The Second Letter to the Thessalonians Re-read as Pseudepigraph 1

Andries van Aarde Professor of New Testament, Faculty of Tbeology University of Pretoria Abstract The purpose of this study is to suggest a socio-historical frame of reference within which 2 Thessalonians may have communicated meaningfully with its intended readers. The question of the historical background of 2 Thessalonians is discussed within the context of the question of the letter's authorship. First, the article focuses on the traditional view that Paul was the author and that the delayed parousia was the issue he addressed. Second, the article aims to argue an alternative view: 2 Thessalonians is reread as a pseudepigraph and it is an open question whether the delayed parous;a was really the problem the author addressed.


INTRODUCTION
Describing the social context of an ancient writing is an historical undertaking.However, every historical investigation is limited to a greater or lesser degree by lack of infonnation.Consequently the historian has to be content with judgements based on degrees of probability.In a sense what is involved is the substantiation of hypotheses by combining infonnation into coherent and acceptable patterns.Therefore, the credibility of historical description also relates to the ability to explain data in tenns of the proposed coherent and acceptable patterns so that existing problems of interpretation crystallise more clearly and may possibly be regarded by some scholars as having been solved.
I This article was discussed as a presentation at the Canon Seminar of the Westar Institute, Santa Rosa, CA (USA).March 1998.It is a re-worked version of an Afrikaans contribution published in Teologit in konteks (edited by Roberts, ] H et al 1991).The English version was flISt published in The Journal of Higher Critical Studies 3(2) 1996,237-226.HTS is granted permission for re-pUblication.

The Second Lt!tter to the Thessalonians Reread as Pseudepigrflph
The purpose of this study is to suggest a new socio-historical frame of reference within which 2 Thessalonians may have communicated meaningfulJy with its intended readers.Perhaps this will help to lift this New Testament document from its impasse.
According to Krodel, 2 the exegesis of 2 Thessalonians is a hard nut to crack especially on account of the problem of its authorship and a number of other elements which must be seen in the context of the question of authorship.As will be shown, scholars have achieved a large measure of unanimity in regard to the authorship problem.
Besides authorship, the second most common problem in interpreting the letter, according to Townsend,3 is the question of the historical background of 2 Thessalonians.
It may probably be stated without contradiction that the description of the nature of the context within which 2 Thessalonians was intended to communicate, and especially the concepts peculiar to this letter, constitutes this letter's major single unsolved exegetical problem inviting elucidation and possible solution.
Traditionally the letter was regarded as sharing the Pauline authorship and historical provenance of 1 Thessalonians.Apart from the structural and verbal correspondence between the letters (see especially 2 Th 3:6-12; but also inter alia 2 Th 2:2, 15; 3: 14), the eschatology (and in particular the parousia) and the aspect of "idleness" (cf I Th 4:11-12; 5:14 with 2 Th 3:6-13) have been regarded as strong points of thematic similarity.Commonly, the problem of believers in Thessalonica abandoning their daily work, becoming busybodies (~l1~EV Epya~o~evou5 cXAACx lTEpIEpya~o~evou5) and overenthusiastic and adopting a disorderly lifestyle (TTEplTTaTouvTo5 EV U~IV cXTClKTc..l5, 2 Th 3:6-15) is interpreted against an eschatological backdrop.4 The expectation of the imminent parousia has been regarded as the reason for the excessive enthusiasm.The delayed parousia, then, was the cause of confusion.As early as the beginning of the twentieth century, Liitgert wrote of the traditional eschatology, with specific reference to 2 G Krodel, "2 ThessaloniaIis," in G Krodel (ed), Ephesians.Colossians. 2 Thess.-The Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 73-96: 74 3 J T Townsend, "n Thessalonians 2:3-12," in P J Achtemeier (cd), SBL Seminar Papers (Chico: Scholars Press, 1980),233-247:233.Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Alldries }/1I11 Allrde and 2 Thessalonians.s But it was precisely because of this traditional view that the interpretation of 2 Thessalonians presented serious problems.It has become increasingly clear that the eschatology of this letter simply cannot be reconciled with that of 1 Thessalonians.This has rendered the traditional explanation of the "idleness" in tenns of "over-enthusiasm" extremely problematical.Thus Schmithals aligned himself to the view of Liitgert that 1 Thessalonians represents an early Jewish-Christian gnosticism, while 2 Thessalonians is a post-Pauline adaptation of it. 6However, except in the modified fonn encountered in the work of Willi Marxsen, this view has not achieved general exegetical recognition.
Especially difficult to correlate with the presumed historical background of 1 Thessalonians are: the perspective of 2 Thessalonians in regard to the time and circumstances of the second coming (rropoualo, 2 Th 1 :3-12), the role of the figure of the lawless one / the son of perdition (6 cXvepwrrOS" TIlS-cXVOIJIOS-/6 ulOs nlS-cXrrwAelos-) -the one who proclaims himself to be God in the temple (2 Th 2:3-4) and the person/institution that restrains this figure (  would destroy the lawless one with the breath of his mouth at the epiphany of his parousia (TB E1TI<POVEIC;X nlS rropouolOS) (2 Tb 2:8).In the meanwhile "the mystery of lawlessness is already at work" (TO yap ~UOn1PIOV iiOT) EVEpyiiTOI nlS avo~los,) 2 Th 2:6-7 but is restrained by something (TO' KOTEXOV, 2 Tb 2:6) or someone (6 KOTEXC'.UV, 2 Tb 2:7).
According to Larondelle, Paul considered it essential that his readers should understand the sequence of events in order to correct the faulty conception leading to their mistaken hope and moral disorder.\0 Larondelle therefore points out the connection between the teaching of Jesus and that of Paul in this regard.1I In Mark 13:14 Jesus refers to the future desecrating sacrilege (TO ~OEAUy~O nlS EPT)~c.:iOEC'.US EOTT)KOTO) which, according to Larondelle, must be understood as grammatically masculine); and in Matthew 24: 15 Jesus says that this sacrilege will stand in the temple, the holy place (eoTos EV Torre..;> ay'Ie..;».This "figure" and its activity is regarded by many as referring to the desecration of the temple by the same apocalyptic opponent called the aVTIxplOTOS in 1 John 2:18.Larondelle is of the opinion that Paul's comments in 2 Tbessalonians 2 should be seen as merely a brief summary of more extensive teaching.12 This is why Paul reminds the church of his previous oral instruction (2 Th 2:5, 15).He derives his description of the "antichrist" from a conflation of three Old Testament "revelations" with regard to the "anti-messiah:,,13 the historical appearance and desecrating action of the "anti-messiah" in Daniel 7:25; 8:10-13; 11:36-37; the demonic nature of The Secolld Letter to the Thessaiollialls Reread as Pseudepigraph 6, 9; Isaiah 14:13-14; the final destruction of "the wicked" on the strength of the epiphany of the royal messiah in Isaiah 11 :4.
In Daniel 7:6 reference is made to first the (third) beast (with four heads and four wings), to which dominion is given, and then (On 7:7) there is the (fourth) beast (with ten horns and a little horn that came up amongst them) which is destructive.Larondelle thinks Paul uses this passage analogistically when he refers in 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7 to that which restrains "the mystery of lawlessness [which] is already at work:" "the restrainer, who hinders the development of the antichrist.,,14According to Larondelle, Paul saw the "lawful government" of the Roman emperors as that which restrained the emergence of the dominion of the intolerant "antichrist."There may be a connection between such a conception on the part of Paul and the references in Acts 18: 12-16 and 22:22-29 (cf also Rm 13:4) that he was protected by the Roman authorities against the anger of the Jewish mob.There are also a number of references in the Patristics to the view that the civil authority of the Roman empire, headed by the emperor, was the TO KOTEXOV / 0 KOTEXc.JV referred to in 2 Thessalonians I S Thus regarded, the ultimate revelation of "the mystery of lawlessness," already at work in the time of Paul (~OT) iVEPYEITOI, 2 Th 2:7), would only take place after the Roman empire had disappeared from the scene.16 In Ezekiel 28:2, 12, 14, 15 reference is made to the king of Tyre who blasphemously exalts himself.Initially the king enjoyed the status of an anointed cherub of Yahweh in primal splendour and purity.In Isiah 14:12-14 a similar delusion of selfapotheosis is attributed to the king of Babylon.These references must be understood in the context of the oracles against Tyre and Babylon.
As in Daniel 8 and 11 :36, the contemporary enemy of God and his people is localised as being in the temple.This is precisely what we find in the "prophetic discourse" of Jesus recorded in Matthew 24:15, as well as in 2 Thessalonians 2:4.There are exegetes who base themselves on Isiah 14:13-14 and 66:1 and contend that the tenn 14 Larondelle, 64.

