[B-Greek] 2 Thess 2:15

Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Fri Dec 31 02:06:31 EST 2010


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ehrman, Bart D" <behrman at email.unc.edu>
To: <b-greek at lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: 30. december 2010 20:12
Subject: [B-Greek] 2 Thess 2:15


>     In his commentary on 2 Thessalonians, W. Marxsen claims that since 2:15 
> εἴτε δι' ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν lacks an article (as in εἴτε διά τῆς ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν) 
> it does not refer back to a specific letter (e.g., to 1 Thessalonians) but is 
> meant in a general sense to refer to any ole letter that he may have written 
> (or not).  If he had wanted to refer to 1 Thessalonians in particular, he 
> would have used the article.  I’m interested in the grammatical question. 
> What do y’all think?
> Bart D. Ehrman

I would agree that the lack of article indicates that he is not focusing on any 
particular letter, but teaching in a written form.

It is helpful to look at the fuller statement:

στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι᾽ 
ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν

STHKETE KAI KRATEITE TAS PARADOSEIS hAS EDIDACQHTE EITE DIA LOGOU EITE DI' 
EPISTOLHS hHMWN

Stand firm and hold on to the handed-down (teachings) which you were taught 
either by means of a word or a letter from us.

What does the hHMWN qualify? TAS PARADOSEIS or EPISTOLHS or both LOGOU and 
EPISTOLHS.
Is the genitive hHMWN possessive or a genitive of source?

It seems to me that both LOGOS and EPISTOLH are here general rather than 
focusing on a specific word or a specific letter. It is somewhat similar to Phil 
1:20: εἴτε διὰ ζωῆς εἴτε διὰ θανάτου EITE DIA ZWHS EITE DIA QANATOU. The words 
are general, life or death, not THE life or THE death. Of course, the context 
may well limit the reference to the life or death of a particular person, here 
Paul. We need to distinguish between grammar, semantics and reference.

The main point in 2:15 is to "hold on to the the teachings you received from 
us", so I would take the genitive pronoun as indicating source. Whether these 
teachings came to you through oral or written means does not matter, but it does 
matter that they came from "us" as we are the ones with apostolic authority to 
teach you.

The LOGOS would refer to when Paul (and other apostles) taught them in person, 
and the EPISTOLH to one or more letters. That would include 1 and 2 Thess, but 
we don't know if there were more letters. Paul has just warned them in 2:2 that 
they should be critical about information whether by word or letter purporting 
to come from "us" when in fact they did not. Therefore, the source is important, 
not which particular letter or letters of his he was referring to. Compare 2:2:

μήτε διὰ λόγου μήτε δι᾽ ἐπιστολῆς ὡς δι᾽ ἡμῶν
MHTE DIA LOGOU MHTE DI' EPISTOLHS hWS DI' hHMWN

neither through a word (oral teaching) nor through a letter as if (it was) from 
us.

One of the ways that the recipients could judge whether a particular letter 
truly came from Paul was that they could recognize his hand writing. This proof 
of authenticity is what he refers to in 3:17:

Ὁ ἀσπασμὸς τῇ ἐμῇ χειρὶ Παύλου, ὅ ἐστιν σημεῖον ἐν πάσῃ ἐπιστολῇ· οὕτως γράφω.
hO ASPASMOS THi EMHi CEIRI PAULOU, hO ESTIN SHMEION EN PASHi EPISTOLHi. hOUTWS 
GRAFW.

The greeting is by my own hand, from (me) Paul, which is a sign/proof in every 
letter (of mine). This is how I write.

Signed,
Iver Larsen




More information about the B-Greek mailing list