Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie Thanks for the resources Steve. A few of those sources were on the pastoral, not 2 Thess. I am looking through the other two though on 2 Thess. I think I covered most of the content in the CCEL one and the sandersweb one is the CCEL article on another page.

You are right of course, I have a bit of posting and thinking rust today from my FRDB vacation. The same authors might be scanned for 2 Thessalonians authorship content, which you likely have checked. This is much less a hotbed than the pastorals so they may go minimal .

At any rate those few represent a nice mix of cross-section full belief authorship explication (called apologetics here), which was how I was thinking. As compared to folks like Ian Howard Marshall and Richard Bauckham and Alan Millard and the NetBible/DTS/Daniel_Wallace crew who tend toward a compromise or unsure view. The compromise view I find completely unworkable conceptually, however those authors will come up with some good counterpoints in the midst of their analysis.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Vinnie

That is the point. JJ is saying 2 Thess is calling 1 Thess a forgery. In 2 Thess "They are concerned that it already happened." but in 1 Thess they are looking forward to the day of the Lord // Parousia. The parallel JJ drew is not there.

Vinnie

Vinnie

The passage with the temple is highly eschatological, apocalyptic and futuristic.

It is a futuristic apocalyptic language which speaks of the man of rebellion (e.g. Dan 11:36-37). VV 8-10 tell us this man is an imagined symbolic figure representing the antichrist. He is the anti-God, anti-Christ with a psuedo parousia and false prophet par exellence (NJBC). "No concern for the physical Temple of Jerusalem is required by this visionary scenario."

I suppose part of this psuedo-parousia could be rebuilding the temple.

I see your point Ben, but I honestly tend to think that most Jews thought there would be another temple after it was destroyed. It was God's home. Eventually he would bring about another one. I could be very wrong on this but its what I think. That this language is futuristic and apocalyptic at least makes it far from obvious the temple is still standing in this. It is a viable interpretation because I suppose there would be a lot of apocalyptic language about false-Gods setting themselves up in the temple. The author just used it without qualifying the temple. His readers would obviously know if it was or wasn't standing and if Jewish would probably have believed it was going to be rebuilt in the future sometime so we don't even need to appeal to careless editing.

Again, I could be wrong though. I think the case for imitation is strong. Thus I'd put the letter on the heels of Paul's death this is a reference to the physical temple. I suppose it could be the first example of one forged when someone was still alive as well (I obtained that from Brown as well).

I'm sending out that pm now.

Vinnie

Ben C Smith

Yes, that is indeed the point. I was agreeing with you.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

I got it. Many thanks!

Ben.

jakejonesiv

Hi Ben and Vinnie!

What was the author referring to when he wrote in 2 Thessolonias 2:2 concerning forged episltes in Paul's name?

Is it your position that from the early 50's CE, that forgery of letters in Paul's name was already rampart? If that is true, is it wise to start with the assumption that any epistle is authentic?

The salutation of 3:17 is further evidence of the pseudopigrapher. If it really were Paul's signature, and the recepients were truly capable of recognizing it, there would be no need to spell it out, "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle."

The only reason to this 'self athenticiating" piece of verbage is to assure the readers that someone else had authenticated what they could not.

You know, S.Carlson has shown a great deal of insight concerning forgeries in his book on Secret Mark. If you guys could direct his attention to this post, I would greatly appreciate his comments of 2 Thess. 3:17.

Best,
Jake Jones IV

Ben C Smith

I am not sure. But the description does not match 1 Thessalonians very well, as I explained above.

That is possible. Rampant seems loaded, based on this one reference, but yes, I have already stipulated that Pauline forgeries may have occurred during his lifetime.

All of the epistles ought to be authenticated to the best of our ability. The ones easiest to authenticate are Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, and Galatians (the Hauptbriefe; note that I am not volunteering to authenticate them here and now; I am just mentally reviewing the history of the study of the Pauline epistles). The others are usually compared with those four as an aid in authentication.

There would be a reason to spell it out if the author thought they had already accepted a forgery. That is a most clear and compelling reason to spell it out. And yet, on the other hand, you are right that it makes sense as a pseudepigraphon, too. In other words, I find myself getting nowhere fast with this line of reasoning.

That said, I would be happy to regard 2 Thessalonians as spurious if several things were explained to my satisfaction.

Ben.

jakejonesiv

If 1 Thessolians 4:17 must, for sake of argument, happen during Paul's lifetime, then 5:1-2 argues that the time is unknown (repudiated by 2 Thess. 2:2); and 5:9-10 indicates a realized eschcatology, "who died for us, so that whether we are awake or asleep we may live together with him." That pretty much covers all the bases, and indictates too many cooks in the kitchen.

Best,
Jake

Ben C Smith

1 Thessalonians 5.1-2 argues that the time will catch unbelievers by surprise. That is not quite the same as arguing that the time is completely and utterly unknown.

Ben.

spamandham

Here's a bit more of the context of the passage in question...

For that day will not come until there is a great rebellion against God and the man of lawlessness is revealed—the one who brings destruction. He will exalt himself and defy everything that people call god and every object of worship. He will even sit in the temple of God, claiming that he himself is God.

Don’t you remember that I told you about all this when I was with you?

In 130 CE, Hadrian announced his intentions to rebuild Jerusalem, as well as a new temple. But the city was to be a Roman city, and the temple a temple to Jupiter, right on top of the ruins of the Jewish temple. In 131, Tineius Rufus had the old temple "ploughed up" as part of the foundation ceremony for the new temple. In typical fashion for the time, Hadrian was worshiped as a god (confirmed by a fairly recent discovery http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/hadrian/).

The Jews still considered the temple foundation to be 'the temple', even though it was in ruin. As a result, this was a great offense, and is what started the Bar Kochba revolt. Simon Bar Kochba, declared to be the messiah as revealed by Numbers 24:17 (the star prophecy), rebelled against Rome, bringing down their wrath on all Jews. Christians were opposed to this, and considered Bar Kochba a false messiah who led many Jews against god. The Bar Kochba revolt is what led to the split of Christianity from Judaism.

Imagine now, that you are Jewish Christian living through the horrible times of the Bar Kochba revolt. Your holy place had been defiled and destroyed by a ruthless Roman emperor - the man of lawlessness, a false messiah has risen up ...surely it's the end of the world.

Which events better match what is described in 1 Thess. 2, those of 70 CE, or those of 130-135 CE?