HTS 56(1) 2000
Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services "temple" in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 does not so much refer to the physical building in Jerusalem, but rather relates symbolically to God's throne in heaven.Larondelle thinks that the "lawless one" wanted to take God's place and that what it amounts to is that he demanded to be worshipped instead of God. 17 According to Larondelle it is not necessary to decide between an earthly or a heavenly temple.What is at issue is not the distinction as such between the qualifications "earthly" and "heavenly," but rather whether or not God is worshipped in truth.18 Structurally and thematically the reference in Daniel 8:9-13 and 11 :31-45 to the "Awful Horror" relates to a king or a kingdom that attacks the holy ones of God by forcibly entering the holy .land, the city and the temple, destroying the sacred temple cult and trampling God's worshippers under foot.But worse is to come.
The "destroyer" will set up a false representation of a cui tic system of worship to usurp God's place.What it means, in effect, is a blasphemous abomination, for the only road to salvation for humankind is within the framework of God's holy covenant with humankind (cfDn 8:11-l3; 11:31; 12:11).This "rebellion" ("conscious sin" .I)~~) of the antimessiah is described in Daniel 8: 11 as a struggle against the "Prince of the host," and in Daniel 8:25 as against the "Prince of princes," his sanctuary (Dn 8:13) and his reconciling cult (cfthe reference to the expression "continual burnt offering" in Dn 8:11).
Generally the references in Daniel 11 :31-39 are historically linked to the actions of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 BCE.According to 1 Maccabeans 1 :57 he had a pagan altar set up in the place of the altar of burnt offering and presumably had a statue of Olympian Zeus erected on it.We know that the Roman emperor Caligula (= Gaius) issued an order in 40 CE that a statue of himself was to be erected in the temple in Jerusalem, but that he was murdered before his order could be carried out.According to Larondelle,19 Jesus' words in the "prophetic discourse" of Matthew 24: 15 and Mark 13: 14 attest to an applica-tion of the "desolating sacrilege" of Daniel to the Roman army who set up their standards, which were objects of worship, in the temple court.However, the references in the Synoptic Gospels should be seen as only partial "fulfilments."They point further, beyond 70 CE, to the greater, universal, eschatological "Awful Horror" in 17 Larondelle, 66; also G E Ladd, The Last Things (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978),67.
the "temple of God" (figuratively understood), to which Paul draws attention in 2 Thessalonians.
Proceeding from the standpoint that 2 Thessalonians was written by Paul in order to answer the problems in the Thessalonian church arising from the misunderstanding regarding the second coming occasioned by his first letter, Meams makes far more of the action of the Roman emperor Caligula in 40 CE.20 Meams agrees with A Moore that in 2 Thessalonians Paul is not interested in the chronological sequence of events attending the parousia, but in the circumstances that are necessary before the parousia will occur. 21e revelation of the "lawless one" points to the action of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel, but also to the later parallel figures known to us from the apocalyptic literature.
Thus, while the usurpation of God's place in the temple was prefigured by the action of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 168 BCE, it was also exemplified by Pompey's entering the Holy of Holies in 63 BCE and, most recently, at the time of writing of2 Thessalonians, by the Roman emperor Caligula in 40 CE.
According to Meams,22 then, we have in 2 Thessalonians the same tradition as that encountered in the Markan eschatological discourse.Paul's reference may therefore be seen as a qualification of a very early authentic tradition regarding the "sudden appearance of the thief in the night."Attention is drawn to a ''program of signs" to be seen as the events which will reportedly precede the "Day of the Lord."In Mark 13 one of these events is alluded to in the reference to ''the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be."These events are symbolic of the cumulative forces of evil in the end- The problem here is that Paul says that "he who now restrains it will do so until he is out of the way" (eK ~Eaou YEVTjTOI), but Paul believed that he would still be alive when the parousia happened.For Giblin the TO KOTEXOV refers to a pseudo-charismatic force of pagan origin. 25He bases this view on the contention that KOTEXO~EV05 is a standard term for one who, in the context of Dionysiac ecstasy, is possessed by the deity.Best (1972:299) raises six objections to this, in one of which he is supported by Mearns, namely that this reduces the "restrainer" to a local false prophet at Thessalonica whose disappearance would relate merely to a local eschatological situation and have no universal significance with regard to the sequence of final events.
In common with Larondelle, and basing himself on Tertullian and other Patristic commentators, Mearns believes that the "restrainer" relates to Paul's somewhat ambivalent attitude towards the Roman authorities.26 From the perspective of the Roman empire, the "preserver of law and order," it is possible the government could be the "restrainer," particularly with regard to the reign of Claudius (41-54 CE).The expression "he who restrains" may be a play on the name Claudius, who as claudens is the one who closes.
23 Ibid, 155.pretation of the interaction between "the world of ideas" and "social structures.,,32 Redaktionsgeschichte, with its emphasis on a writing's Sitz im Leben, already pointed in this direction.With regard to the Corpus Paulinum, the works of inter alia Theissen and Hock are well-known for their socio-historical descriptions of early Christianity.33 Specifically with reference to 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Hock interprets the aspect of "idleness" as a paraenetic topos of common occurrence in Hellenistic literature. 34 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services The Second Letter to the ThessaJonians Reread as Pseudepigraph the interpretation of the social background of the reference to "idleness" in 1 and 2 Thessalonians is that it may be explained in the context of the Greek and Roman disdain for manual labour. 37Kaye also suggested that the "disorderliness" in Thessalonica definitely related to social problems, but he did not expand on this point ofview. 3x According to Russell, Paul's paraenesis in 1 Thessalonians 4: 11-12.and particularly 1 Thessalonians 5:1, with regard to "idleness," serves as a basis for a detailed elaboration in 2 Thessalonians 3:6-13: the purpose of the call to mutual love, living in quietness, going about one's own business and working with one's hands is that "outsiders might approve the believers' social responsibility.,,39Instead of translating the word cXTOKTOS, which occurs in the New Testament only in 1 Thessalonians 5:14 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 7, 11, as "idler" ("to be idle," "to live in idleness"), Russell, with an appeal to Philo, Josephus and the papyri, would render it "to be disorderly": "av6~ws means 'without law and order'" (Jos Ap. 2.151).According to Russell,4o the OTOKTOI in the Thessalonian church were a group who were not merely lazy,41 or unemployed (apyOs in 1 Tm 5:13; Tt 1:12; Mt 20:3, 6), but who would not work (ou eeAEI Epya~eoeol, 2 Th 3:10) and would not accept the order within the church but also outside it in the wider community.Consequently, they impoverished themselves.
Church members with the means who had grown weary of doing good (2 Th 3:13; cf 2 Th 3:7-8) must have been burdened with the responsibility of caring for the "disorderly." In Russell's view, however, the reason for this "disorderly" lifestyle must be sought not in over-enthusiasm with regard to the expectation of the Lord's imminent parousia (2 Th 2:3) or concern about the fate of those who had already died when the parousia came (1 Th 4:13-18) and about when it would happen (1 Th. 5:1-11) -''whatever encouraged this The main thrust of Paul's exhortation to the "disorderly" is "to do their work in quietness and to earn their own living" (~ETcX ~ OUXtos epyol;o~EvOI TOV EOUT~V apTov Eo6iwOlV, 2 Th 3:12).In Russell's view, the purpose of this demand was that believers, on the one hand, should not offend against the pagan conception of civic order (cfthe expression rreplTToTijTE EUOXTWOVWS rrpOs TOUS e~w in 1 Th.4:12), and, on the other, should be independent in respect of material goods.The word used here, ~ouxcXl;w to "live quietly"} stands in a certain tradition of Greek philosophy.In this context it may refer to the "rest" a philosopher seeks when he withdraws from public life in order to devote himself to study (Plato Resp.6.496D; Cass Dio 60.27).
So, the "quietism" to which Paul called the "disorderly" did not involve idleness, but work (1 Th 4:1; 2 Th 3:11).Apart from the fact that there was a disdain for manual labour among the Greeks and Romans, the Graeco-Roman aristocracy also held the view that the life of an artisan, for example, was dependent on the care of others and therefore could not be free and self-sufficient. 43And yet there were members of the aristocracy who were on occasion compelled by exile or other financial need to abandon the life of a philosopher or a politician and perform manual labour.For this reason most aristocrats attached some sort of value especially to farm work. 44This is not to deny that manual labour was regarded as slave labour.In the Pauline churches, however, there were not many from the aristocracy; most members worked with their hands.
It would therefore seem that the problem of "disorderliness" in Thessalonica relates to the situation of relatively poor people in a Hellenistic city.In the average Hellenistic city, people had limited means, and this would also have applied to a seaport The Second Letter to the Thessalon;ans Reread as Pseudepigraph like Thessalonica."Idleness" was therefore a common occurrence .. ~5 Russell holds that in the case of Thessalonica, for example, one should think in terms of artisans who worked hard but were still dependent on the Roman "bread and circuses" ceremonies at which corn and oil were occasionally doled OUt.

46
In the cities such people often organised themselves into "coalitions" in order to win social advantage and respect on the strength of their numbers or, at least, to be able to claim "burial insurance.'.47A relationship could also develop between a "client" and a "patron."In the reciprocity of this relationship the patron would provide protection, care, money and food in exchange for the honour given him by the client.48   In the ranks of the early Christians in the Pauline churches there were then the urban poor, some of whom may have been unemployed and others of whom may have found themselves in a sort of patron-client relationship.Once they were drawn into the circle of the Christian community, these believers would most probably have seemed to outsiders like "disorderly beggars," parasitising on the charity of the Christian church without any sense of reciprocal action towards their new benefactors.In this regard, Russell refers to a maxim of Seneca condemning such an ungrateful response: "He who does not repay a benefit sins" (Seneca Ben 1.1.13).49This is strongly reminiscent of 2 Thessalonians 3: 10: "If anyone will not work, let him not eat."Over against Marxsen,50 who is of the opinion" that the reference to work in 2 Thessalonians should be seen as a vestige of the "Pauline tradition" to which the author harks back, Russell argues that we are dealing here not with a literary tradition, but with aspects of the social context of the early Christians.His description of the situation is summarised as follows: 51 If Pauline churches are composed primarily of believers from a lower social position (the poor, slaves, artisans, freedmen) with a minority from higher social levels in positions of leadership, then the idleness is more likely expressed by believers who are manual labourers from a lower social class.Paul urges these idle poor, caught up as beneficiaries of Christian love, to work, being self-sufficient and constructive in their relationship with others.
In his contribution, Winter ties in directly with the work of Russell and builds especially on the possible patron-client relationship which, according to him, too, was at the root of the problems in the social context of the Thessalonian church. 52In discussing this social interaction, Winter makes much use of the concept of providentia, to which a patron was obligated in respect of the needy.He links this historically to the year 51 CE, to which Tacitus (An 12.43) referred as a "terrible year" on account of earthquakes, the shortage of corn and the resultant famine.53 In this regard, Tacitus referred to the suffering of "the poor" in consequence of the miseries that occurred in this year.He says that some people at that time saw it all as a "supernatural portent."According to Winter, Thessalonica did not escape these disasters.Against this background, Winter differs from Russell by postulating that the patrons in the case of the Thessalonians must be seen not as benefactors within the church.The essence of the problem is precisely the fact that the believers who had left their past behind and become members of a new community sometimes broke off their relationship with their previous benefactors and sometimes did not.Both courses of action led to "disorderly" consequences.
Winter points out that the essence of the patron-client relationship consisted in the convention of "give and take.,,54 A benefaction by a patron created a chain of obligations: "The beneficiary had an obligation to respond to the gift with gratitude; his 51 Russell, 113.
Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Tire Second Letter 10 lire TlressmonUzns Rerelld liS Pseudepigrllplr expression of gratitude then placed the original benefactor under the obligation to do something further."s5One of the obligations that clients had to fulfil towards a patron was to attend the ceremony of "morning greeting" (salutatio) at the home of the patron, in exchange for which they received their "day's bread."Part of the compulsory loyalty a client had to show towards a patron was the promotion of the benefactor's interests in the TToAITEia.
There are sufficient indications in the New Testament to support the conclusion that some of these patrons became Christians.56 These wealthy people would, however, retain their obligations to their pagan clients.Equally, the converse was true: clients who became Christians would be under obligation to remain loyal to their pagan patrons.In 2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14 Paul admonishes his readers to shun anyone "living in idleness." This probably amounted to not admitting such a person to the communal meal.57 Whether food was received from a pagan or a believing patron, "idleness," as Russell shows, entailed "disorderly" conduct.But, going beyond Russell, it is clearly not just a question of the relationships of church members among themselves.According to Winter, it may be understood as a reference to the activity that was expected of a client in promoting the interests of his patron in the TToAITEia.58 Winter contends that Paul did not want to see his converts responsible for an uproar in Thessalonica, especiaHy in the light of the fact that, despite the good offices of Jason (Ac 17:8), he himself had to leave the city in such a hurry.However, the avoidance of civil unrest was not the most important of Paul's concerns.A"dries VII" Allrde must not be admitted to the meals in house churches, so that as a result of their isolation they will become "ashamed" (2 Th 3:14).But Paul does expect of the believing patrons that they will care for those who have become Christians and turned their backs on the pagan world (cf 1 Th 1:9), but who are still dependent on the benefactions of those who have the means to help.At the same time, this ensures the maintenance of civic order.
But those who are cared for in this way must know that the situation has changed.While it was not a disgrace in the life outside the church to be "idle" and dependent on a benefactor, believers are expected to follow Paul's personal example, to be selfsupporting and not to live off others.He who does not work cannot simply assume that a believing "benefactor" wiIl take care of him.60"Give and take" is the essence of any reciprocity, also that of the Christian community.

