The date of 2 Thessalonians.

[Irish1975]

the day of the Lord ... will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 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.

I might add, it may be tempting to imagine a forger writing in Paul's name, aware that Paul predated the temple himself, who wrote in such a way as to imply that the temple is still standing (so as to help authenticate the forgery). However, a forger doing this sort of thing while attributing a prediction to Paul would be making it seem as if the prediction had already failed, for how can the temple be desecrated if there is no temple to desecrate? Such a forger would have to be imagining Paul as imagining, without saying so, that the temple would be rebuilt first. Is this possible? Of course it is. Our forger may be one quirky fellow, or perhaps just a bit inept. But is that option more likely than, or even as likely as, the option whereby the passage predated 70?

I don't have a settled opinion about the date of 2 Thessalonians, although I don't think it's Paul. You're right that, even for a later forger, it is awkward to have Paul mention a temple that, for the audience, is recently demolished. However, what if both the forger and the intended audience are thoroughly gentile, as implied (re the audience) in 1 Thessalonians? "The temple of God" in that case, might be something less specifically Judaic. I realize that's a stretch. But since the author of 2 Thes is at pains to quell the apocalyptic agitation of the Thessalonians, perhaps it is along the lines of "when I marry, I'll marry a prince," i.e. a condition so remote as to imply "I'm not getting married." There's so much weird stuff in this letter that "temple of God" could just be a hyperactive imagination.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't have a settled opinion about the date of 2 Thessalonians, although I don't think it's Paul. You're right that, even for a later forger, it is awkward to have Paul mention a temple that, for the audience, is recently demolished.

Okay, good.... (And this later forger would also be making Paul predict something that is possible only if the temple is standing.)

However, what if both the forger and the intended audience are thoroughly gentile, as implied (re the audience) in 1 Thessalonians? "The temple of God" in that case, might be something less specifically Judaic. I realize that's a stretch. But since the author of 2 Thes is at pains to quell the apocalyptic agitation of the Thessalonians, perhaps it is along the lines of "when I marry, I'll marry a prince," i.e. a condition so remote as to imply "I'm not getting married." There's so much weird stuff in this letter that "temple of God" could just be a hyperactive imagination.

This is exactly the point at which nonliteral interpretations of the temple in 2 Thessalonians start to resemble Lattke's assertion that the temple in the Odes of Solomon "may not have any specific meaning."

I have noticed that mentions of a standing temple seem to mean a lot in ancient texts which the exegete thinks might predate 70 and precious little in ancient texts which the exegete thinks might postdate 70.

[Irish1975]

I don't have a settled opinion about the date of 2 Thessalonians, although I don't think it's Paul. You're right that, even for a later forger, it is awkward to have Paul mention a temple that, for the audience, is recently demolished.

Okay, good.... (And this later forger would also be making Paul predict something that is possible only if the temple is standing.)

However, what if both the forger and the intended audience are thoroughly gentile, as implied (re the audience) in 1 Thessalonians? "The temple of God" in that case, might be something less specifically Judaic. I realize that's a stretch. But since the author of 2 Thes is at pains to quell the apocalyptic agitation of the Thessalonians, perhaps it is along the lines of "when I marry, I'll marry a prince," i.e. a condition so remote as to imply "I'm not getting married." There's so much weird stuff in this letter that "temple of God" could just be a hyperactive imagination.

This is exactly the point at which nonliteral interpretations of the temple in 2 Thessalonians start to resemble Lattke's assertion that the temple in the Odes of Solomon "may not have any specific meaning."

I have noticed that mentions of a standing temple seem to mean a lot in ancient texts which the exegete thinks might predate 70 and precious little in ancient texts which the exegete thinks might postdate 70.

Is your argument that, because I think "temple" in Ode 6 refers to the second temple, I am therefore required (by rationality, consistency) to accept "temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians as a reference to the same? I'll have to think about that.

For now I want to propose, tentatively, a different standard for NT texts and the Odes of Solomon that I think makes sense given their differences.

With the New Testament, the problem of archaism is always an issue. That is, are the writers of these texts, and those who edited them as sacred scripture, trying to backdate their material, make them appear to come from an older, more authentic/apostolic source than in fact is the case.

The Odes, by contrast, don't have this baggage. They come to us as apocrypha, things hidden away. And they were in fact lost to history from Lactantius until a century ago. They're worship materials, odes or hymns, not epistles. They don't exhibit, as far as I know, any internal evidence of editorial tampering or axe-grinding. And so they have, up to a point, a "what you see is what you get" quality that cannot be assumed for NT texts.

Curious what people think about that.

[Giuseppe]

Curious what people think about that.

In short: the Odes are anti-Gnostic writings from II century.

And He who created me when yet I was not knew what I would do when I came into being.
On account of this He was gracious to me in His abundant grace, and allowed me to ask from Him and to benefit from His sacrifice.
For He it is who is incorrupt, the perfection of the worlds and their Father.
He has allowed Him to appear to them that are His own; in order that they may recognize Him that made them, and not suppose that they came of themselves.
For towards knowledge He has set His way, he has widened it and lengthened it and brought it to complete perfection.

Why has the Odist to specify continually again and again about the his god the already-recognized fact that he is the creator, especially in connection with the giving of the knowledge (gnosis) ?

As already James H. Charlesworth realized, that excessive emphasis can be better explained as a reaction against gnostic haters of YHWH. Hence: from 100 CE.

[Irish1975]

Curious what people think about that.

In short: the Odes are anti-Gnostic writings from II century.

And He who created me when yet I was not knew what I would do when I came into being.
On account of this He was gracious to me in His abundant grace, and allowed me to ask from Him and to benefit from His sacrifice.
For He it is who is incorrupt, the perfection of the worlds and their Father.
He has allowed Him to appear to them that are His own; in order that they may recognize Him that made them, and not suppose that they came of themselves.
For towards knowledge He has set His way, he has widened it and lengthened it and brought it to complete perfection.

Why has the Odist to specify continually again and again about the his god the already-recognized fact that he is the creator, especially in connection with the giving of the knowledge (gnosis) ?

As already James H. Charlesworth realized, that excessive emphasis can be better explained as a reaction against gnostic haters of YHWH. Hence: from 100 CE.

I don't see "excessive emphasis" on creation in the Odes, a standard Jewish theme.

[Ben C. Smith]

I don't have a settled opinion about the date of 2 Thessalonians, although I don't think it's Paul. You're right that, even for a later forger, it is awkward to have Paul mention a temple that, for the audience, is recently demolished.

Okay, good.... (And this later forger would also be making Paul predict something that is possible only if the temple is standing.)

However, what if both the forger and the intended audience are thoroughly gentile, as implied (re the audience) in 1 Thessalonians? "The temple of God" in that case, might be something less specifically Judaic. I realize that's a stretch. But since the author of 2 Thes is at pains to quell the apocalyptic agitation of the Thessalonians, perhaps it is along the lines of "when I marry, I'll marry a prince," i.e. a condition so remote as to imply "I'm not getting married." There's so much weird stuff in this letter that "temple of God" could just be a hyperactive imagination.

This is exactly the point at which nonliteral interpretations of the temple in 2 Thessalonians start to resemble Lattke's assertion that the temple in the Odes of Solomon "may not have any specific meaning."

I have noticed that mentions of a standing temple seem to mean a lot in ancient texts which the exegete thinks might predate 70 and precious little in ancient texts which the exegete thinks might postdate 70.

Is your argument that, because I think "temple" in Ode 6 refers to the second temple, I am therefore required (by rationality, consistency) to accept "temple of God" in 2 Thessalonians as a reference to the same?

Sort of, yes. The reference to the temple in 2 Thessalonians is, if anything, less likely to be metaphorical than the reference in the Odes, given the context (as a sign by which to judge the progress of time) and the constraints upon it (given that a forger probably would not want to make Paul come off as a false prophet). I agree that the reference in the Odes makes more sense as literal than as figurative; a fortiori, then, for the reference in 2 Thessalonians.

For now I want to propose, tentatively, a different standard for NT texts and the Odes of Solomon that I think makes sense given their differences.

With the New Testament, the problem of archaism is always an issue. That is, are the writers of these texts, and those who edited them as sacred scripture, trying to backdate their material, make them appear to come from an older, more authentic/apostolic source than in fact is the case.

