“`html
An Exegetical Analysis of the Anarthrous ἐπιστολῆς in 2 Thessalonians 2:15
This exegetical study of An Exegetical Analysis of the Anarthrous ἐπιστολῆς in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is based on an online discussion forum. The initial query examines the assertion by W. Marxsen regarding the grammatical significance of the absence of the definite article before ἐπιστολῆς in 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Marxsen contends that the anarthrous construction (εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν, rather than εἴτε δι’ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν) implies a general reference to ‘a letter’ rather than a specific epistle, such as 1 Thessalonians.
The central exegetical issue revolves around the precise nuance conveyed by the anarthrous use of ἐπιστολῆς within the phrase εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. Determining whether this refers to a general category of written instruction or implicitly to a specific, previously sent letter (e.g., 1 Thessalonians) has significant implications for understanding the Pauline corpus, the interrelationship between Paul’s epistles, and the authority attributed to his various forms of communication. The presence or absence of the definite article is often a subtle yet critical indicator of specificity or generality in Koine Greek, prompting a detailed grammatical and contextual analysis to ascertain the author’s intended meaning.
Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε, καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. (Nestle 1904)
Key differences with SBLGNT (2010):
- No substantive differences are found between the Nestle 1904 text and the SBLGNT (2010) for 2 Thessalonians 2:15.
From a textual critical perspective, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 presents no significant variants impacting the phrase εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν. The reading is consistently attested across major manuscript traditions, as reflected in critical editions such as NA28. Therefore, the exegetical focus remains on grammatical analysis rather than textual reconstruction.
Lexically, the key terms are:
- παραδόσεις (paradosis): This term signifies “what is handed over” or “tradition” (BDAG, p. 763). It encompasses both the act of transmission and the content transmitted. W. Marxsen likely considers this broad sense of teaching. Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (TDNT II:172-177) elaborates on its usage, highlighting its spectrum from Jewish legal traditions to early Christian teachings, emphasizing authoritative instruction.
- ἐπιστολῆς (epistolē): Refers to “a written communication sent to a specific addressee, letter, epistle” (BDAG, p. 370). The fundamental meaning is a written message.
- διὰ (dia): With the genitive, as here (δι’ ἐπιστολῆς), it denotes the means or agency: “through, by means of” (BDAG, p. 226).
Translation Variants
The grammatical analysis of the anarthrous ἐπιστολῆς is central to interpreting 2 Thessalonians 2:15. In Koine Greek, anarthrous nouns can sometimes refer to a specific entity, particularly when context makes the referent clear, or they can denote quality, kind, or generality. The phrase εἴτε διὰ λόγου εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν presents a parallel structure: “either through word or through letter of us.” Both λόγου and ἐπιστολῆς are anarthrous.
If both anarthrous nouns function generally, then Paul is referring to two modes of communication in a broad sense: any oral instruction received from the apostles, and any written instruction provided by them. This interpretation aligns with W. Marxsen’s view that the absence of the article precludes a specific reference to 1 Thessalonians.
However, the anarthrous use does not always rule out specificity. Daniel B. Wallace (Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 217) notes that anarthrous nouns in prepositional phrases can still be definite if the context demands it. In this case, “our letter” (ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν) could be implicitly specific, referring to the one letter they had sent (i.e., 1 Thessalonians) or any other existing written communication. The possessive pronoun ἡμῶν (“our”) adds a layer of definiteness, making “our letter” a distinct entity, even if not explicitly marked by the article. The parallelism with λόγου (word/speech) also suggests that just as “our word” refers to their specific spoken teachings, “our letter” might refer to their specific written teachings.
Rhetorically, the parallel structure emphasizes two equally valid and authoritative channels through which the Thessalonians received apostolic traditions: oral and written. The absence of the article might serve to encompass all such communications without singling out one, thus broadening the scope of what constitutes authoritative apostolic teaching. If a specific letter like 1 Thessalonians were intended, Paul could have used the article (τῆς ἐπιστολῆς), though its omission does not categorically forbid such an interpretation if contextual factors strongly favor it. Given that 1 Thessalonians was the only prior letter they had received, “our letter” would almost certainly be understood as referring to it, even without the article.