Summary
There has therefore been an interesting development in the traditional view that the immediate cause for the writing of 2 Thessalonians was the confusion prevalent among the Thessalonian believers in spite of Paul's first letter to them.The political and economic situation has been the focus of increasingly serious attention in the search for the solution to the exegetical problems in the letter.At first only the Roman government came into consideration as it was associated with both the TO KOTEXOV / 6 KOTEXc.lVand the / 6 civ9pc.lTTOSTiis cXVOllloS / 6 vlos Tiis cXTTc.lAEIOS.Later, culturalanthropological insights into the Mediterranean system of "give and take" in patron-client relationships were applied to help to elucidate the problem of "civic disorder," to which there is reference in 2 Thessalonians.To date, however, this social-scientific approach has not been brought to bear either on the problem of the identity of the "lawless" figure/institution and of the institution/figure that restrains him or on the imminent eschatological expectation which is also a feature of 2 Thessalonians.A meaningful linkage between, on the one hand, the conduct of the "disorderly" and this enigmatic figure and, on the other hand, the Lord's parousia will greatly advance the credibility of the insights in the fragments of investigation referred to.

The Second Letter to the Thessaionians Reread as Pseudepigraph
Furthennore the problem of the authorship of 2 Thessalonians is not something that can be left out of account in an investigation into the social context of the writing.If Paul was not himself responsible for the writing of 2 Thessalonians, this affects a number of current assumptions with regard to date, addresses, place and immediate purpose.In other words, the traditional account of the historical background of 2 Thessalonians is sharply challenged by exegetes who deny the Pauline authorship of the letter.In spite of its emphasis on the aspect of "Paulinism" in the interpretation of 2

AN ALTERNATIVE VIEW: 2 THESSALONIANS IS
Thessalonians, a view such as Krodel' s has clearly not succeeded in postulating an hypothesis that provides a coherent pattern for the elucidation of the problems associated with the social context of the letter.This also applies to more recent works.For the sake of greater clarity regarding the nature of many of these problems, some aspects will be touched upon.
It is striking that although exegetes have begun to accept the pseudepigraphical character of 2 Thessalonians, the investigation of similarities and differences between I and 2 Tbessalonians has remained the central problem in their research.Because Paul's (first) letter to the Thessalonians functions as the most important source in relation to 2 Thessalonians, it is unlikely that we will see a speedy shift of perspective in the study of aspects of 2 Thessalonians such as the social context in tenns of which the letter is to be understood.This is evident in the way that a number of recent works focus on the phenomena mentioned above, which were identified by Krodel.
It is true that, as far as eschatology is concerned, the emphasis is no longer on trying to fit 2 Thessalonians into the debate on Paul's developing ideas on apocalyptic 67 or the use of gnostic concepts,68 but the problem is still discussed in tenns of correspondences with 1 Thessalonians.

