dusting off a pseudo-historical letter 297
motivation for writing; i.e., a wish that the recipients not be deceived.
the independent clause articulates the object of deception that threat-
ens the recipients: i.e., those who try to deceive with vain talk (quorun-
dam vaniloquia insinuantium). the subjunctive quality of this sentence,
however, does not indicate that Ps.-Paul is constructing a prayer to close
the thanksgiving period,18 but rather is explicating the recipients’ present
condition as being steadfast. thus, he exhorts them by reminding them of
that status. a distinction in verbal constructions explicates this contrast
between the recipients’ current status and the possible threat facing them.
In referring to the false teachers (third person plural), the author uses two
subjunctives (destituant... evertant) that are closely correlated; that is,
those who attempt “to deceive” are motivated by the desire “to deter you”
from the true gospel. By using the subjunctive, the author stresses that the
laodiceans have not been “drawn away,” but that they are threatened by
those who would seek to undermine Ps.-Paul’s “true gospel.” In contrast,
the recipients are described, in the thanksgiving period, with the pres-
ent active indicative (with two supporting participles), as being steadfast
and persevering in works (quod permanents estis in eo, et perseverantes in
operibus ejus).19
Verse 9 constitutes the body closing, marked by the transitional et
id ipsum, which effectively parallels, and thereby completes, the body
opening.20 While this transitional device begins a new compositional
unit, it also brings the discussion of the letter body to a cumulative finale.
thus, v. 9 is an appropriate body closing for this letter. first, it summarizes
the purpose for writing so as to parallel v. 4. Whereas the body opening
18 My delineation and analysis of the thanksgiving period differs from Pervo, Paul, 108,
who extends the thanksgiving to include vv. 4 and 5. however, there are three reasons to
limit the thanksgiving to just v. 3. first, the eschatological promise in v. 3 brings the period
to an appropriate conclusion (see doty, Letters, 27, 33; o’Brien, Thanksgivings, 28). second,
Pervo mistakenly reads laod 4 and 5 as comprising a closing prayer. rather than a prayer,
these verses constitute the opening of the letter body by focusing on the occasion of the
letter (see below). third, the opening of v. 4 is marked by a shift toward the threat fac-
ing the community by neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium (marking
the body opening), while et nunc at v. 5 compositionally marks the body middle. Conse-
quently, the thanksgiving period is best read as being comprised of only v. 3, coming to an
eschatological climax or finale. Penny, “Ps-Pauline letters,” 324, also limits the thanksgiv-
ing period to v. 3, but does not offer an analysis of the thanksgiving beyond simply noting
a dependency on Phil 1:3–4, 6, 10.
19 Beyond the active indicative and active subjunctive distinction between the recipi-
ents and the false teachers, Ps.-Paul further describes god’s work (for the author’s co-
workers and the recipients) with the future active indicative faciet (laod 5, 9).
20 White, Form and Function, 33, 42–49, especially 46; cf. White, “epistolary literature,”
1743–44.