The date of 2 Thessalonians.

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

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

Giuseppe,

I don't see anything about Ignatius citing 2 Thessalonians in that blog post. I was hoping someone else might do the leg work for me on that front, but I managed to find what some see as a possible allusion (and not a quote, as per the Wikipedia page) to 2 Thes. in Ignatius Rom. 10:3:
Fare ye well unto the end in the patient waiting for Jesus Christ.

ερρωσθε εις τελος εν υπομονη Ιησου Χριστου.

http://www.textexcavation.com/greekignatiusromans.html
According to Green, this supposedly alludes to 2 Thess 3:5 (with the Greek for the bolded part only).

https://books.google.com/books?id=gzwjt ... ns&f=false
And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ.

εἰς τὴν ὑπομονὴν τοῦ Χριστοῦ


But here is a link to an interlinear for all of 2 Thes. 3:5:

http://biblehub.com/interlinear/2_thessalonians/3-5.htm

I was hoping there would be something more direct, given the Wikipedia statement, but I suppose there is some similarity between the two, and I don't see any similar NT cross references to this verse on the biblehub.

http://biblehub.com/2_thessalonians/3-5.htm

Polycarp appears to have a direct quote of 2 Thes. 3:15 in Phil. 11 though:
And be then moderate in regard to this matter, and “do not count such as enemies” ...

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm
2 Thes. 3:15:
Do not count him as an enemy ...
But this letter is said to date anywhere from 110 CE to 140 CE, and Polycarp is said to have died c. 155 CE to 175 CE.

So nothing looks certain here.

But it is also said that 2 Thes. was in Marcion's canon, so maybe it was in circulation long enough for Marcion to think it was authentic (or maybe he wrote it?). But who knows when that happened?
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by DCHindley »

That would be Polycarp to the Philippians 11:4, which is preserved only in Latin.

Pol, Philip 11:4 "... et non sicut inimicos tales existimetis, ...," "... do not count such as enemies ..."

In the Vulgate, 2 Thes 3:15 is "... et nolite quasi inimicum existimare ...," "... Yet do not esteem him as an enemy ..."

I'm kind of thinking that this was simply some sort of widely used aphorism. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," or "Love the sinner but hate the sin ..."

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

No, it's Polycarp, not Ignatius.

Polycarp (to the Philippians) 11:4
Therefore I am exceedingly grieved for him and for his wife, unto whom may the Lord grant true repentance. Be ye therefore yourselves also sober herein, and hold not such as enemies but restore them as frail and erring members, that ye may save the whole body of you.
For so doing, ye do edify one another.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html
Ignatius (to the Philadelphians) ends at 11:2:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3411
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by DCHindley »

John2 wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:00 am No, it's Polycarp, not Ignatius.

Ignatius (to the Philadelphians) ends at 11:2:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html
You are, "of course"™, correct. I will correct the original post. I had temporarily forgotten about Polly Carp. In HS, I remember she kissed like a fish. :facepalm:

But really, more of Polycarp to the Philippians is preserved in Greek as compared to Latin, at least as it can be found in a user created module of BibleWorks 8. There are no chapters that are in both Greek and English:

Chapter
Geek
Latin
1 Y N
2 Y N
3 Y N
4 Y N
5 Y N
6 Y N
7 Y N
8 Y N
9 Y N
10 N Y
11 N Y
12 N Y
13 Y N
14 N Y

There may be Latin mss. containing chapters that are here presented as preserved in Greek, and vice versa, but there might be something about their date or other weirdness that precludes them. There may have been various parts found at different times, some in Greek, a few in Latin, and the chapter numbering is simply a function of the order that mss. were found. Greek 1-9; Latin 10-12; Greek 13; Latin 14. They may even be independent of one another for all I know.

DCH
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 »

DCHindley wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:12 pm
John2 wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 10:00 am No, it's Polycarp, not Ignatius.

Ignatius (to the Philadelphians) ends at 11:2:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... tfoot.html
You are, "of course"™, correct. I will correct the original post. I had temporarily forgotten about Polly Carp. In HS, I remember she kissed like a fish. :facepalm:

But really, more of Polycarp to the Philippians is preserved in Greek as compared to Latin, at least as it can be found in a user created module of BibleWorks 8. There are no chapters that are in both Greek and English....

There may be Latin mss. containing chapters that are here presented as preserved in Greek, and vice versa, but there might be something about their date or other weirdness that precludes them. There may have been various parts found at different times, some in Greek, a few in Latin, and the chapter numbering is simply a function of the order that mss. were found. Greek 1-9; Latin 10-12; Greek 13; Latin 14. They may even be independent of one another for all I know.
The entire epistle is preserved in Latin (about 10 manuscripts, I think). Not so for the Greek. There are about as many Greek manuscripts as Latin (again, IIRC), but they all obviously derive from the same truncated exemplar, since they all lack the same chapters. Most compilations of the Apostolic Fathers are not in the habit of providing Latin translations of Greek texts (which translations exist for a lot of Christian works owing to Latin having become the ecclesiastical language of the West), so such compilations often provide the Greek where it is extant and the Latin only where the Greek is not.

