We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
In the third chapter of 2 Thess, the author of this letter addresses himself to the problem that some members of the church behave ἀτάκτως, ‘in a disorderly way’, and not according to the tradition (3.6). As it seems, this behaviour amounts to a refusal to work for a living. The brothers in question take advantage of others (cf. 3.8), and busy themselves with useless things, causing unrest (3.11–12).
1 The reading παρελάβοσαν should be preferred as ‘the reading which seems best to explain the origin of the others’; so Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (London/New York: UBS, 1971) 637.Google Scholar
2 So, e.g., von Dobschütz, E., Die Thessalonicher-Briefe (MeyerK; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1909) 308–9Google Scholar; Ch. Masson, , Les deux épîtres de saint Paul aux Thessaloniciens (CNT 11a; Neuchâtel/Paris: Delachaux, 1957) 112Google Scholar; Roosen, A., De brieven van Paulus aan de Tessalonicenzen (Het Nieuwe Testament; Roermond: Romen, 1971) 167–8Google Scholar; Müller, P., Anfänge der Paulusschule. Dargestellt am zweiten Thessalonicherbrief und am Kolosserbrief (ATANT 74; Zürich: TVZ, 1988) 161.Google Scholar
3 See Agrell, G., Work, Toil and Sustenance. An Examination of the View of Work in the New Testament, Taking into Consideration Views Found in Old Testament, Intertestamental, and Early Rabbinic Writings (Lund: Ohlssons, 1976) 116Google Scholar; Jewett, R., The Thessalonian Correspondence. Pauline Rhetoric and Millenarian Piety (Foundations and Facets: NT; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986) 86.Google Scholar
4 Russell, R., ‘The Idle in 2 Thess 3.6–12: An Eschatological or a Social Problem?’, NTS 34 (1988) 105–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5 Russell, ‘Idle’, 105–7. I refer to this survey for the various opinions on the topic; another survey is to be found in Fraser, J. K., A Theological Study of Second Thessalonians. A Comprehensive Study of the Thought of the Epistle and Its Sources (Diss. Durham, 1979) 336–49Google Scholar. Holland, G. S., The Tradition That You Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition (HUTh 24; Tübingen: Mohr, 1988) 52–3Google Scholar, sees the link between 2 Thess 3.7–12 and 2.1–12 only in this, that the opponents abandon the tradition on two points (one doctrinal, one ethical) and are therefore attacked. That the disorderly conduct is caused by the eschatological ideas of 2.2c, is affirmed by Müller, Anfänge, 162, and denied by ,Hughes, F. W., Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians (JSNTSS 30; Sheffield: Academic, 1989)65.Google Scholar
6 Russell, ‘Idle’, 107–10.
7 Russell, ‘Idle‘, 108.
8 Russell, ‘Idle‘, 109–10.
9 Russell, ‘Idle‘, 110.
10 Russell, ‘Idle‘, 113.
11 The tight structure of the letter might suggest the same, see my article: ‘The Structure of 2 Thessalonians’, The Thessalonian Correspondence (ed. R. F. Collins; BETL 87; Lou-vain: Peeters, 1990) 373–82, esp. 380–1.Google Scholar
12 So notably, in various forms, Lütgert, W., Die Vollkommenen im Philipperbrief und die Enthusiasten in Thessalonich (BFChTh 13/6; Gütersloh: Bertelsmann, 1909) 82–102Google Scholar; de Boer, W. P., The Imitation of Paul. An Exegetical Study (Kampen: Kok, 1962) 132–3Google Scholar; Schmithals, W., Paulus und die Gnostiker. Untersuchungen zu den kleinen Paulusbriefen (ThF 35; Hamburg-Bergstedt: Reich, 1965) 138–53Google Scholar; see also the summary in his Neues Testament und Gnosis (Erträge der Forschung 208; Darmstadt: Wiss. Buchgesellschaft, 1984) 43–8. Comparable with this view is the one of Hughes, Early Christian Rhetoric, 84–95, that the error mentioned in 2.2 is a Pauline gnosis such as contained in Ephesians and Colossians.
13 So also von Dobschütz, Thess, 268; A. M. G. Stephenson, ‘On the Meaning of ένέστηκεν ή ήμέρα τοῦ κυρίου in 2 Thessalonians 2,2', Studia Evangelica 4 (ed. F. L. Cross; TU 102; Berlin: Akademie, 1968) 442–51Google Scholar, here 450; Best, E., A Commentary on the First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (BNTC; London: Black, 1972) 276–7Google Scholar; Laub, F., Eschatologische Verkündigung und Lebensgestaltung nach Paulas. Eine Untersuchung zum Wirken des Apostels beim Aufbau der Gemeinde in Thessalonike (BU 10; Regensburg: Pustet, 1973) 139Google Scholar; cf. Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 147,149.
14 See the surveys and the divergent standpoints of, on the one hand, Trilling, W., Untersuchungen zum 2. Thessalonicherbrief (EThSt 27; Leipzig: St Benno, 1972)Google Scholar, who argues for inauthenticity, and on the other hand Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 3–18, who argues for authenticity. See also Trilling, W., ‘Die beiden Briefe des Apostels Paulus an die Thessalonicher. Eine Forschungsübersicht’, ANRW II, 25.4 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1987) 3365–3403.Google Scholar
15 Spicq, C., ‘Les Thessaloniciens “inquiets” étaient-ils des paresseux?’, ST 10 (1956) 1–14Google Scholar, who gives the relevant texts and refers to the older literature on the topic. Cf. also Delling, G., ‘ τάσω κτλ’, TWNT 8 (1969) 27–49, here 48–9.Google Scholar
16 ‘…Dans chaque cas, c'est le contexte qui doit déterminer en quoi le désordre consiste’ – so Rigaux, B., Saint Paul. Les épῖtres aux Thessaloniciens (EB; Paris: Gabalda/ Gembloux: Duculot, 1956) 583.Google Scholar
17 One could even consider καί in v. 6 and ούδέ in v. 8 as explicative, cf. Blass, F.– Debrunner, A., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, rev. by Rehkopf, F. (16th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck, 1984)Google Scholar §442.6a; Rigaux, Thess, 706; Roosen, Tess, 166; Müller, Anfänge, 164.
18 See the collections of parallels in: Wettstein, J. J., Novum Testamentum Graecum … (Amsterdam: Dommerian, 1752) 314Google Scholar; Str-B 3.641–2; von Dobschutz, Thess, 313 n. 4; Dibelius, M., An die Thessalonicher I-II. An die Philipper (HNT 11; 3rd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1937) 55Google Scholar; cf. Bienert, W., Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel. Eine Grundlegung evangelischer Sozialethik (Stuttgart: EVW, 1954) 367–8Google Scholar. To include Gen 3.19 among the truisms is not right (see below).
19 See Schnackenburg, R., Die sittliche Botschaft des Neuen Testaments 2: Die urchristlichen Verkündiger (HTKNT, Suppl. 2; Freiburg etc.: Herder, 1988) 61–3.Google Scholar
20 See further Delling, ‘τάσσω κτλ.’.
21 … ‘Ο μέν θεòς ταῦτα προστάξας αύτοίς πάσχειν.’.
22 Transl. Johnson, M. D., in: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 (ed. Charles-worth, J. H.; London: Darton, 1985).Google Scholar
23 Transl. Collins, J. J., in: The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 1 (ed. Charles-worth, J. H.; London: Darton, 1983).Google Scholar
24 See further Agrell, Work, 34–6, 49.
25 See G. Bertram, ‘ἔργον κτλ.’, TWNT 2 (1935) 631–53, here 640–1. Gen 3.17 is paraphrased in agreement with the MT in Jub. 3.25, and in agreement with the LXX in Apoc. Mos. 24.