HTS 56(1) 2000
Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services In an important contribution, Hartrnan (1990:470-485) presents a situation of persecution as the background to the writing of 2 Thessalonians. 69For him the eschatology of 2 Thessalonians is of interest as an expression of a communication event.
He points out that chapters 1 and 2 cannot be separated from each other.The communication takes place from the perspective of a "Paulinist school" and is directed to a wider group of churches.The main concern of the letter is that its readers should see persecutions as part of the eschatological end.This pattern also occurs in other New Testament writings.However, the author of 2 Thessalonians modifies the traditional view that looks forward to an end to present afflictions.Rather, he seeks to encourage his readers by preparing them for continued struggle and continued hope.As regards the eschatological content of the letter, the rropovoio-imagery is Pauline and it corresponds with 1 Thessalonians.However, in Hartman's view there are no precedents for the coupling of the "lawless one" with the rropovoio.
What is important for our purposes is Hartrnan's question whether it was not perhaps the theme of "lawlessness" in the Synoptic Gospels that provided the author of 2 Thessalonians with a textual source for this concept.Hartman points out that the effect this figure had on the readers of the letter was that they were better able to comprehend the delay in the rropovoio and the function of present evil and decline.The 6 ICOTexCIJV helps to identify the tribulations being endured as eschatological.In this way the author sought to scale down eschatological expectations while still keeping them alive.
According to Hartman, 2 Thessalonians must not be read from a perspective of eschatological fervor being calmed.''The main problem is the harassment of the Christian minorities, a problem of which we also know from other NT texts (cf the situation in the line between Nero to Domitian)."The way in which God is presented in the letter is also to be understood against the background of this situation.God is always on the side of the readers and always opposed to their opponents.He is the cause of everything referred to in the letter.Although the unbelieving persecutors refuse to believe the gospel and although their delusion is connected with the "lawless one," it is God who permits and controls it.
Koester discusses a possible function of the apocalyptic timetable in 2 Thessalonians against the background of archaeological evidence relating to ancient 69 Hartman, "Eschatology" (supra, n 62), 470-485.
The Second Lener to the Thessa/onians Reread as Pseudepigraph Thessalonica and the "political" connotation the word rropouoio may have had in Thessalonica. 70Although 1 and 2 Thessalonians make use of traditional apocalyptic material, this does not, in Koester's judgement, provide a warrant for deductions from the letters that the convictions of the Thessalonian believers were influenced in any way by their pagan past 7 ) or by millenarian sentiments,72 which allegedly related in some way or other to the Kabiros cult or the emperor cult or that of Dionysus, as Evans and Jewett opined. 73Koester asserts that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to use archaeological findings relating to ancient Thessalonica of biblical times to help to interpret the letters to the Thessalonians.He points out that the archaeological pickings have been meager indeed.There have been monuments, such as the Arch of Galerius and the Rotunda.The Roman Forum and the Palace of Galerius have also been extensively excavated.It was a cause of excitement when a temple of Isis as well as many inscriptions and some sculpture relating to the Egyptian cult were discovered during the construction of a road some seventy years ago.But this provided no information that helps us to interpret the letters to the Thessalonians.Furthermore, Koester is sceptical that it will ever be possible to write a complete history of the religions practised in Thessalonica.It is true that Hendrix accumulated enough data for a description of the cult of the so-called "Roman benefactors" of the late Republican and early Imperial periods. 74But for the following two hundred years of the Imperial period there are hardly any finds.For the interpretation of the Thessalonian letters it is this period, Koester says, that could be important.
The only exception during this period is the time of Galerius, for which we can point to some substantial data.However, there is no archaeological evidence relating to religions such as Judaism that were practised in Thessalonica.Neither is it possible to reconstruct the history of the Jews in Thessalonica over a time span of half a millennium with the help of the fifth-century Samaritan inscription found in Thessalonica and the reference to 70 Koester, "Eschatology" (supra, n 62), 441-458.
72 CA Wanamaker, "Apocalyptic ism at Thessalonica," Neotestamentica 21 (1987), 1•10.According to Koester, the frame of reference of Paul's religious thought and that of his readers must be determined by an analysis of the traditions and motives which appear in 1 and 2 Thessalonians and the way they are interpreted there.Accordingly, he pays particular attention to the term rropouoio. 75e term rropouoio occurs four times in 1 Thessalonians when the whole church -those who are still alive as well as those who have died and have been resurrected -go out to meet the Lord like a civic deputation that goes out to meet the emperor when he visits the city.The important point is that those who have died will rise before the meeting.A visual image of this event, Koester says, can be derived from the archaeological evidence of the cemeteries of ancient Greek cities which everywhere were situated, often for kilometers, along the main roads.So those who had died might also be said to have a share in the meeting with the KUPIOS at his rropouoio.
Koester believes that underlying this use of the words cXrrcXvTllolS" and rropouoio one must assume a traditional apocalyptic timetable in terms of which events will occur in a particular chronological sequence.In this regard, he highlights a significant difference between 1 and 2 Thessalonians.In 1 Thessalonians the distinction between the future and the present is of no consequence.Paul portrays the church as an eschatological utopian alternative to the Imperium Romanum.In this way he builds up an eschatological community existing in the present in tenns of faith, love and hope -a community that has even crossed the boundary from life to death.This is what is meant by saying that in 1 Thessalonians the distinction between future and present is of no consequence.In 2 Thessalonians the distinction is reinforced by the introduction of intennediate phases leading from the present to the future rropouoio.In Koester's view, then, references to 6 KOTEXWV / TO KOTEXOV and the "antichrist" are not to be interpreted in tenns of the Roman empire at all but as representative of different phases of the apocalyptic timetable.

Summary:
In our overview of relevant aspects in works in which the Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians is not questioned we have already seen that the delay in the Lord's parousia cannot simply be regarded as the only cause of social problems in the church.
This tendency is also evident among exegetes who assume 2 Thessalonians to be a "Paulinist" letter.Although Krodel continued to link the problems associated with "disorderly" conduct with supposed over-enthusiasm as a result of the imminent expectation of the parousia, his emphasis on the variant eschatology and portrayal of God Teachers of heresy often appealed to spurious or forged letters of Paul.
Giittgemanns uses 2 Thessalonians 2:2 and 3:17 as an example in this regard. 76He says that there are exegetes who have remarked, even as far back as 1850, that many of Paul's opponents were in truth uberzogene Pauliner, just as in the case of the spater Marcion.
For this reason Paul may rightly be described as a "tragic figure": "sHindig misverstanden, falsch gehort und gelesen .... " This is the upshot of2 Peter 3:15-16.The author of this document seems to imply that the opaqueness of Paul's arguments (probably in regard to eschatology) made heresy possible.People could therefore easily be misled in 76 E. Guttgemanns, "Paulus und der desir nach dem Eschaton," Linguistica Biblica 58 (1986), 7-14: 9.In 2 Peter, the great issue is one of authority (2: 10), or more precisely, authoritative tradition and interpretation (1 :20-21 ).... Since the author reveals a knowledge of Paul's writings (3:15-16), it may well be that his concept of authoritative tradition is influenced by Paulinism, and that his "reminder" (1:12-15; 3:1-2) is intended, like the Pastorals, to be a mediation of the apostolic presence in Peter's absence. 13 so saying, Meade allows the function of the use of the concept of "apostolic tradition" in 2 Peter to be absorbed, so to speak, into what he calls "a mediation of the apostolic presence in [the apostle's] absence."Clearly, however, far more can be said about the background to the heresy which is at issue in 2 Peter (and 2 Th) than that it is Having concluded that the answer to the problem of the authorship of 2 Thessalonians is to be found in the concept of "Pau1inism," we now intend to use this perspective in order to propose that the main concern of the letter may be understood against the background of an anti-Sadducean polemic.This will explain the "Old Testament-Jewish" character of "the strong emphasis on the future judgment" compared with the "hellenistic" character of the same theme in 2 Peter.It may also provide an acceptable background for the references to the enigmatic figures/institutions of the "lawless one," the one who "restrains" him/it before the coming of the parousia, the "disorderly" and the "busybodies" (2 Th 3: 11), as well as the pronouncement: "If anyone will not work, let him not eat" (2 Th 3:10).These insights and this proposal follow from concurrence with the research of GUttgemanns (1986) on Paulinism, that of N~yrey on 84 W Trilling, Untersuchungen zurn 2. Thessalonicherbrier (Leipzig: St Benno Veriag, 1972), 140".