Also, two of the Greek chapters do not come from the Greek manuscripts; they come from Eusebius' quotations of the epistle in his History of the Church.
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 »

John2 wrote: Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:55 pm Alright, one more wild speculation and then I'll call it a night. You (and commentaries) seem to suggest that there is an element of Daniel's Antiochus behind all these "deceiver" allusions in various Christian writings, so could 2 Thes. 2:1-4 then have anything to do with Mk. 13, which mentions "the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong," i.e., the Temple?
Jesus said to them: “Watch out that no one deceives you. Many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am he,’ and will deceive many. When you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed. Such things must happen ... When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’ standing where it does not belong ... At that time if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Messiah!’ or, ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. So be on your guard; I have told you everything ahead of time.
2 Thes. 2:3-4:
Don’t let anyone deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.


Could the man of lawlessness refer to one of Mark 13's "I am he" people?
John2 wrote: Thu Sep 28, 2017 2:50 pm The key issue for the Caligula idea is the dating of 1 Thessalonians (which is usually thought to be in the early 50's CE). But as Donfried notes:
The traditional dating of ca. 50-52 CE is heavily dependent on a non-critical reading of Lucan chronology according to the book of Acts. Some have argued for a date in the early 40s. While this early dating is resisted since it would alter traditional Pauline chronology, to place 1 Thessalonians earlier would allow for a far broader understanding of the development and growth of Paul's articulation of the gospel in vastly different situations over a longer period of time.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ygcgn ... ng&f=false
I am returning to this thread because I have been doing a lot of thinking about the difference between genuine predictions and predictions after the fact (vaticinia ex eventu). For some reason there seems to be a tendency to assume that most of the predictions we deal with on the pages of the NT are the latter: "predictions" made after the fact, with the fulfillment of those predictions in full view of the author as a datum of history.

And this approach is obviously correct in many cases. Mark 13.1-2, for example, contains what I take to be a vaticinium ex eventu, and it is well known that scholars take Daniel 11 to be vaticinia ex eventu up to a certain point in Antiochus' career; but... after that point the predictions are real (and they did not really come to pass). And that is the option that I think is too often missed.

I do not think that either the man of sin/lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2 or the world deceiver in Didache 16 or the human element behind the abomination of desolation in Mark 13 = Matthew 24 actually is Caligula (or anybody else). I think that the lawless figure in question is a genuine prediction; even today Christians predict the advent of the Antichrist, right? They make guesses sometimes as to his identity, but usually most of them are content to expect him to make his appearance in the near future.

But that does not mean that the lawless one is not modeled on actual historical figures. It seems quite clear that many conceptions of this figure have been influenced by Antiochus Epiphanes and by Nero; and I would argue that he has also been influenced by Caligula for his attempt to set up worship of himself in the Temple. (Not even Antiochus did that, apparently; the worship was of Zeus.)

The same it true, in my judgment, of the abomination of desolation predicted in Matthew 24 and Mark 13. It seems to me to be a genuine prediction based on what Antiochus did (in the first place) and also on what Caligula tried to do (in the second place): from Antiochus comes the original idea itself, not to mention the very term "abomination of desolation," and from Caligula comes Mark's modifying of a neuter noun ("abomination") with a masculine participle ("standing"), a most appropriate constructio ad sensum for the statue of a man who thinks of himself as a god (refer also to 2 Thessalonians 2.4).

As a prediction of what would happen, the abomination of desolation is/was a failure, one which had to be reined in and reinterpreted.

I have been reviewing the Apocalypse of Peter recently in connection with all of this, and it is interesting that it has nothing to say about the Temple:

Apocalypse of Peter: And when the Lord was seated upon the Mount of Olives, his disciples came unto him. And we besought and entreated him severally and prayed him, saying unto him, "Declare unto us what are the signs of your coming and of the end of the world, that we may perceive and mark the time of your coming and instruct them that come after us, unto whom we preach the word of your gospel, and whom we set over in your church, that they when they hear it may take heed to themselves and mark the time of your coming."

Matthew 24.1-3: 1 And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He answered and said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down." 3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of Your advent, and of the end of the age?"

Mark 13.1-4: 1 And as He was going out of the temple, one of His disciples said to Him, "Teacher, behold what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!" 2 And Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone shall be left upon another which will not be torn down." 3 And as He was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew were questioning Him privately, 4 "Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?"

In Mark the first question is about the destruction of the Temple, but Jesus' answer includes details of his advent (13.24-27). The second question, as Ken Olson points out, actually has no referent. (I have some thoughts on this, but they will have to wait.)