26 So Tg. Pseudo-Jonathan and Fragmentary Tg.; Tg. Neofitidiffers slightly.
27 Transl. H. St. Thackeray, J., in the edition of Josephus' works in The Loeb Classical Library, vol. 4 (London: Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1930).Google Scholar
28 Several commentators have considered 2 Thess 3.10c as a Jewish proverb dependent upon Gen 3.19, see, e.g., Milligan, G., Saint Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians (London:Macmillan, 1908) 115Google Scholar. V. 10c ‘wird von den neueren Exegeten fast einstimmig für ein an Gen 3 19 anknüpfendes jüdisches Sprichwort erklärt’, so von Dobschütz, Thess, 313, who, however, dissociates himself from this view. Agrell, Work, 120–5, explicitly sees Gen 3. 17–19 as being at the base of the order discussed in 2 Thess 3.6–12: ‘The allusions in this context [= 2 Thess 3.6–15] to Gen. 3:17–19 indicate that this is thought of as a second-best order, ordained by God to prevail after the fall’ (124). In ps.-Ignatius ad Magnesios 9.3, 2 Thess 3.10c and Gen 3.19 are quoted together (cf. Dibelius, Thess, 55).
29 The exact meaning of ὠς ὅτι(either ‘as if’, or equivalent to ὅτι) is hardly relevant for our purposes. An affirmation of the opponents of the author, which is wrong in the author's view, is under discussion.
30 See from the NT: Rom 8.38; 1 Cor 3.22; Gal 1.4; Heb 9.9; from other Greek writings, e.g., Esth 3.13–14. LXX; 1 Mace 12.44; Josephus Ant. 16.162; Barn. 1.7; P.Petr. 2 p. 60; for further evidence, see LSJ, s.v. ένίστημι B.III, and Bauer, W., Griechisch-deutsches Wörter-buch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur, rev. by , B. and Aland, K. (6th ed.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar s.v. ένίστημι 1, and cf. Stephenson, ‘Meaning’, 443–4.
31 Bauer, s.v. 2, prefers this translation in 1 Cor 7.26 and Barn. 17.2 (and also in 2 Tim 3.1, where the future is used).
32 So, e.g., von Dobschütz, Thess, 267–8; Dibelius, Thess, 45; Masson, Thess, 93; Stephenson, ‘Meaning’, 451; Roosen, Tess, 142.
33 Cf. de Boer, Imitation, 130.
34 So, e.g., Frame, J. E., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St Paul to the Thessalonians (ICC; Edinburgh: Clark, 1912) 248Google Scholar; Laub, Eschatologische Verkü:indigung, 140; Agrell, Work, 123; Trilling, W., Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonieher (EKKNT 14; Zürich: Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1980) 79Google Scholar. Of course, this interpretation is easily combined with the – wrong – translation of ἐνέστηκεν by ‘is imminent’ or some such thing. A text sometimes quoted in this connection is Hippolytus Commentary on Daniel 4.19, where the clause ἐνέστηκεν ή ήμέρα τοῦ κυρίου should have the sense ‘the Day of the Lord is imminent’, or at least should indicate that the events leading up to the final judgment have started (see esp. Wrede, W., Die Echtheit des zweiten Thessalonicherbriefs [TK 9/2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1903] 49–50)Google Scholar. When 2 Thess 2.2c is actually taken up in this text, it is an early testimony for the wrong interpretation just discussed.
