The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Secret Alias »

... adding to it's historical credibility
“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
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by neilgodfrey »

Yet we also know that myths, legends, rumours, vary in the telling over time as much as, if not more than, "real events".
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by DCHindley »

Not sure which post(s) SA and NG were responding to.

If my little story about Agrippa I, the details of which are sketched out in Antiquities 18 & 19, and my ending comment that Acts relates one of the many incidents I referred to with different details than Josephus, are what is being referred to, I can only say that I do not automatically assume that the details have to be identical to confirm the story. And no observer of any event sees it from exactly the same angle.

Agrippa I was a sinner turned saint. He was a spendthrift all his life, even when he hit the big time. He cheated folks. He skipped out on an imperial procurator to avoid paying back a debt he did not have the assets to cover. Tiberius slapped him on the wrist when the report about it from that procurator arrived about the same time Agrippa I showed up at Tiberius' palace begging for an audience.

Agrippa really didn't expect to be granted an audience, seeing that the sight of Agrippa reminded Tiberius of his lost son, but I suppose that letter from the procurator arrived a bit before Agrippa (he had to take a side trip to Alexandria to secure traveling funds, with difficulty), and Tiberius took pity on him. He gave him another tutoring assignment, and from there Agrippa rebuilt his network of contacts to the point that he seemed about to "score" should Tiberius die and Gaius became emperor.

Unfortunately, like an idiot, he said this out loud in the presence of a servant and the servant reported him to Tiberius. So, Tiberius thinks "Well, this is how you repay my generosity, eh? Off to prison you go!" Of course, Gaius was not punished. Seems Agrippa had this ability to just about to come out ahead in life, and he blows it. Seems that was his fate: to be a looser.

When he was restored his freedom by Gaius and invested with Philip's former tetrarchy, he didn't dare even tell anyone about it or leave the palace for 2 years! I'm sure he was receiving some of the tetrarchy's revenues while still in Rome, but when he does show up in whatever the capital city was of that tetrarchy, apparently no one had been told about it having been given him 2 years before! And the former tetrarchy of Lysanius to boot!

People were flabbergasted! Especially Herod Antipas' wife, who thought her own husband was 1,000 times more deserving of an expanded territory than Agrippa, who may have himself hoped to be given the tetrarchy of Philip. At her urging, and perhaps on his own inclination as well, he too sought an audience with Gaius. Of course, once Agrippa heard about it he shot off a letter to the emperor explaining why this was not a good idea! Man were those Herodians ever jealous of their siblings and half-siblings.

So, Herod Antipas shows up, hat in hand, and Gaius listens to his proposal, maybe to be given Judea and Samaria as consolation prize. Then he asks an embarrassing question: "Why do you have 70,000 sets of soldier armor? What do you planning to do with them, revolt?" "Oh, oh! You know about that?" Antipas sputters. Because it was true. "Off into exile you go, without any of your former estates!" His wife, when Gaius offered to let her keep her own private estates, refused to go into exile with them in her possession, if her husband was not worthy, then she was not worthy. She wanted to shame Caligula, seeing she had Herod the Great's royal blood in her veins, but I guess that was not in his nature. "Scram!" says Gauis.

All of Antipas' estates, and all of his kingdom, were added to Agrippa. What a freaking windfall! For Antipas' retainers, this must have been a real blow. If Paul was one of them, he was now either out of a job or working for his former patron's rival. Surely Antipas was much more worthy than Agrippa in the eyes of his retainers! I think that they latched onto the rumors that Agrippa was himself planning revolt. Surely the Governor of Syria didn't trust him very far.

So, they waited for Agrippa to show his cards, to attempt an actual revolt in the reign of Claudius. That he could be, well cruel, is relayed on the story of his dedicating an amphitheater by having 700 trained gladiators slaughter 700 condemned criminals, which was all he could round up. Claudius, while he bestowed upon Agrippa the rest of Herod's kingdom then in Roman care, really had to seeing that Agrippa was pivitol in talking the Senate into allowing Claudius to be the new emperor after Gaius was assassinated. However, Josephus suggests that Claudius agreed with his governor that Agrippa was not as staunch an ally as he put on to be.