In the Apocalypse of Peter the first question is about the coming of the Lord, while the second is about the end of the world. Nothing is asked about the Temple, and nothing in the response as we have it (either in the Greek fragment or in the Ethiopic) mentions the Temple.

In Matthew there are three questions: one about the Temple (as in Mark), and then two about Jesus' advent and the end of the age (as in Peter), respectively. Is Matthew conflating two different accounts here?

The Didache also mentions nothing about the Temple; it is all about "the last time" (16.3) and the coming of the Lord (16.8), just like the Apocalypse of Peter.

Whereas in Mark a question about the Temple leads to an answer which includes the advent of the Lord, in 2 Thessalonians it is exactly the opposite:

2 Thessalonians 2.1-2: 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 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.

This introduction mentions only the advent of the Lord (and the gathering associated with it), but later on (pseudo-)Paul mentions the Temple (2.4) as the place in which the man of sin/lawlessness is expected to take his seat as a god. It seems that there is a stage of Christian eschatological thought at which you cannot easily discuss one (either the Temple or the coming of Jesus) without discussing the other.

John, you wondered whether the abomination of desolation is relevant to this part of 2 Thessalonians, and I am inclined to think that the parallels are real and important. And, if indeed there are parallels, then I think they also speak to a literal Temple in 2 Thessalonians 2.4, just as the Temple in Mark 13.1-2 is literal.

I never really understood the "temple in heaven" option anyway. It honestly looks like a route taken simply because we already "know" (somehow) that 2 Thessalonians postdates 70.

Another interesting tidbit about 2 Thessalonians is that it lacks any mention of "the unknown hour." To the contrary, there is a series of events leading up to the end, and (pseudo-)Paul expects his Thessalonian converts to be able to follow them and keep track of where they are in the overall scheme of things. Just as in the genuine Pauline epistles, the expectation is not that Jesus can come at any time henceforth, but rather that he will come in time to make a difference for the readers:

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.

Maybe some feel that there is not enough time between Paul's death and the events of 70 for a pseudo-Paul to have forged this epistle; but, as Jax has argued recently, it is not entirely clear how early or late Paul has to be, anyway. I am also interested in reviewing the arguments for and against genuine Pauline authorship of this epistle. My assumption right now is that it is a forgery, but I am open to changing my mind.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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,
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").
Romans 9 never features "the temple of God". However "temple of God" appears in:
1Co 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
2Co 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

And signifies the spiritual temple of God made up of Pauline Christians.

I take 2 Thessalonians as not written by Paul but I see no reason to think "the temple of God" here does not mean the same thing than in Paul's genuine letters.

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 »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 10:31 amI take 2 Thessalonians as not written by Paul but I see no reason to think "the temple of God" here does not mean the same thing than in Paul's genuine letters.
If it is not by Paul, why does it have to follow Pauline usage?

Also, if the temple means the believers, what does it mean for the man of sin/lawlessness to take his seat there? You have not been very clear on that point. Does pseudo-Paul mean, in your opinion, that this figure will take a seat in a church meeting and claim to be a god?
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, it is worth paying close attention to those cases in which Paul equates the church/people of God with the temple of God:

1 Corinthians 3.16-17: 16 Do you not know that you are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 17 If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are.

2 Corinthians 6.16: 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, "I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people."

(I am not sure the last instance on that list is even genuine, but it follows a similar pattern anyway.)

In both cases, Paul makes his metaphor clear. He does not refer blithely to "the temple of God" without also calling attention to the metaphorical character of his usage.

There is also one case in which he uses the image of the physical body of a believer:

1 Corinthians 6.19: 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?

Again, the same concern is present: Paul makes the metaphor very clear.

Yet the author of 2 Thessalonians feels free, on your view, to use this metaphor (in the first way above, as the church, not in the second, as the human body) without any clarification at all. That seems suspicious to me.

Contrast:

1 Corinthians 9.13: 13 Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share with the altar?

This is the other Greek word for "temple," I know, but notice how Paul can just say it without explaining it. The "do you not know" question applies, not to the identity of the temple, but rather to what the temple servants eat.

In 2 Thessalonians 2.4 "the temple" goes unexplained; it is, therefore, probably the literal temple, which requires no explanation.
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 »

Also worth noting, 1 Corinthians 3.16 lacks the definite article before "temple." It says that "you are a temple" of God. The next verse adds the definite article, as is customary, since the noun has now been introduced. But its introduction is anarthrous.

Same goes for 1 Corinthians 6.19 and 2 Corinthians 6.16: no definite article.

In 1 Corinthians 9.13, however, it is "the temple" from which the servants eat. The definite article is there because we already know what this temple is: the one in Jerusalem.

In 2 Thessalonians 2.4 it is also "the temple" of God. The definite article is present.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply