Corpus-Paul

[kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Robert Kraft)]

> 
> 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!
> 
Jeffrey Peterson replied

> 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.
> 
> Jeffrey Peterson

If I understand your argument, you could translate the larger context
something like this:
 
"We urge you ... not to be dislodged quickly from your conviction, nor
thrown into a tizzy -- neither by means of a spirit-communication, nor a
discourse, nor a letter, [nor] as though we were the source -- to the
effect that the day of the Lord has arrived." 

I wouldn't call it impossible, although I'm skeptical about such intricate
syntactical distinctions and wonder whether they would have occurred to
anyone if it were not for the very issue of "pseudonymity" that we are
discussing. It is interesting that the (unpunctuated) Latin vulgate
tradition (I haven't tried to look at "Old Latin" materials), for whatever
it is worth, might be seen as replicating the possible ambiguity of the
Greek (...neque per epistulam tamquam per nos quasi instet dies Domini),
but variations within the Latin MSS make what I would label as the
"traditional interpretation" explicit by including "(vobis)
missam" after "per nos" (variant "a nobis") -- "neither through an
epistle sent (to you) through/by us." That still seems to me to be the
most "natural" reading -- and apparently most English translators agree
(for whatever that is worth).

I doubt that your distinction between <gk>hWS DI' hHMWN</> and <gk>hWS
hYP' hHMWN</> would hold up, although the control evidence is scarce. Do
you see any connection, as I am tempted to do, with 2 Thess 2.15 ("...the
traditions that you received [from us?] either by means of a discourse [of
ours?] or an epistle [of ours]") -- with <gk>LOGOS</> and <gk>EPISTOLH</>
in parallel again?

In 2 Thess 2.2, you could also envision the author (Paul or a Paulinist)
associating the <gk>hWS DI' hHMWN</> phrase with the "spririt" reference
as well as with "word"  and "epistle" -- similar, e.g. to Galatians 1.8 on
a (hypothetical?)  deceiving "angel"? Don't listen to any of these types
of communication that might shake you, even if they seem to be identified
with us! And according to 1.1, the "us" would include Silvanus and
Timothy.

You have already mentioned 2 Thess 3.17, which seems to me to fit into
this larger picture of multiple "Pauline" or "Paulinist" epistles (and
spirits, and discourses?!) available to the recipients (how many letters
does "in every letter" imply?). Perhaps "pseudonymity" is not the only
solution, but something unusual seems to be going on here, including the
possibility of misreading/mishearing "Paul"  (as, of course, 2 Peter
3.15-16 warns). The passage remains highly provocative for this sort of
discussion, I think. 

Bob
-- 
Robert A. Kraft, Religious Studies, University of Pennsylvania
227 Logan Hall (Philadelphia PA 19104-6304); tel. 215 898-5827
kraft AT ccat.sas.upenn.edu
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rs/rak/kraft.html