The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
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: Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:56 amFurthermore, Peter Kirby remarked in http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2 ... nians.html
... I would add the consideration that Ephesians contains allusions to the entire Pauline corpus with the exceptions of 2 Thessalonians and the Pastorals. This suggests that 2 Thessalonians, like the Pastorals, wasn't known as part of the Pauline corpus to the author of Ephesians.
Well, I was checking up on this, and I got only four verses into Ephesians before stumbling upon this:

2 Thessalonians 2.13: 13 But we should always give thanks to God for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God has chosen you from the beginning [ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν] for salvation in holiness [ἐν ἁγιασμῷ] by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

Ephesians 1.3: 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He elected us in Him before the foundation of the world [καθὼς ἐξελέξατο ἡμᾶς ἐν αὐτῷ πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου], that we should be holy [ἁγίους] and blameless before Him.

I know the verbs are different, "chosen" and "elected," but Paul uses the former elsewhere only in Philippians 1.22, in a completely different context, and the latter elsewhere only in 1 Corinthians 1.27-28, where there is nothing said about the election being from the beginning of anything. Paul also uses the adjective "elect" in Romans 8.33 and 16.13 — and pseudo-Paul in Colossians 3.12; 1 Timothy 5.21; 2 Timothy 2.10; and Titus 1.1 — again without any sense of the election having occurred from the beginning.

The contexts are similar: thanksgiving and blessing.

Even if we suppose that "the beginning" in 2 Thessalonians means the beginning of the gospel in Thessalonica (rather than the beginning of the universe), there is nothing to say that the author of Ephesians cannot have understood or applied it differently.

Does this count as an allusion to 2 Thessalonians? If not, then I would have to see some allusions to other epistles (besides 2 Thessalonians, presumably) in order to compare and contrast.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Jax »

Marcion is said to have had 2 letters to the Thessalonians in his collection. The letter that we now refer to as 1st Thessalonians is thought to be two letters that were combined at some point (1 Thessalonians 1:1-2:12 and 4:3-5:28. as letter A and 1 Thessalonians 2:13-4:2. as letter B). Is it possible that what we think was 1st and 2nd Thessalonians in Marcion's cannon was actually Thessalonians A and B in their original form?

Is there any clear indication that the second letter was actually 2 Thessalonians?
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 »

Jax wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:00 am Marcion is said to have had 2 letters to the Thessalonians in his collection. The letter that we now refer to as 1st Thessalonians is thought to be two letters that were combined at some point (1 Thessalonians 1:1-2:12 and 4:3-5:28. as letter A and 1 Thessalonians 2:13-4:2. as letter B). Is it possible that what we think was 1st and 2nd Thessalonians in Marcion's cannon was actually Thessalonians A and B in their original form?

Is there any clear indication that the second letter was actually 2 Thessalonians?
Tertullian runs through 2 Thessalonians just as he runs through the other Marcionite epistles, and the Adamantius Dialogue quotes from 2 Thessalonians 1.6 in a context that makes some scholars think it is referring to the Marcionite version: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1840.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Secret Alias »

We have to be careful about these conclusions. The ancients were only doing what modern scholars do - when they say a passage or a line from a particular 'book of the Bible' they conclude 'that means Marcion had this book of the Bible.' In the same this breaks down with the gospel in light of the early use of a so-called 'harmony gospel' the same might hold true for Paul. Were these letters at all or was it something else? Did the Marcionite letters happen to be directed to various communities or other communities (cf 'to the Alexandrians, to the Laodicaeans). It's hard to hold back on conclusions. But the evidence suggests to me at least that the oldest observers or reports of information about early Christianity (Irenaeus et al) weren't so much reporting the use of early Christian documents as inventing them, reinforcing a particular idea about the originality of what became our canon.

There is a veil between us and history. We are only meant to see so much. Otherwise how would be know about the hook up between Marlon Brando and Richard Pryor - http://www.vulture.com/2018/02/quincy-j ... ation.html

About the only clue that I can give is that what was originally described as ἀποστολικόν i.e. the writings of Paul seems to have morphed into an understanding (or perhaps better a distraction) that Luke was ἀποστολικός where the term now means 'less a full apostle.' https://books.google.com/books?id=jxxNC ... ke&f=false This is a stunning incredible development which couldn't have happened by accident. It was an ancient precursor to theTrumpian 'fake news' deflection. The fact that Mark is also roped in with Luke as this 'sub-apostle' category is also noteworthy.