35 Cf. also the refutation of this view by Stephenson, ‘Meaning’, 450–1.
36 Holland, Tradition, 96–105.
37 Holland, Tradition, 119–21.
38 See Saeboø, M., ‘
’, TWATZ (1982) 559–86, here 582–6.Google Scholar
39 See Trilling, W., ‘ήμέρα’ EWNT 2 (1981) 296–302, here 301.Google Scholar
40 Cf. Trilling, Untersuchungen, 126.
41 For criticism of Holland's theory, see also Jewett, Thessalonian Correspondence, 99–100. Jewett reacts against Holland's earlier article: ‘Let No One Deceive You in Any Way: 2 Thessalonians as a Reformulation of the Apocalyptic Tradition’, SBL 1985 Seminar Papers (ed. K. H. Richards; Atlanta: Scholars, 1985) 327–41.Google Scholar
42 Cf. the Introduction above, a.bout the improbability of an early form of gnosticism being behind 2.2c. That ‘the Day of the Lord’ was thought to have come in a ‘materialization of eschatology’, consisting in ecstatic experiences of the Spirit and in misuse of the sacraments, was advanced by Reicke, B., Diakonie, Festfreude und Zelos in Verbindung mit der altchristlichen Agapenfeier (UUA 1951/5; Uppsala: Lundequistka/Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1951) 240–7Google Scholar, and his pupil Evans, R. M., Eschatology and Ethics: A Study of Thessalonica and Paul's Letters to the Thessalonians (Diss. Basel; Princeton, NJ: McMahon, 1968) 118–37Google Scholar. Both Reicke and Evans see this conception of ‘the Day of the Lord’ as connected with the idleness of the ἄτακτοι.
43 See Rigaux, Thess, 95–105; Hartman, L., Prophecy Interpreted. The Formation of Some Jewish Apocalyptic Texts and of the Eschatological Discourse Mark 13 par. (ConB, NT Series 1; Lund: Gleerup, 1966) 195–205; Holland, Tradition, 134–42.Google Scholar
44 Luke adds a second statement of the false Messiahs, ó καιρòς ἤγγικεν, characteristic of his idea of delay of the parousia: to say even that ‘the time has drawn near’, is already an effort to lead people astray. Hartman, Prophecy Interpreted, 159–60, is of the opinion that έγώ είμι in Mark 13.6 is a formula of divine revelation, implying that the ‘many’ make themselves into anti-gods. Though this interpretation may be possible on a literary level anterior to the Markan redaction, it is virtually ruled out for Mark's version of the discourse on account of the preceding ἐπὶ τῷ òνόμτί μου, see, e.g., Pesch, R., Das Markusevangelium 2 (HTKNT 2/2; Freiburg etc.: Herder, 1977) 279Google Scholar. Moreover, the fact that the background of the έγώ είμι-formula is to be found in divine revelatory formulae in the OT, esp. in Deutero-Isaiah (see Isa 41.4; 43.10 etc.), does not exclude at all that in the NT it is a formula with which the bringer of God's eschatological salvation reveals himself, as is clearly the case in John (see John 8.24, 28, 58; 13.19).
45 Transl. Feldman, L. H., in the LCL-edition of Josephus' works, vol. 9 (London: Heine-mann/Cambridge, MA: HUP, 1965)Google Scholar. See further Meyer, R., in: Krämer, H.–Rendtorff, R.–Meyer, R.–Friedrich, G., ‘προφήτης κτλ’, TWNT 6 (1959) 781–863Google Scholar, here 827; Pesch, Markusevangelium 2.298–9.
46 mention two verbal agreements between the synoptic apocalypse and 2 Thess 2 which are of importance within the scope of this article: θροεῖσθαι ‘to be alarmed’, in Mark 13.7//Matt 24.6 and 2 Thess 2.2, in the warning to the believers, and έπισυνάγειν/έπισυναγωγή, ‘to gather/gathering’, in Mark 13.27//Matt 24.31 and 2 Thess 2.1, for Christ's saving action towards his followers. Moreover, the verb (άπο) πλανᾶν, ‘to lead astray’, from the warning Mark 13.5–6 parr., is easily paralleled with έξαπατᾶν, ‘to deceive’, in the warning 2 Thess 2.3 (cf. also Matt 24.11; Mark 13.22 par.; 2 Thess 2.10–11). It seems, after all, that there are more agreements between Mark 13.5–6 (and its parallel Matt 24.4–5) and 2 Thess 2.1–12 than Hartman, Prophecy, 203–4, supposes. Best, Thess, 278, rightly considers an interpretation of 2 Thess 2.2c by means of Mark 13.6 as a serious possibility.