4 E
Von Dobschutz, The Thessalonicher-Briefe, (GOttingen: Vandenboeck & Ruprecht, 1909; reprint 1974).174-183; E Best, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians (London: Black, 1972), 176-178; F F Bruce, J and 2 ThessaJonians (Waco: Word Books, 1982),90-91,204-209. 106 HTS 56(1) 2000 followed in this regard, Paul founded the church in the company of Silas -also called Silvanus (cf 1 Th 1: 1) -and Timothy when he visited the city of Thessalonica during the course of his second missionary journey (Ac 17: 1-2; 1 Th 2:2).Thessalonica, which in the time of Paul was already more than three centuries old, was a large seaport, strategically situated on the Roman highway from the Adriatic to the Black Sea.It was the capital of the Roman province of Macedonia.The city still exists as the modem day Salonica.From Thessalonica Paul visited successively Berea, Athens and Corinth.According to the traditional view, it was during his eighteen-month stay in Corinth (Ac 18:11) that Paul wrote his two letters to the Thessalonians.With regard to the aim and purpose of the letters to the Thessalonians, the traditional theory is that 1 Thessalonians was written to answer the church's questions about the fate of loved ones who had died and the time of the second coming.According to this view, the motive for the writing of2 Thessalonians was to correct a misconception regarding the parousia which, despite the first letter, still confused the church in Thessalonica.A typical application of this point of view is the work of Larondelle. 8According to him, Paul had a practical problem in mind in 2 Thessalonians.He wished to combat a heresy.What this heresy amounted to was .that the Day of the Lord was thought to have already arrived, or, at any rate, it was so imminent that it might arrive at any moment (2 Th 2:2).This heresy might be the result of a misunderstanding based on Paul's first letter(s) to the Thessalonians (cf the historical-critical problems and a solution such as that proposed by Schmithals), and especially the comment that occurs in I Thessalonians 4:17: ''then (STTEITO) we who are alive, who are left (01 ~c.JVTES" 01 TTEPIAEITTOJ,.lEVOI), shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air" (a 1TCX V TT) 0 I V TOll KUPIOU EiS" aepo).Larondelle says that this misunderstanding regarding the imminence of the second coming was foreseen by Jesus himself (cf Mt 24:23-24).9In Thessalonica members of the church abandoned their daily work, became busybodies and over-enthusiastic, and began to live disorderly lives.Paul wished to set right these misconceptions by reminding the church of his oral instruction (see 2 Th 2:2-9) that the rebellion and the lawless one/the son o/perdition (6 c:Xv9pC'.Urros nlS avo~los /6 uios nlS arrC'.UAElos) first (6 rrpc;:JTov) had to be revealed in the temple of God (Eis TOV VOOV 8EOU, along with his satanic power and pretended signs and wonders (ou EOTlV ~ rropouolo KOT' EVEPYEIOV TOU OOTOVcl EV rroon OUVcX~EI KOI OT)~EIOIS KOI TEpomv ~EUOOUS) (2 Tb 2:9), and that only then (KO I TC:>TE) the Lord Jesus (6 Kuplos' IT)oous) the self-exaltation and self-apotheosis of the kings of Tyre ~d Babylon in Ezekiel 28:2, cfR Bratcher, Luke-Acts and the Jews (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987),55, Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services time.They are events which, according to Paul, must first happen, and therefore the Thessalonians must not become over-enthusiastic with regard to an imminent expectation of the Day of the Lord.According to Mearns, one must interpret 2 Thessalonians as representing the second of three phases in the apocalyptic development within Pauline thinking.In 2 Thessalonians it relates to the events surrounding Caligula in 40 CE.20 C L Mearns, "Early Eschatological Development in Paul: The Evidence of I and 11 Thessalonians," NTS 27 (1981), 137-157.21 Ibid, 153; cf A L Moore, Tlte Parousia in the New Testament (Leiden: Brill, 1966), 175-177.22 Ibid, 153.III HTS 56{l) 2000Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Like Larondelle, Mearns interprets 2 Thessalonians 2:5 as referring to Paul's oral instruction.23According to him Caligula had, as a result of his provocative intentions, stirred apocalyptic expectations even before this instruction was given.At this stage Paul did not link Caligula's actions with the second coming of Jesus.Neither should the TO KOTEXOV of 2 Thessalonians 2:6 be understood as referring to Paul's mission to the gentiles, as Cullmann claimed. 24 (In this view 6 KOTEXc.uVrefers to Paul himself and TO KaTEXOV to his missionary task.)

2. 0 3 I
Cullmann, Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History (London: S C M, 1971), 164-166.2SC H Giblin, The Threat to Faith: An Exegetical and Theological Re-examination of 11 Thessalonians (Rome: Pontificial Institute, 1967), 167-169.1b Meams (supra, n 19), 155.Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Tlte Secolld Letter to the TltessaJoII;alls Reread as Pseudep;graphMeams finds the objection adduced by Best against this viewpoint unconvincing.27Best's contention is that the tone of 2 Thessalonians 2 is inconsistent with the identification of anything or anybody in it with historical events, forces or characters.Nowhere in other apocalyptic literature do we encounter the idea of Rome as a restraining force.Rather Revelation 17 indicates that Rome should be seen as the enemy of the people of God.Meams answers this criticism by saying that hostility to Rome from the side of Christians dated from the Neronian persecution.28Therefore the "mystery of lawlessness" must be seen as referring to the Roman empire on account of the ambivalent attitude that, besides being the preserver of order, it carried within itself the inherent possibility of being a persecutor and a tyrant.It was precisely such an eruption of evil under Caligula that brought about a great crisis.This, we might say, was fortunately averted by the assassination of Caligula.For a while this evil was dormant but, in terms of Paul's expectation in 2 Thessalonians, it would reappear with the removal of the "restrainer" (= Claudius).Precisely what was expected happened during the reign of Claudius' successor, Nero (54-68 CE).According to Meams, Paul, awaiting his imperial trial in Rome, probably lived to see the fulfilment of his prophetic prevision.He presumably died a martyr's death in the Neronian persecutions.29Christians did not regard the Old Testament's dramatic prophecies of divine epiphanies as fulfilled during the lifetime of Jesus.Neither did they do so at the time when the resurrection faith was taking root.It was in the early fifties, with Paul in the vanguard, that Christians, supported by traditions derived from Jewish apocalyptic, began to search for passages on the surface of the Old Testament to legitimise their hope of fulfilment at the time of the Lord's parousia.An important development in the traditional debate on the nature of the "idleness" associated with the eschatological problems of 1 and 2 Thessalonians was signalled by 27 Best (supra, n 3), 296.21 Mearns, 155.29 Ibid, 156.114 HTS 56(1) 2000 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services A"dr;es VII" Allrde the contributions of R Russell and B W Winter. 3o According to Russell, it is an exegetical error to interpret historical phenomena from the perspective of purely theological structures.He refers to Bengt Holmberg's social-scientific study of the aspect of "conflict" in the Pauline letters, in which Holmberg notes the importance for inter-

37See.
inter alia, W Bienert, Die Arbeit nach der Lehre der Bibel: Eine Grundlegung evangelischer Socialethik.Stuttgart: Evangelishes Verlagswerk, 1954),213; MarshaIl (supra, n 6), 223.38 B N Kaye, "Eschatology and Ethics in 1 and 2 Thess," NT 17 (1975),147-157: 157.39 RusseIl (supre, n 29), 105.40 Russell, 108.41 Contra W Trilling, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher (ZUrich: Benziger, 1980), 144.116 HTS 56(1) 2000 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Alldries VGII Aarde behaviour preceded these eschatological problems because disorderly behaviour existed from the beginning ... 42 A PSEUDEPI-GRAPH, AND IT IS OPEN TO QUESTION WHETHER THE DELAYED PAROUSIA IS REALLY THE PROBLEM Since the provocative contribution of William Wrede in 1903, the hypothesis that 2 Thessalonians might be pseudepigraphical has challenged conventional exegetical wisdom.By the early eighties the hypothesis had acquired the character of "scientific certainty," for example, Wolf gang Trilling. 61Giblin describes his own altered perspective as follows: "Unrnindful of Wrede's earlier warnings, I tried in part to develop what was in 1964-66 the prevailing view that Paul himself dictated 2 Thessalonians.That effort failed, but I think that I had begun to read the text aright.I now consider the letter a pseudepigraph. ,,6261 W Trilling, "Literarische Paulusimitation im 2. Thessalonicherbrief," in K Kertelge, (ed), Pau/us in den neutestamentliche Spii.tschriften:Zur Pau/usrezeption im Neuen Testament (Freiburg: Herder.1981), 146-156.62 CH Giblin, "2 Thess 2 Re-read as Pseudepigraphical: A Revised Reaffmnation of The Threat to Faith," in R F Collins (ed), The Thessa/onian Co"espondence (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990),457-169: 460; also idem.The Second Letter to the Thessa/onlans (Englewood Cliffs, N J: Prentice Hall, 1990), 2-9.122 HTS 56(1) 2000 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Andries vlln Allrde Nowadays there is a striking, almost complete, unanimity between scholars on this score. 63Krodel discusses in detail four reasons why the Pauline authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is unacceptable. 64He points to phenomena in the letter such as the non-Pauline eschatology, repetitions and both structural and verbal dependence on 1 Thessalonians, the change in the image of God and, in connection with this, the author's onomatology relating to Jesus, the absence of the Pauline cross and resurrection kerygma, the dearth of pneumatology, the way in which the concept of apostolicity is used, and finally the nature of the reference to the word "letter" (cS,' ETTlOTOATlS-) in 2 Thessalonians 2:2.According to Krodel, the author of 2 Thessalonians conducted a subtle polemic against a pseudonymous Pauline writing and another Pauline group.Both the writer and his opponent were therefore "Paulinists" who laid claim to Pauline authority and practised the literary technique of pseudonymity.Krodel believes that 2 Thessalonians was written at a time when and at a place where the Pauline letters were available only in the form of copies. 65n 2 Thessalonians tensions are indeed present that arose only in a post-Pauline community.There was apparently a group that held the view that the eschaton was a present reality.Jewish apocalyptic provided the concepts for this specific interpretation of history and for this particular articulation of the Christian's experience of suffering (2 63 R F Collins, Thessalonian Correspondence, HTS 56(1) 1000 123 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services The Second Lener to the Thessalonians Reread as Pseudepigraph Tb 1:4-10).According to Krodel, the fate of Jerusalem in 70 CE was seen by this group as the dawning of God's final judgement.If the wrath of God had already descended on the Jews and Christians were already beginning to experience the birth pangs of the new age (cf 2 Th 1 :4-10), it could be concluded that the Day of the Lord had already dawned (cf 2 Tb 2:2c).Against this background, Krodel holds that the letter was intended to provide guidance to Christians who were alleged to have become disoriented (OOAEUeilvcu ... aTTO TOU voCe; and over-enthusiastic (epEIOeOI, 2 Th 2:2a).The reference to "idleness" should, in Krodel's view, be understood in the context of eschatological fervour.66 73 R M Evans, Eschatology and Ethics: A Study of Thessalonica and Paul's Lellers to the Thessalonians (Princeton: McMahon, 1968); R Jewett, Correspondence (supra, n 6).7. Hendrix, "Thessalonians Honor Romans."ThD Dissertation.(Cambridge, M A: Harvard University, 1984).116 HTS 56(1) 2000 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services Jason (who, according to Ac 17:5-7, accommodated Paul and Silas at the time of the Jewish unrest but who was not mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Thessalonians).
(2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23) and twice in 2 Thessalonians (2:1, 8).Apart from this, Paul uses it only once, namely in I Cor 15 :23.In I Thessalonians, however, it is not used in contexts containing so-called pre-Pauline material.I Thessalonians 1 :9-10 may serve as an example.Koester regards the use of the term as typically Pauline.He is also of the opinion that it is a political term used as an analogy for the second coming.The coming of the Lord is likened to the arrival of a king or emperor, for which the church must prepare itself.Koester views the problem in 1 Thessalonians 4: 13-18, relating to those who have died, in the light of the political meaning that not only the word rropouoio but also the word cXrrcXvTllolS" (1 Th 4:17) can have, and not in terms of the supposed issue regarding the delayed parousia.In his opinion Paul does not deal with the latter question at all in his letters.The words referred to are terms used by Paul to describe the coming of the Lord as the occasion

in 2
Thessalonians has provided a basis fOl: the conviction that we are here dealing with Paulinism.Hartman linked the changed portrayal of God to the situation of persecution.This point of view is as important as his suggestion that the reference to "lawlessness" in 2 Thessalonians might well be looked at from the perspective of what we know about this phenomenon on the basis of the Synoptic Gospels (and Ac).Like Hartman, Koester does not wish to minimise the importance of the function of the eschatological timetable in 2Thessalonians.But what is at issue is not apocalyptic as such or developments in eschatological convictions but the importance of an intermediate phase in the handling of heresy concerning the parousia Yet Koester is unconvincing when he contends that this point of view disposes of the opinion of Tertullian and the early Patristic fathers that the Roman empire is relevant in this regard.The very fact that 2 Thessalonians is still approached in tenns of its similarities with and differences from 1 Thessalonians has led us not only to the phenomenon of Paulinism, but also to a possible social context which 118 HTS 56(1) 2000 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services may serve to correlate the different problems of interpretation and perhaps offer a solution.The role of the temple, the relationship between the temple authorities and the Roman administration, the tendency to "civic disorder" among the Christians, their persecution by those who usurped God's place in the temple, the fact that the persecutors are restrained and the problem as to whether or not the Day of the Lord was realisedthese are all problems alluded to in 2 Thessalonians which may be seen in a coherent context.If 2 Thessalonians is read as a Paulinist writing (like the Paulinism of Ac; see, for example, Bradley 1987: 107-132) against the background of an anti-Sadducean polemic (just as in the case of the Paulinism of Ac), this will at least help to elucidate the coherence of the problems to which we have referred.4. A NEW SUGGESTION: 2 THESSALONIANS MAY BE READ AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF AN ANTI-SADDUCEAN POLEMIC As in the case of certain other New Testament letters, known as Deutero-Pauline letters (1 and 2 Tim, Titus, Col and Eph), the author of 2 Thessalonians and his readers were clearly acquainted with some of the authentic Pauline letters and communicated with each other within the frame of reference provided by these letters.What happened is that justice was not always done to Paul's own ideas.This phenomenon of the "wrong use" of Paul's letters is known as Paulinism.

(cf 1
Cor 4:10-14; 2 Cor 4:16-18; Rm 5:3-5; GI 6:17; PhI 3:10).This example motif serves to encourage both the church and Paul to persevere in faith, love and hope (1 Th 1 :3; 3:6, 13).Conversely, the fact that in view of the end-time the Thessalonians' perseverance in the face of affliction is the basis of Paul's perseverance -because they stand firm in the Lord, Paul can really live again (l Th 3:8).Although the question of the second coming may therefore have been an important motive for the writing of 1 Thessalonians, it need not be regarded as the central or most important concern of the letter.Thessalonica was a young church in a predominantly pagan world and with antagonistic Jews in the immediate vicinity.The church had already endured persecution and could expect more.The letter served to strengthen and encourage church members.Paul himself was a good example to them.He wanted to urge them to live a good life for the sake of mutual encouragement, but also to win the respect of the pagan community.He wished to keep a path open so that he could go and supply what they still lacked in respect of a life characterised by the obedience of faith.In 2 Thessalonians (as in the Pastoral Letters and 2 Peter) the figure of Paul becomes a Lehrautoritiit in order to combat the heresy with regard to the delayed parousia.Meade has this comment on 2 Peter: 83 C L Meade, Pseudonymity and Canon: An investigation into the Relationship of Authorship and Authority in Jewish and Early Christian Tradition (Tubingen: Mohr, 1986), 190. 132 HTS 56(1) 2000 Digitised by the University of Pretoria, Library Services merely a matter of the so-called "apostolic parousia" and the presence of the authoritative apostolic word despite the absence of the apostle.An observation on the comparability of 2 Thessalonians and 2 Peter which has decisively influenced the direction that the debate on the social context of 2 Thessalonians has taken is that made by Wolf gang Trilling (see also Kasemann 1964: 138-141, 141-145): Ohne die Unterschiede zwischen II [2 Thessalonians] und 2 Petr, vor allem den Unterschied des Milieus (2 Petr ist hellenistisch.11 alttestamentlichjudisch bestimmt) zu ubersehen, zeigen sich auffallige Parallelen im Glaubensbegriff, in der Bewertung der apostolische Paradosis und kirchliche Lehre, in der Ausgestaltung und Interpretation der Eschatologie, vor allem in der Schwachung des Gegenwartsbezuges und der Verlagerung in die Zukunftmit den entsprechenden Konsequenzen fur das christliche Leben jetzt und fur die starke Betonung des Gerichtes in der Zukunjt.84 (my italics) Marxsen, Zweiter Thessalonicherbrief (supra, n 49); F Laub, "Paulinische Autoritit in nachpaulinischer Zeit (2 Thes)," in Collins, Correspondence (1990), 403-417, and idem, Enter und zweiter Thessalonicherbrief (Wlirzburg: Echter, 1965, 21988); G S Holland, The Tradition That You Received from Us: 2 Thessalonians in the Pauline Tradition (Tiibingen: Mohr, 1988), and idem, "'A Letter Supposedly from Us': A Contribution to the Discussion about the Authorship of 2 Thessalonians," in Collins, Correspondence (1990), 394-402; A G Van Aarde, "The Struggle Against Heresy in the Thessalonian Correspondence and the Origin of the Apostolic Tradition," in Collins, Correspondence (1990), 418-425; H. Koester, "From Paul's Eschatology to the Apocalyptic Schemata of 2 Thess," in Collins, Introduction, xi-xv, and pp 426-440, '''The Gospel of Our Lord Jesus' (2 Thes 1,8): A Symbolical Shift of Paradigm"; H Braun, "Zur nachpaulinischen Herlcunft des Zweiten Thessalonicherbriefes," ZNW 44 (1952/53), 131-145; W Trilling, Untersuchungen mm 2. Thessalonicherbrief Leipzig: St Benno-Verlag, 1972), and idem, supra n. 40 and n 60; G Friedrich, Der zweite Brief an die Thessalonicher, in J Becker, et al, Die Briefe an die Galater, Epheser, Philipper, Kolosser und Philemon, 252-276.G6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.1976), 252-276; G Krodel, "2 Thessalonians," in G Krodel (ed), Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thess, The Pastoral Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), 73-96; J A Bailey, "Who Wrote IT Thessalonians?" NTS 25 (1978/1979), 131-145; 65 Krodel, 86.