heavenly temple of God does not seem to be something that would be visible to the readers. Paul or pseudo-Paul is chiding the Thessalonians or pseudo-Thessalonians for jumping the gun, remember, but how can they be expected to notice something that happens only in heaven? The way the passage is written seems to me to imply that all of the "signs" preceding the end (the revelation of the man of sin, his aspiring to rival God, his taking a seat in the temple of God) are subject to observation. If they are not, then how can anyone have avoided missing them?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply