̔Ως δἰ ἡμῶν in 2 Thess 2.2 als Hinweis auf einen verlorenen Brief

Abstract

Die These des Beitrags ist, dass die Wendung 'ὡς δι᾽ ἡμῶν' in  Thess . nicht als direkter Hinweis auf den  Thess zu verstehen sei, sondern dass sich hier vielmehr der pseudonyme Verfasser mit einer nicht mehr erhaltenen brieflichen Fehlinterpretation des  Thess auseinandersetzt und sich so indirekt um eine 'richtige' Deutung des  Thess bemüht. Im Unterschied zu  Thess . ist  Thess . als direkter Hinweis auf die-nach Meinung des Verfassers-'richtige' Paulus-Lehre, d.h. den  Thess oder den vorliegenden  Thess, zu verstehen. Mit dieser These schlägt der Artikel zugleich eine differenzierte Typologie der paulinischen und pseudo-paulinischen Diskurse vor.

The Alleged ‘Letter Allegedly from Us’: The Parallel Function of ὡς δι’ ἡμῶν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

“…This conjunction occurs twice in v. 2, first prior to δι’ ἡμῶν and second in way of introduction to the claim that the author opposes, ὡς ὅτι ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου. As Becker (2009: 65) observes, interpreters are divided in the first instance between two possible meanings: (1) a comparative-demonstrative meaning, where the author makes direct reference to 1 Thessalonians (‘a letter such as is from us’) and (2) a comparative-modal meaning, where the author makes reference to a forgery (‘a letter as being allegedly from us’). According to Roose (2006: 112), a pseudonymous author here has intentionally exploited this ambiguity, hoping on the one hand to affirm the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians so as not to offend his audience (‘as being truly’), and on the other hand to cast doubt upon the authenticity of that letter (‘as supposedly being’) in the interests of the letter’s present purposes, i.e., to call into question the theology of 1 Thessalonians (or an interpretation of it).…”

“…It seems doubtful, however, that this feature of the letter’s rhetoric would have brought immediate clarity to this particular ‘paradox’, if indeed the audience pondered this feature at all. Whether 2.15 is taken as a reference to 1 Thessalonians – either definitely (Mitchell 2005: 363-61; Becker 2009: 66) or indefinitely (Nicklas 2018: 116) – the fact remains, on a theory of pseudonymity just as on a theory of authenticity, that the author of the letter is sending confusing signals about the trustworthiness of ‘a word or a letter’, first impugning their validity (2.2) and then reaffirming them using the same phrasing (2.15).…”

“… 12. Though, this is not to say that the view that the letter is pseudonymous is the minority view, for some who view the letter as pseudonymous see the expression qualifying all three terms (Becker 2009: 65; Nicklas 2018: 115-18), and conversely, some who see the letter as authentic see the expression qualifying only ‘letter’ (Bruce 1982: 161; Green 2002: 303). Roose (2006) assumes that the expression qualifies ‘epistle’ (‘a letter as by us’) but otherwise does not address the question of the other two substantives. …”

“… 6. Mitchell 2005: 361-63; Nicklas (2018: 116) propose that the identity of the letter is indefinite. Becker (2009: 66) suggests that the author refers to a misinterpretation of 1 Thessalonians contained in another, no longer extant letter, thus referring to 1 Thessalonians indirectly. According to Roose (2006), the letter’s author is intentionally ambiguous, leaving open the possibility that the letter is either 1 Thessalonians or an unknown forgery. …”

“… 11. Only Wohlenberg (1903: 144) takes the prepositional phrases as modifying the verbs; Fee (1994b: 201-202) puts things in the same terms, though his interpretation suggests something different. Becker (2009: 65), following Dobschütz (1909: 265-66), sees the phrases as modifying the whole sentence beginning from μήτε. …”