The original Marcionite sense of the term is clear. 'The Apostle' wrote something or was associated with something that was later described as having his quality, characteristic/was associated with his office. To this end it was 'apostolic.' Here 'apostolic' wasn't understood as 'less than an apostle' but essentially 'belonging to THE apostle.' The fact that the Marcionite gospel was understood to be 'apostolic' too manifests the great secret of the Marcionite tradition (only a great secret because scholars can't read all the clues in the Church Fathers) i.e. the apostle wrote the gospel. This is why Luke's gospel is so described i.e. 'apostolic' in the sense of its alleged association now with a sub-apostle.

I haven't been able to figure out how the -ic suffix was understood essentially to denote a 'something less than full' quality. What language is it natural to assume that something described adjectivally denotes 'something less' than the original thing it is associated with? This might be the clue to unravel the mystery. Sorry for the distraction.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
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 »

Secret Alias wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:42 am We have to be careful about these conclusions.
I agree with this, but Jax asked for the evidence, and I gave (at least some of) it.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Secret Alias »

Of course you are the best. One last distraction since we are trying to uncover in essence how or why non-Pauline writings were accepted as Pauline and (at least for me) Pauline writings were taken to be something less than Pauline (i.e. the gospel). When scholars uncovered that Pastoral epistles weren't actually written by Paul it is noteworthy that no one described them as 'apostolic' as a way of distinguishing them from being 'less than true writings' of Paul. But this is exactly how the term was used by the ancients with respect to the Marcionite gospel. Luke was inserted as a wedge - an explanative tool essentially - for explaining not only that Paul didn't actually write the gospel as the Marcionites claimed but more importantly for reducing the significance of said document. In other words, 'the apostolic' gospel (perhaps a Marcionite term) i.e. a solitary - viz. the Samaritans use the term to mean Moses was the only apostle exactly in the manner of Marcionites and interesting with shades of meaning later attributed to Muhammad - Mosaic revelation of the highest order (Moses is repeatedly identified as 'the apostle' before Christianity) has it's meaning co-opted with the invention of Luke 'the apostolic' (along with Mark). Very clever linguistics which only worked - I think - because of a change in the original language I think that these arguments were made.

If we can understand how 'apostolic' changed meaning from 'authentically Pauline' to essentially 'deutero-Pauline' in antiquity we might solve the mystery of how the attribution of authentic Pauline documents shifted in antiquity too from a Pauline gospel being included in the Pauline canon to the Pastorals essentially usurping the gospel's place in the canon.

An example of the original Greek meaning of 'apostolic' comes from Deipnosophistae of Athenaeus (early third century CE) and this is — whopoints out that ἀποστολικός was a kind of song (i.e. μέλη), sung upon the departure of a diplomatic delegation or written by someone abroad who sent his poem afterwards. So when essentially an ambassador departed an 'apostolic' tune was song. The likelihood seems to me to be that 'apostolic' pertained to the whole canon and extended to the Aramaic sense of gospel viz. a call that went out before the Jubilee. In other words, in antiquity when the priests had determined that the beginning of the important year was about to come they sent out 'evangelists' (according to the Hebrew/Aramaic terminology - unfortunately the related Samaritan explanation is preserved now only in Arabic) who happened to have 'apostolic' characteristics (i.e. in the sense of 'being sent' by the priests. My guess is that 'apostolic' and 'evangelic' (and thus 'apostle' and 'evangelist') are basically synonyms of one another. To evangelize in the Hebrew sense of the word necessarily means being sent and thus an evangelist is a 'sent one.'

Somehow the original sense of these terms was co-opted or repackaged in order - I guess - to hide the original Mosaic understanding behind Paul's 'apostlehood.' Another guess that begins with a question - what prompted the Exodus? My guess is that it took place on a Jubilee. Then all the ducks line up in a row. The appearance of God before Moses took place in a Jubilee. This explains the association between the 'redemption' of slaves and that year. So it was that at the time of Christianity 'the Apostle' was calling for a slave revolt essentially. The Christians suppressed this because it discomforted their Roman masters.

Note that the Arabic title for Muhammad رسول‎ rasul can mean either 'evangelist' or 'apostle' even though bashir بشير‎ is the exact corresponding terminology for the Hebrew/Aramaic 'evangelist' in Isaiah.

