The Alleged ‘Letter Allegedly from Us’: The Parallel Function of ōs di’ hēmō͂n in 2 Thessalonians 2.2
The Alleged ‘Letter Allegedly from Us’ The Parallel Function of ὡς δι’ ἡμῶν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2
The nearly unanimous consensus of modern scholarship is that 2 Thess. 2.2 refers to a letter either written or alleged to have been written by Paul, as captured in the most common rendering of the text, ‘a letter allegedly from/by us’. The thesis of this article is that the relevant phrase, ὡς δι’ ἡ...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Sage
2022
|
| In: |
Journal for the study of the New Testament
Year: 2022, Volume: 45, Issue: 1, Pages: 109-131 |
| Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Paul Apostle
/ Pseudonym
/ Letter
/ Bible. Thessalonicherbrief 1. 2,1-16
/ Bible. Thessalonicherbrief 2. 2,15
/ Bible. Thessalonicherbrief 2. 2,2
|
| IxTheo Classification: | HC New Testament KAB Church history 30-500; early Christianity |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | The nearly unanimous consensus of modern scholarship is that 2 Thess. 2.2 refers to a letter either written or alleged to have been written by Paul, as captured in the most common rendering of the text, ‘a letter allegedly from/by us’. The thesis of this article is that the relevant phrase, ὡς δι’ ἡμῶν, does not serve to qualify ‘letter’ or the other two substantives that precede (‘a spirit’, ‘a word’), but that it identifies Paul (the implied author) as a medium of information alternative to the other three media, thus posing a contrast between teaching conveyed through Paul and teaching conveyed through not-Paul, in a manner analogous to Gal. 1.8. In addition to the greater probability of this interpretation grammatically, this interpretation is offered as resolving further difficulties concerning 1 Thess. 2.2, as well as its relationship to 2.15. Evidence is also offered that the consensus view does not find unanimous support among ancient interpreters. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1745-5294 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: Journal for the study of the New Testament
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1177/0142064X211049324 |