47 To mention just a few examples: 1 Enoch 10.17–11.2; 2 Baruch 29; Sib. Or. 3.619–23; Luke 14.15–24(//Matt 22.1–10); Rev 7.16; 21–22. At the basis of these texts are, of course, various OT passages, such as Isa 49.10; 58.11; Ezek 34.29. See further P. Volz, , Die Eschatologie der jüdischen Gemeinde im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter (Tübingen: Mohr, 1934) 367–8, 384–5, 387–90.Google Scholar
48 Transl. A. F. J. Hijn, in: OT Pseudepigrapha 1.
49 Transl. B. M. Metzger, in: OT Pseudepigrapha 1.
50 Cf. also Odes Sol. 20.7. One should also consider the notions of Paradise being the place where the deceased pious ones are already present (see 1 Enoch 60.8; 61.12; 70.4; Jub. 4.23; Luke 23.43; cf. 2 Cor 12.4), and of Paradise or the tree of life consisting in the pious ones (see Pss. Sol. 14.3; Odes Sol. 11.16–24). Pertinent rabbinic texts can be found in Str-B 4.948–50, 1147–65. See further Bousset, W., Die Religion des Judentums im späthellenistischen Zeitalter (3rd ed. by Gressmann, H.; HNT 21; Tübingen: Mohr, 1926) 282–5Google Scholar; Volz, Eschatologie, 413–18.
51 Sometimes, the disorderly behaviour of 2 Thess 3.6–12 is compared with, and explained as, the behaviour of some wandering Christians as pictured in Did. 12. Those people want to live at the expense of the churches they visit, and should be tested by the community: when such a Christian is not prepared to live from the work of his own hands after two or three days, he is a χρισέμπορος, ‘someone who barters with Christ’ (12.5). This explanation is given by Trilling, 2 Thess, 152; Holland, Tradition, 53; cf. Dibelius, Thess, 55. One should not overlook, however, that the disorderly ones of 2 Thess are not characterized as wilful swindlers and that the passage from Did. tells us nothing about the real motives of the people in question.
52 So several commentators, see, e.g., Roosen, Tess, 167–8; Agrell, Work, 123.
53 See, e.g., Dautzenberg, G., ‘Theologie und Seelsorge aus Paulinischer Tradition. Einführung in 2 Thess, Kol, Eph’, Gestalt und Anspruch des Neuen Testaments (ed. Schreiner, J. and Dautzenberg, G.; Würzburg: Echter, 1969) 96–119Google Scholar, here 101–2; cf. Holland, Tradition, 129–58.
54 So also Trilling, 2 Thess, 28; see about the apocalyptic ‘trajectory’ in Asia Minor: H. Köster, ‘GNOMAI DIAPHOROI: Ursprung und Wesen der Mannigfaltigkeit in der Geschichte des frühen Christentums’, in Köster-J., H.Robinson, M., Entwicklungslinien durch die Welt des frühen Christentums (Tübingen: Mohr, 1971) 107–46Google Scholar, here 143–5, and cf. id., Einführung in das Neue Testament im Rahmen der Religionsgeschichte und Kulturgeschichte der hellenistischen und römischen Zeit (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1980) 678–82.Google Scholar
55 According to Laub, Eschatologische Verkündigung, 146, one should not simply consider 2 Thess 3.6ff. as a further development of 1 Thess 4.11–12; 5.14, because in that case one explains 1 Thess on the basis of 2 Thess, and arrives at a circular argument. Cf. also his p. 151, and Müller, Anfänge, 141. – I thank Mrs K. M. Court for improving the English style of this paper.