So, upon any rebellious action by Agrippa, such as changing alliance from Rome to Parthia, Claudius would surely whup Agrippa's ass and take that kingdom away from him. Then he might think of poor (literally) Antipas rotting in exile and "do the right thing," bestowing that kingdom onto Antipas. While those former household servants of Antipas' estates chafed under their new owner/patron, they secretly hoped for his reinstatement as anointed king and his subsequent triumphal return, one that would be even more impressive that Agrippa's had been!

Yet this gets lost when one figures that there is no Jesus in it, just Herodian rivals duking it out. And 2 Thess features Jesus prominently, but remember my suggestion that the letters were genuine but revised, after the 1st Judean rebellion, by a Jesus follower who's concept of a supernatural messiah had developed far beyond being just another kingly claimant officially sanctioned by Rome.

In fact, I'm going to raise the probability of this scenario being the case from my former estimate of low likelihood. There is actually a bit of traction here, in my eyes.

But of course (my stock phrase), because there is no Jesus in it, it just has to be wrong. Has to be! DOA! :tombstone:

DCH
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Peter Kirby »

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?
Not sure how good this answer is, but the "temple of God" could be in heaven and the "seat" be on the ark in heaven.
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19 ESV)
Points in favor:
  • The Second Temple had no ark. No ark, no seat.
  • To display yourself as God, go to God's temple in heaven.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
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 »

Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:19 am
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?
Not sure how good this answer is, but the "temple of God" could be in heaven and the "seat" be on the ark in heaven.
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19 ESV)
Points in favor:
  • The Second Temple had no ark. No ark, no seat.
  • To display yourself as God, go to God's temple in heaven.
"Let no one deceive you. It will not come until the man of sin exalts himself above God and takes his seat in the temple of God." In the interests of avoiding being deceived, how could the intended readers be expected to know what has happened in heaven? Or do you think the revelation of the son of destruction is supposed to be a shared vision of some kind?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8048
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Peter Kirby »

Ben C. Smith wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:28 am
Peter Kirby wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:19 am
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?
Not sure how good this answer is, but the "temple of God" could be in heaven and the "seat" be on the ark in heaven.
Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Revelation 11:19 ESV)
Points in favor:
  • The Second Temple had no ark. No ark, no seat.
  • To display yourself as God, go to God's temple in heaven.
"Let no one deceive you. It will not come until the man of sin exalts himself above God and takes his seat in the temple of God." In the interests of avoiding being deceived, how could the intended readers be expected to know what has happened in heaven? Or do you think the revelation of the son of destruction is supposed to be a shared vision of some kind?
I'm not entirely sure. But the ancient cosmology wouldn't require it to be a shared vision. "Heaven" was "up there" but concealed. For this activity to be seen, it could be "opened" for ordinary view.

Josephus and Tacitus both describe something very similar to what you're calling "a shared vision of some kind," although it's not completely clear to me whether it was supposed to be a shared "vision" or ordinary sight.
Josephus
"Besides these [signs], a few days after that feast, on the one- and-twentieth day of the month Artemisius, [Jyar,] a certain prodigious and incredible phenomenon appeared; I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it, and were not the events that followed it of so considerable a nature as to deserve such signals; for, before sun-setting, chariots and troops of soldiers in their armour were seen running about among the clouds, and surrounding of cities. Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of a great multitude, saying, "Let us remove hence" (Jewish Wars, VI-V-3).

Tacitus
"13. Prodigies had occurred, but their expiation by the offering of victims or solemn vows is held to be unlawful by a nation which is the slave of superstition and the enemy of true beliefs. In the sky appeared a vision of armies in conflict, of glittering armour. A sudden lightning flash from the clouds lit up the Temple. The doors of the holy place abruptly opened, a superhuman voice was heard to declare that the gods were leaving it, and in the same instant came the rushing tumult of their departure. Few people placed a sinister interpretation upon this. The majority were convinced that the ancient scriptures of their priests alluded to the present as the very time when the Orient would triumph and from Judaea would go forth men destined to rule the world." (Histories, Book 5, v. 13).
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Giuseppe »

Jerome, Commentary on the Bible
[Mt.24.15] So when you see the standing in the holy place the abomination that causes desolation:
or to the statue of the mounted Hadrian, which stands to this very day on the site of the Holy of Holies.
Therefore not only 2 Thess, but also all the Gospels are post-Bar-Kochba. :popcorn:
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Giuseppe »

Some extracts from Religious Aspects of the Bar Kokhba Revolt: The Founding of Aelia Capitolina on the Ruins of Jerusalem
of Boaz Zissu and Hanan Eshel.


Note, however, that according to both schools of thought, the founding of Aelia Capitolina is related to the Bar Kokhba Revolt. The question, of course, is which event caused the other - a question we aim to answer on the basis of archeological evidence.
(my bold)
One of the most compelling pieces of evidence supporting an earlier founding of Aelia Capitolina comes from coins minted by the city before or during the revolt and found in hoards and numismatic assemblages concealed in refuge caves in the Judean Desert before the end of the revolt.
These finds suggest that urban reconstruction of Jerusalem began in the first quarter of the second century and certainly not after 130 CE. Therefore, it seems that Hadrian started rebuilding Jerusalem as a Roman, pagan city soon after he was appointed emperor in 117 CE. However, the 'official' founding of the Roman colony of Aelia Capitolina should be dated to the imperial visit to Judaea in 129/130.
A large fragment of a monumental Latin inscription commemorating Hadrian's visit in 129/130 CE has been recently uncovered in an IAA salvage excavation just north of the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem.

...
The fact that this inscription was part of such a large structure attests to public construction on a monumental scale in Jerusalem prior to the emperor's visit of 129/130 E - two years before the outbreak of the revolt. The rebellion would therefore have erupted in reaction to the result of these construction activities - a pagan Roman city on the ruins of Jerusalem.
(my bold)

Therefore this fact makes surely more strong the case for Hadrian being the ''abomination of desolation'', and consequently for a post-Bar-Kokhba dating ot the Gospels.
In a recent study, Giovanni B. Bazzana suggests a somewhat different explanation: Hadrian was acting according to a benevolent policy consistent with his broader attitude to his polytheistic Empire. In Hadrian's eyes, the foundation of the Roman colonia and the rebuilding of the Temple were acts of euergetism intended to integrate the Jews into the Empire.
We emphasize that we do not have a reliable soruce to back up the theory that Hadrian intended to rebuild the Jewish Temple; if that was, indeed, his intention, it it hard to understand why the Jews revolted.
The possibility is concrete that Hadrian wanted to build a Pagan temple in situ before the 135 CE. The revolt moved him to put only the his statue and not an entire temple.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by John2 »

Giuseppe,

The problem with the Bar Kokhba idea is that 2 Thessalonians was known to Ignatius, who is said to have died c. 110 CE, before the Bar Kokhba war.
.. it was mentioned by name by Irenaeus, and quoted by Ignatius, Justin, and Polycarp.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Ep ... ssalonians
But I suppose this depends on which letters Ignatius quotes 2 Thessalonians in (i.e., whether they are "authentic" letters or not), and whether or not Ignatius was Peregrinus (who is said to have died in 165 CE), as Parvus discusses here: http://vridar.org/other-authors/roger-p ... -ignatius/.
You know in spite of all you gained, you still have to stand out in the pouring rain.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Giuseppe »

Markus Vinzent has written recently about Ignatius.
the Short Recension only gives us three names: Ignatius himself (not listed here) as author of the letters and the two addressees, Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus, and Polycarp. Ignatius – his cognomen ‘Theophoros’, as shown above, seems to be a 6th c. addition – is introduced and right in the beginning of IgnEph 1 etymologically (ܪܬܚܢ; ἀναζωπυρήσαντες) explained. ‘Ignatius’ means the one who is ‘kindled’, ‘sparked’ or ‘heated’ by God’s blood. Likewise, the name of ‘Onesimus’ has an etymological meaning which is indicated by the way he is introduced when mention is made that Ignatius has ‘received your abundance in the name of God’, ‘Onesimus’ meaning ‘aiding, succouring, beneficial’ (LSJ). The only person’s name that is not etymologically explained is that of Polycarp, an indication that this might have been the only self-explanatory one with a historical figure behind it.
http://markusvinzent.blogspot.it/2017/0 ... tioch.html
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.
Post Reply