The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by neilgodfrey »

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?
Beg pardon if this comment has been raised before since I have not read every post in this thread, but my question is how this passage could relate to what we know about any Jewish temple. That question surely has some potential relevance to how we assess the date of the letter.

The sort of temple where we imagine a god sitting on his throne is a Greek or other non-Jewish one. The architecture of a Jewish temple does not allow for a throne for a god, unless you take that to be the "mercy seat" behind closed curtains, but I think that's not an appropriate throne from all we read about it.

I don't know how to visualize anyone "taking his seat in the [Jewish] temple of God showing himself to be God."
vridar.org Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science
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,
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.
I still cannot see, because the epistle is addressed to Gentile Christians, that temple of God would be the one in Jerusalem. It looks that the one proclaiming to be God is no other that Domitian, the man of lawlessness.
Setting himself up in the temple of God is obviously figuratively. It means that Domitian would want to replace the God of the Christians, and be the one to be worshiped instead.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed
Charles Wilson
Posts: 2098
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: The date of 2 Thessalonians.

Post by Charles Wilson »

Bernard Muller wrote: Sat Feb 17, 2018 6:28 pm to Ben,
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.
I still cannot see, because the epistle is addressed to Gentile Christians, that temple of God would be the one in Jerusalem. It looks that the one proclaiming to be God is no other that Domitian, the man of lawlessness.
Setting himself up in the temple of God is obviously figuratively. It means that Domitian would want to replace the God of the Christians, and be the one to be worshiped instead.
Well stated, Bernard.

100%

CW
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 6:28 pm to Ben,
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.
I still cannot see, because the epistle is addressed to Gentile Christians, that temple of God would be the one in Jerusalem.
Which pagan temple do you think Paul is referring to, then?

1 Esdras 5.53: 53 And all who had made any vow to God began to offer sacrifices to God, from the new moon of the seventh month, though the temple of the God [ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, with the definite article] was not yet built.

1 Esdras 5.57: 57 ...and they laid the foundation of the temple of the God [τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεοῦ, with the definite article] on the new moon of the second month in the second year after they came to Judea and Jerusalem.

Judith 5.18: 18 But when they departed from the way which he had appointed for them, they were utterly defeated in many battles and were led away captive to a foreign country; the temple of their God [ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ αὐτῶν, with the definite article] was razed to the ground, and their cities were captured by their enemies.

Daniel 5.3 Theodotion: 3 Then they brought the gold vessels that had been taken out of the temple of the God [τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ, with the definite article] which was in Jerusalem; and the king and his nobles, his wives, and his concubines drank from them.

Matthew 26.61: 61 ...and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of the God [τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεου, with the definite article] and to rebuild it in three days.'"

2 Thessalonians 2.4: 4 ...who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god [λεγόμενον θεὸν, no definite article] or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of the God [τὸν ναὸν τοῦ θεου, with the definite article], displaying himself as being a god [ὅτι ἔστιν θεός, no definite article].

By way of contrast, here are some more metaphorical usages:

2 Clement 9.3: 3 We must therefore preserve the flesh as a temple of God [ναὸν θεοῦ, no definite article].

Ignatius to the Philadelphians 7.2: 2 Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand the division caused by some among you. But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as a temple of God [ναὸν θεοῦ, no definite article]; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.

Barnabas 16.6: 6 Let us inquire, then, if there still is a temple of God [ναὸς θεοῦ, no definite article]. There is — where He himself declared He would make and finish it. For it is written, "And it shall come to pass, when the week is completed, a temple of God [ναὸς θεοῦ] shall be built in glory in the name of the Lord." I find, therefore, that a temple [ναός, no definite article] does exist.

Barnabas even has to fudge that reference to Daniel 9.24-27 to make his temple sound metaphorical; the LXX has both τὸ ἅγιον and τὸ ἱερόν, both with the definite article.

There may be exceptions somewhere, but overall the tendency is for ὁ ναὸς τοῦ θεοῦ to mean the temple of the (one and only) God.
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,
No pagan temple, just the figurative one made of the assembly of Christians.

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 9:12 pm to Ben,
No pagan temple, just the figurative one made of the assembly of Christians.
Okay, so the assembly of Christians, with no markers at all as we find elsewhere when that kind of metaphor is on the table, and with both definite articles firmly in place. Again, I find that unlikely.

Can you tell me what it is about 2 Thessalonians as a whole that makes you so sure that it was written after 70? It cannot be "the temple of God," since there would be zero linguistic difficulty with that phrase, by itself, referring to the temple in Jerusalem. So it must be something else. What is it?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
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 »

I think we cannot rule out, assuming original letters that had been edited by a later (re-)publisher (as I do), you can have both
1) references that only make sense if the temple was still standing, and
2) others that mock Judeans and their sacrificial system, which suggests that the temple sacrificial system was a thing of the past, substituting the Redeemer-Christ theology as the divinely authorized replacement for it.

In this case, the man who wants to stand where he ought not in 2 Thessalonians is the Emperor Gaius and the one who restrains is Petronius legate of Syria, which of course occurred while the temple stood. The date would be around 39 CE (the matter resolved itself in 40 CE). The comment revolved around Judean expectations in Paul's circle about the events that would occur when God delivered on his promise of a blessed (home-)land to Abraham's "seed." The writer felt that gentiles could be so counted as Abe's seed if they had Abe's faith in it's delivery.

The Redeemer Christ theology mentioned in #2 above, IMHO, probably developed after the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.

