kiana
(Kiana)
#1
the imitation hypothesis 219
παρηγγείλαμεν). Taking this remark, 2 Thess 3:12 attempts to be pauline
by giving this “direction” in exactly the same context, combining it with
another word from the template, παρακαλῶ. But the result is neither pau-
line nor anything known from private letters at the time. speaking of the
imitation process it is clear how this could happen. The author knows
about emphatic requests consisting of two elements, putting παρακαλῶ in
second position, which we have seen both in documentary papyri and in
the undisputed epistles. But instead of using the conventional combina-
tion of ἐρωτῶ and παρακαλῶ, the author misses both the letter convention
and paul’s choice of words. The author clearly knows about connecting
requests to the lord and does so in 2 Thess 3:12 (ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ).
The possible template here is 1 Thess 4:1: λοιπὸν οὖν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν
ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ (“finally, brothers and sisters, we ask
and urge you in the lord Jesus”). still, the connection in 2 Thessalonians
remains odd, putting an authoritative touch to the “commanding in the
lord” by the “apostle,” whereas 1 cor 7:10 so obviously creates a different
image of paul.
regarding the unusually high frequency of the verb παραγγέλλω in
2 Thessalonians observed above, we can conclude that, in a process of imi-
tating paul, παρακαλῶ instead of παραγγέλλω would have been the more
“pauline” choice for 2 Thess 3:4, 6, 10 (community matters). In 2 Thess 3:10
the combination ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν would work perfectly as
a “pauline” emphatic request, which is obviously intended by the author.
The absence of this common phrase together with the creation of a new
and unknown combination using a much more “official” vocabulary
allows us to draw conclusions about the author’s portrait of paul, for this
is not the only instance in 2 Thessalonians where the author stresses the
apostle’s authority.
This article has demonstrated that evidence gathered from documen-
tary papyri enables us to comment on the pseudepigraphic questions of
2 Thessalonians on a meta-level. This meta-level is achieved by looking
at the form (conventions of how to write a letter in the first century ce)
and by analyzing the background of the author’s choice of words in com-
parison to a set of data from the undisputed author in question (paul). It
is against this papyrological background—in this article mainly the first
set of data—that I argue in favour of a non-pauline authorship of 2 Thes-
salonians, concluding instead that it was an author who tried to imitate
paul. In his attempt to be “pauline” the author exaggerates and breaks
with epistolary conventions, exposing 2 Thessalonians as a constructed,
pseudepigraphic writing in exactly those places where the letter should
appear “genuine” (Imitation hypothesis).