The Odes, by contrast, don't have this baggage. They come to us as apocrypha, things hidden away. And they were in fact lost to history from Lactantius until a century ago. They're worship materials, odes or hymns, not epistles. They don't exhibit, as far as I know, any internal evidence of editorial tampering or axe-grinding. And so they have, up to a point, a "what you see is what you get" quality that cannot be assumed for NT texts.

Curious what people think about that.

I 100% agree that Christian custody of Christian texts, combined with the Christian desire to make their favorite notions apostolic in origin, is something to take account of: always. On the other hand, you may be making the Odes come across as more pristine than they really are; but I am not sure about that.

But, in this case, the usual Christian desire to backdate a Pauline text such as 2 Thessalonians has to be considered in the same light as the usual Christian desire not to make a favorite apostle wrong or foolish when giving him authoritative words to fictitiously pen. No matter how you slice and dice it, making Paul predict a visible sign having to do with the temple if the temple is no longer even standing is weird. I have stated from the outset that it is not impossible, but we are dealing with probabilities here, and to that particular contingency I say, "Probably not."

[Bernard Muller]

the day of the Lord ... will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction, 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.

Maybe, it has been already said on this thread, but I always thought that passage from 2 Thessalonians has nothing to do with the Temple destruction, but rather relates to emperor Domitian who wanted to be called "my Lord and my God".

Cordially, Bernard

[Irish1975]

In case this wasn't already noted--

2 Thessalonians 2:4	Daniel 11:36 (LXX)
ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.	καὶ ποιήσει κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα καὶ κατευθυνεῖ, μέχρις οὗ συντελεσθῇ ἡ ὀργή, εἰς γὰρ συντέλειαν γίνεται.
who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.	And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done.

[Ben C. Smith]

In case this wasn't already noted--

2 Thessalonians 2:4	Daniel 11:36 (LXX)
ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα, ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι, ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.	καὶ ποιήσει κατὰ τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ καὶ ὁ βασιλεὺς ὑψωθήσεται καὶ μεγαλυνθήσεται ἐπὶ πάντα θεὸν καὶ λαλήσει ὑπέρογκα καὶ κατευθυνεῖ, μέχρις οὗ συντελεσθῇ ἡ ὀργή, εἰς γὰρ συντέλειαν γίνεται.
who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.	And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak astonishing things against the God of gods. He shall prosper till the indignation is accomplished; for what is determined shall be done.

Not sure whether that particular parallel has been noted on this thread, but I do know that I have pointed to Antiochus Epiphanes (as well as to Pompey and to Caligula) as possible models for the "man of sin/lawlessness" in 2 Thessalonians. Furthermore, I have come to believe that Daniel lies behind most early Christian apocalyptic thinking, at least to some extent.

[Irish1975]

The more I consider 2 Thessalonians 2:4, the less confident I am that the author is referring to a contemporaneous standing temple.

Parsing the sentence itself:

ὁ ἀντικείμενος καὶ ὑπεραιρόμενος
ἐπὶ πάντα λεγόμενον θεὸν ἢ σέβασμα,
ὥστε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καθίσαι,
ἀποδεικνύντα ἑαυτὸν ὅτι ἔστιν θεός.

My translation--

Who opposes and exalts himself
above every worshipped god or sacred thing,
so as to seat himself in the temple of God,
claiming that he himself is God.

King James--

Who opposeth and exalteth himself
above all that is called God, or that is worshipped;
so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God,
shewing himself that he is God.

The author is spelling out an imagined condition to be met before the parousia. The self-exalting of the man of lawlessness "above every god or sacred thing" is the main thought, which is elaborated with a clause of result: (by) seating himself in the temple of God, he declares himself to be God. The thought of the whole verse is essentially hypothetical: there will be this sort of man who will do this sort of thing so as to make out that he is God. The idea of an appeal to a concrete existing temple isn't necessary if the whole sentence is understood to have this purpose. It's more the idea of a temple. It is the "temple of God" because he sits himself in it as God.

Similarly, the New Jerome Biblical Commentary (1994):

"the temple image "may function simply as a 'classical image' referring to the rebel's usurping God's prerogative. No concern for the physical Temple of Jerusalem is required by this visionary scenario."