Corpus-Paul

[Jeff Peterson <peterson AT mail.ics.edu>]

At 10:44 AM -0400 4/27/99, Robert Kraft wrote in part:
>On the pseudonymity issues and "Paul," I usually try to start the
>discussion with 2 Thessalonians 2.2:.. MH/TE DI' E)PISTOLH=S W(S DI' H(MW=N
>
>The wording seems clear enough, although I'm sure that various
>interpretations have been and will be offered. My take is that the author,
>whether Paul or not, is aware of at least one "pseudonomous" production in
>Paul's name -- or is producing one!

I don't think the grammar will bear this freight. The DI' hHMWN is the last
in a list of agents _by means of which_ (DIA) the readers might've formed
the conclusion that the day of the Lord has dawned: might've happened (1)
by means of a spirit, speaking through a prophet in a worship assembly (cf.
1 Thess 5:19-20; 1 Cor 14:32 et al.); (2) by means of a "report" (of some
portentious event?) or a teachers "discourse" (LOGOS) to the same effect;
or (3) by means of a letter. Then follows the crucial phrase, "as though by
means of us" (hWS DI' hHMWN). Fairly literally, the phrase under discussion
runs "[I don't want you to be troubled,] neither through a spirit, nor
through an utterance, nor through a letter, as though through us." Note
that the DIA is retained, and it should be interpreted in the same way as
the three preceding ones absent compelling reason to do otherwise; it
refers to an agent through which the readers might've reached the contested
opinion, namely Paul. The hWS makes this possibility hypothetical -- "as
though we were the source of this erroneous opinion" might be an acceptable
paraphrase.

To fix the sense of that last crucial phrase requires careful attention to
(1) the valence of hWS in the construction MHTE...MHTE...MHTE...hWS, (2)
the relation of the hWS phrase to the immediately preceding MHTE, and (3)
the significance of the preposition DIA in the phrase hWS DI' hHMWN. A more
natural way to say "through the agency of a letter sent on the pretense of
coming from us" would be DI' EPISTOLHS hWS hYP' hHMWN. In this light it
seems more likely that 2 Thess 2:2 is disallowing an interpretation of a
prior Pauline letter (1 Thess 5:2 is a good candidate) promulgated by
prophets or teachers.

There is still the business of 3:17 to figure out -- the author for some
reason wants to underscore that this letter bears his personal seal of
approval -- but I think this is even harder to make work for pseudonymity.

Jeff

------------------------------------
Jeffrey Peterson
Institute for Christian Studies
Austin, Texas, USA
------------------------------------