However, there are no such derogative statement about the temple in 2 Thessalonians, but there is a blistering condemnation of Judeans who "persecuted" the editor's kind in "1:4b in all your persecutions and in the afflictions which you are enduring ... 6 since indeed God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 “inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God (Ps 79:6; Is 66:15; Jr 10:25) and upon those who do not obey the good news of our Lord Jesus. 9 They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion “from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,” (Is 2:10,19,21) 10a when He comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed"

This seems, to me at least, to be most appropriate as a reaction to persecutions the editor's kind experienced, which I have often suggested resulted from bouts of ethnic cleansing and ill-will between Greeks and Judeans that occurred during and immediately after the war of 66-73 CE. I am assuming, of course, that the group was composed of gentiles who had converted partly (by law observance) or completely (by circumcision) to Judaism, but received so much grief from "fellow" Judeans, that they explained in their own minds the loss by the Judean rebels and destruction of their temple as divine retribution, with divine favor transferring to themselves as a reward.

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: Sun Feb 18, 2018 7:15 am I think we cannot rule out, assuming original letters that had been edited by a later (re-)publisher (as I do), you can have both
1) references that only make sense if the temple was still standing, and
2) others that mock Judeans and their sacrificial system, which suggests that the temple sacrificial system was a thing of the past, substituting the Redeemer-Christ theology as the divinely authorized replacement for it.
I am, as you may be aware, quite open to the possibility of later editorial efforts having been imposed on the text.
In this case, the man who wants to stand where he ought not in 2 Thessalonians is the Emperor Gaius and the one who restrains is Petronius legate of Syria, which of course occurred while the temple stood. The date would be around 39 CE (the matter resolved itself in 40 CE). The comment revolved around Judean expectations in Paul's circle about the events that would occur when God delivered on his promise of a blessed (home-)land to Abraham's "seed." The writer felt that gentiles could be so counted as Abe's seed if they had Abe's faith in it's delivery.
In my judgment there is no need to assert that the man of lawlessness/sin is Caligula. The second chapter makes more sense to me as a prediction modeled on figures like Antiochus and Caligula (possibly also Pompey). We know that this kind of modeling of the eschatological "bad guy" (the deceiver, the antichrist, the beast) after Antiochus, Nero, and other notorious figures happened; it still happens today, in fact (modern conceptions of the Antichrist appear to owe a lot to totalitarian dictators like Hitler and Stalin).
However, there are no such derogatory statement about the temple in 2 Thessalonians....
Right.
...but there is a blistering condemnation of Judeans who "persecuted" the editor's kind in "1:4b in all your persecutions and in the afflictions which you are enduring ... 6 since indeed God deems it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to grant rest with us to you who are afflicted, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, 8 “inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God (Ps 79:6; Is 66:15; Jr 10:25) and upon those who do not obey the good news of our Lord Jesus. 9 They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion “from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,” (Is 2:10,19,21) 10a when He comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at in all who have believed"
How do we know that these persecutors are Judeans/Jews?
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,
Okay, so the assembly of Christians, with no markers at all as we find elsewhere when that kind of metaphor is on the table, and with both definite articles firmly in place. Again, I find that unlikely.
If the author of 2 Thessalonians is other than Paul (which I strongly think), he did not have to follow the convention of Paul about definite articles or not.
Can you tell me what it is about 2 Thessalonians as a whole that makes you so sure that it was written after 70? It cannot be "the temple of God," since there would be zero linguistic difficulty with that phrase, by itself, referring to the temple in Jerusalem. So it must be something else. What is it?
With difficulty, because the author wanted his letter to look as written by Paul.
However:
2 Th 2:1-3
"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren,
not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, ..."

indicates to me this situation, where a letter was written to the community about the day of the Lord having already come, is representative of the very end of the 1st cent. CE, if not the very beginning of the 2 cent. Not much later, because Marcion had this epistle in his cannon.
That declared false letter was a way to get rid of the problem of the not fulfilled generational prophecies in the synoptic gospels and/or Paul's 1 Corinthians. But that false letter generated despair, and that was the main reason why 2 Thessalonians was written: generate hope that the day of the Lord is still to come (despite the delay).

Furthermore, 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.
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: Sun Feb 18, 2018 10:56 am to Ben,
Okay, so the assembly of Christians, with no markers at all as we find elsewhere when that kind of metaphor is on the table, and with both definite articles firmly in place. Again, I find that unlikely.
If the author of 2 Thessalonians is other than Paul (which I strongly think), he did not have to follow the convention of Paul about definite articles or not.
It is not just Paul: it is Esdras, Daniel, Judith, Matthew, and others (I found references in Alexander Polyhistor and in others in the TLG that I did not bother to list).
Can you tell me what it is about 2 Thessalonians as a whole that makes you so sure that it was written after 70? It cannot be "the temple of God," since there would be zero linguistic difficulty with that phrase, by itself, referring to the temple in Jerusalem. So it must be something else. What is it?
With difficulty, because the author wanted his letter to look as written by Paul.
However:
2 Th 2:1-3
"Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling to meet him, we beg you, brethren,
not to be quickly shaken in mind or excited, either by spirit or by word, or by letter purporting to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come.
Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come, ..."

indicates to me this situation, where a letter was written to the community about the day of the Lord having already come, is representative of the very end of the 1st cent. CE, if not the very beginning of the 2 cent. Not much later, because Marcion had this epistle in his cannon.
That declared false letter was a way to get rid of the problem of the not fulfilled generational prophecies in the synoptic gospels and/or Paul's 1 Corinthians. But that false letter generated despair, and that was the main reason why 2 Thessalonians was written: generate hope that the day of the Lord is still to come (despite the delay).

Furthermore, 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.
Okay, thank you. I will seriously consider all of that.

Ben.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply