The date of 2 Thessalonians.

[Irish1975]

What was the outcome here of the discussion re the nature of the temple per 2 Thess. 2:1-4 (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3460&hilit=hadrian&start=100#p98959) ? It seems to have been deflected by a discussion on the resurrection, or have I misread the thread?

(One post did insist on the central importance of methodology but none of the links I followed seemed to explain the nature of that methodology. Is there a post that addresses the nature of that methodology?)

This is where the debate left off, I believe--

Wild Hypothesis: this apocalyptic prediction [sc. 2 Thss 2] was left on the cutting room floor from the pre-70 era. Someone decided to paste it into a Pauline epistle, the purpose of which was perhaps just to get people back to living normal lives. Hence, the discourse against idlers.

This is pretty much my position on the "little apocalypse" in Matthew 24 = Mark 13. I have argued elsewhere on this forum (in rather many scattered threads, unfortunately) that the core of this shared chapter was a prediction from before 70 that the temple would be desecrated (as implied by the very term used: the abomination of desolation, which in Daniel and 1 Maccabees was a desecration of the temple); the temple, however, was destroyed instead, and the chapter was preserved in a form that tweaked its original prediction of desecration into a prediction of destruction.

It would not surprise me if something similar happened in the case of 2 Thessalonians 2, and the reference to the temple were a holdover from a layer of text dating to before 70. However, with the synoptic apocalypse I have argument after textual argument in favor of my thesis, whereas I have nothing (yet?) of that nature for 2 Thessalonians 2.

Good idea, though.

As for methodology, I am suspicious of interpretations that depend on what unknown authors or sources are supposed to have thought in order to have left us with a particular text. The form of the argument seems to be:

1) Text T says x
2) T would not say x unless its author/source believed that y
3) The belief that y implies that z
4) Therefore, z

The middle term y is almost always debatable, speculative, etc., so arguments of this form are generally unpersuasive, if not invalid. But a great deal depends on the type or genre of literature in question. Applying such reasoning to apocalyptic literature in particular is dubious. The semantic universe of historical reference points is as malleable and insubstantial as the events they foretell. Other factors such as archaism and forgery are also relevant. Since all of these concerns pertain to 2 Thss 2, I agree with Luckensmeyer that the temple reference is "unclear."

[neilgodfrey]

Thank you for responding. I have been slow to catch up. There are clearly multiple issues to weigh in the balance on this one.