Enough distractions back to work. Apologies ...
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1443
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Jax »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:35 am
Jax wrote: Mon Feb 19, 2018 7:00 am Marcion is said to have had 2 letters to the Thessalonians in his collection. The letter that we now refer to as 1st Thessalonians is thought to be two letters that were combined at some point (1 Thessalonians 1:1-2:12 and 4:3-5:28. as letter A and 1 Thessalonians 2:13-4:2. as letter B). Is it possible that what we think was 1st and 2nd Thessalonians in Marcion's cannon was actually Thessalonians A and B in their original form?

Is there any clear indication that the second letter was actually 2 Thessalonians?
Tertullian runs through 2 Thessalonians just as he runs through the other Marcionite epistles, and the Adamantius Dialogue quotes from 2 Thessalonians 1.6 in a context that makes some scholars think it is referring to the Marcionite version: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1840.
Thank you Ben, the information in the links is very useful. :thumbup:
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 »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2017 8:25 pm 2 Thessalonians 2.1-4:

2.1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. 3 Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 4 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.

Is this the kind of thing an author would say while the temple actually lay in ruins? Or is this evidence that the letter predates 70? Does not the author come across as innocent of the knowledge that the temple had been destroyed? Or is a rebuilding implied in this text somehow? Are there examples of this kind of writing about the temple from after its destruction?
I may have an example of this kind of writing which postdates 70. My example is Irenaeus in Against Heresies. It is true that he writes of the temple service in the past tense (if the Latin translation is accurate), thus betraying his knowledge that the temple service no longer existed in his own time:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.8.3: .... And the priests in the temple profaned [prophanabant] the Sabbath, and were blameless. Wherefore, then, were [erant] they blameless? Because when they were [essent] in the temple they were not engaged [perficiebant] in secular affairs, but in the service of the Lord, fulfilling the law, but not going beyond it, as that man did, who of his own accord carded dry wood into the camp of God, and was justly stoned to death. ....

But elsewhere, while discussing the abomination of desolation and the man of sin, he is capable of writing as if the temple were still standing, without mentioning its needing to be rebuilt:

Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5.25.4: .... he shall remove his kingdom into that [city], and shall sit in the temple of God, leading astray those who worship him, as if he were Christ. ....

The catch here is that Irenaeus is talking about the temple only because 2 Thessalonians 2.3-4, which he quotes directly in 5.25.1, says that the man of sin will take his seat in the temple. So, while Irenaeus is writing in a way that, out of context, would not let us determine for certain that the temple was no longer standing in his day, he is doing so on the basis of the very pair of verses in 2 Thessalonians which come across as having been written before 70. It seems possible, therefore, that pseudo-Paul himself may be doing the same thing: writing as if the temple were still standing on the basis of a previous tradition, one which ultimately dates to before the temple's destruction. This sort of talk about the temple, then, may be more useful for dating the tradition ensconced in the text than the text itself.
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 »

Regarding 2 Thessalonians as a pseudepigraphical epistle, Early Christian Writings quotes Norman Perrin as follows:

Norman Perrin writes the following (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 119-120): .... In 1 Thessalonians the parousia, the coming of Jesus from heaven as apocalyptic judge and redeemer, is imminent. When Paul speaks of "we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord" (1 Thes 4:15), he clearly expects the event in his own lifetime. But 2 Thes 2:3-12 sets out an elaborate program of what must first happen before that event can occur. ....

I do not wish to dispute 2 Thessalonians as pseudepigraphical; that is my current position. But I do not think that the program of events which is laid out in chapter 2 necessarily conflicts with an expectation that such events will happen within the lifetime(s) of the author...:

1 Thessalonians 4.13-18: 13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the advent of the Lord, shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words.

1 Corinthians 15.51-52: 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

...and/or of his readers:

2 Corinthians 4.12-14: 12 So death works in us, but life in you. 13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I believed, therefore I spoke," we also believe, therefore also we speak; 14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.

1 Thessalonians 5.23: 23 Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame, at the advent of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Indeed, the same combination of motifs — a program of events followed by the end, which is to happen within the lifetime of a person now living — occurs in Mark 13; verses 5-23 lay out a timetable of events which must happen before the end, but the end in verses 24-27 is expected before "this generation" dies out, according to verses 28-31.

2 Peter 3.3-16 offers a great example of postponing the consummation ("one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day"); 2 Thessalonians 2, however, does not claim that the day of the Lord is not soon; it claims that the day of the Lord has not already come:

2 Thessalonians 2.1-2: 1 Now we request you, brethren, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together to Him, 2 that you may not be quickly shaken from your composure or be disturbed either by a spirit or a message or a letter as if from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come [ἐνέστηκεν].

The verb in question, in the perfect tense, can mean "has come" or "is present," as we can see from other such usages:

1 Esdras 9.6: 6 And all the multitude sat in the open square before the temple, shivering because of the bad weather that prevailed [ἐνεστῶτα, perfect].

1 Maccabees 12.44: 44 Then he said to Jonathan, "Why have you wearied all these people when we are not at war [πολέμου μὴ ἐνεστηκότος, perfect]?"

2 Maccabees 3.17: 17 For terror and bodily trembling had come over the man, which plainly showed to those who looked at him the pain lodged [ἐνεστὸς, perfect] in his heart.

Romans 8.38-39: 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present [ἐνεστῶτα, perfect], nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 Corinthians 3.22-23: 22 ...whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or things present [ἐνεστῶτα, perfect] or things to come; all things belong to you, 23 and you belong to Christ; and Christ belongs to God.

1 Corinthians 7.26: 26 I think then that this is good in view of the present [ἐνεστῶσαν, perfect] distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.

Galatians 1.4-5: 4 ...who gave Himself for our sins, that He might deliver us out of this present [ἐνεστῶτος, perfect] evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forevermore. Amen.

How does one disabuse a person of the notion that an event has already come and thus is present? One way is to point out that the proper signs of that event have not yet happened. (What it could mean that the Thessalonians allegedly thought that the day had come is, of course, a very interesting question in its own right, but regardless: that seems to be the idea being countered here.)

If 2 Thessalonians had been written in order to postpone the end, then I wonder why the following passages made it in:

2 Thessalonians 1.6-8: 6 For after all it is only just in the sight of God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to you who are afflicted and to us as well at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.

2 Thessalonians 2.7: 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way.

Particularly in the case of that first passage, for Jesus to give relief at his advent to "you who are afflicted" seems to assume that at least some of the readers will still be alive at that time, just as seems to be assumed in some of those other Pauline passages listed above. At least, I am not sure how I would discriminate between the Pauline passages listed above and these (pseudo-)Pauline passages in 2 Thessalonians. The advent of the Lord does not seem to have to postdate the advent of the man of sin by any great margin.

At any rate, the mere imposition of a schedule of some kind does not in any way, on its own, necessarily compromise the imminence of the end. A classic example of this, and one that eschatological writers themselves sometimes use (as in Mark 13.8), is childbirth. There are plenty of milestones along the way in the case of a healthy birth, but the mere existence of those milestones does not imply that the birth is not going to happen within a certain time frame.

Or so it seems to me.
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 »

The background to one particular passage in this epistle is interesting:

2 Thessalonians 2.8-10: 8 And then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His advent, 9 the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, 10 and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

Isaiah seems to be in view here:

Isaiah 11.1-10: 1 Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, and a branch from his roots will bear fruit. 2 And the Spirit of Yahweh will rest on Him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of Yahweh. 3 And He will delight in the fear of Yahweh, and He will not judge by what His eyes see, nor make a decision by what His ears hear; 4 but with righteousness He will judge the poor and decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth; and He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked. 5 Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, and faithfulness the belt about His waist. 6 And the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the kid, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them. 7 Also the cow and the bear will graze; their young will lie down together; and the lion will eat straw like the ox. 8 And the nursing child will play by the hole of the cobra, and the weaned child will put his hand on the viper's den. 9 They will not hurt or destroy in all My holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of Yahweh as the waters cover the sea. 10 Then it will come about in that day that the nations will resort to the root of Jesse, who will stand as a signal for the peoples; and His resting place will be glorious.

And there is a Targum which specifically identifies this Davidic figure as the Messiah:

Isaiah 11.1 (Targum pseudo-Jonathan): 1 And a King shall come forth from the sons of Jesse, and from his children's children the Messiah shall be anointed [וְיִפוֹק מַלכָא מִבְנוֹהִי דְיִשָׁי וּמשִׁיחָא מִבְנֵי בְנוֹהִי יִתרַבֵי].

ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply