Article Sidebar
Article Details
The author(s) retain copyright on work published by AOSIS unless specified otherwise.
Licensing and publishing rights
Author(s) of work published by AOSIS are required to grant AOSIS the unlimited rights to publish the definitive work in any format, language and medium, for any lawful purpose. AOSIS requires journal authors to publish their work in open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.
Read more here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
The authors retain the non-exclusive right to do anything they wish with the published article(s), provided attribution is given to the applicable journal with details of the original publication, as set out in the official citation of the article published in the journal. The retained right specifically includes the right to post the article on the authors’ or their institution’s websites or in institutional repositories.
Previously published work may have been published under a different licence. We advise the community that if they would like to reuse the work to consult the applicable licence at article level.
Main Article Content
‘Der Tag des Herrn ist schon da’ (2 Thess 2:2b) – Ein Schlüsselproblem zum Verständnis des 2. Thessalonicherbriefs
Abstract
‘The day of the Lord is already here’ (2 Thess 2:2b) – A key problem to the understanding of the second letter to the Thessalonians. 2 Thessalonians 2:2b, that is, the words ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου are a crux interpretum. At the same time their interpretation is crucial for the overall understanding of 2 Thessalonians. Does this text offer a view of early Christian eschatology totally different from Paul’s or is it compatible to what we read for example in 1 Thessalonians? The article deals critically with two recent monographs by Norbert Baumert and Maria-Irma Seewann who offered a new interpretation of the passage according to which 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is not concerned with matters of Parousia, but with Christ’s presence in the community. It offers an overview of the development of the ‘Day of the Lord’ traditions in the Old Testament and Early Judaism and shows that Baumert and Seewann’s interpretation is untenable. After an analysis of the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 the article develops an own interpretation of 2 Thessalonians’ 2:2 in light of a parallel in Hippolyt’s Commentary on Daniel. The eschatology of 2 Thessalonians 2 finally, provides an argument for the text’s pseudepigraphy.