Conclusions and Translation Suggestions
The nuanced use of the anarthrous ἐπιστολῆς in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 allows for several interpretive possibilities, none of which are strictly forbidden by Greek grammar alone. The most significant factor is the interplay between the anarthrous noun and the possessive pronoun ἡμῶν within the immediate literary context. While the article’s absence typically suggests generality or quality, the possessive pronoun often implies a specific, identifiable referent.
Ultimately, the passage refers to the authoritative body of teaching, whether delivered orally or in written form, that originated from the apostles. The emphasis is on the source and content of the tradition rather than the precise grammatical marker of the medium.
- “hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by our word or by our letter.” This translation maintains the anarthrous nature, allowing for both a specific (e.g., 1 Thessalonians) or a general (any letter) understanding of “our letter,” while emphasizing the collective apostolic authorship.
- “hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by our spoken word or by the letter we sent.” This rendering leans towards a more specific interpretation of “letter,” implying a definite written communication already received, which would most likely be 1 Thessalonians in this context.
- “hold fast to the traditions which you were taught, whether by our oral instruction or by means of an epistle from us.” This translation emphasizes the generality suggested by the anarthrous noun, viewing “an epistle” as one of a kind of communication, encompassing all potential written apostolic instructions.
“`
Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ
λόγου εἴτε διʼ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
ARA OUN, ADELFOI, STHKETE KAI KRATEITE TAS PARADOSEIS hAS EDIDAXQHTE EITE DIA
LOGOU EITE DI’ EPISTOLHS hHMWN.
It is generally understood that mentioning an item with an article indicates
that the subject is known to the reader. Whether one can therefore say that
when there is an absence of an article it indicates an item which is not known
to the reader might be a bit questionable. In this case I would think that
while it does not point to any specific letter (despite the fact that this is
known as 2nd Thess), but rather it must be understood in the same way that DIA
LOGOU is to be understood. It is not some specific statement to which reference
is made but rather to whatever ORAL tradition he may have imparted. So DI’
EPISTOLHS would reference any written communication.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 10:12:55 AM
In his commentary on 2 Thessalonians, W. Marxsen claims that since 2:15 εἴτε
δι’ ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν lacks an article (as in εἴτε δι’ 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?
n Bart Ehrman
Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://www.bartdehrman.com
—
On the other hand, it is alleged that in Koine a noun in a prepositional phrase
may omit the article even if a definite reference is intended. εἴτε δι’ τῆς
ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν may have sounded funny with the extra syllable, but there is a
chance that that is what Paul meant.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 10:32:08 AM
Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ
λόγου εἴτε διʼ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
ARA OUN, ADELFOI, STHKETE KAI KRATEITE TAS PARADOSEIS hAS EDIDAXQHTE EITE DIA
LOGOU EITE DI’ EPISTOLHS hHMWN.
It is generally understood that mentioning an item with an article indicates
that the subject is known to the reader. Whether one can therefore say that
when there is an absence of an article it indicates an item which is not known
to the reader might be a bit questionable. In this case I would think that
while it does not point to any specific letter (despite the fact that this is
known as 2nd Thess), but rather it must be understood in the same way that DIA
LOGOU is to be understood. It is not some specific statement to which reference
is made but rather to whatever ORAL tradition he may have imparted. So DI’
EPISTOLHS would reference any written communication.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 10:12:55 AM
In his commentary on 2 Thessalonians, W. Marxsen claims that since 2:15 εἴτε
δι’ ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν lacks an article (as in εἴτε δι’ 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?
n Bart Ehrman
Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://www.bartdehrman.com
—
by whom? “It is alleged” has the air of a “divine passive.” Was that the intent?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
It really would be funny if Paul had written δι’ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν [DI’ THS
EPISTOLHS hHMWN] — how frequently is an alpha elided before a tau?
—
Good point about the elision. 🙂 (I bet he didn’t copy and paste as I did, either!)
— BDE
Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://www.bartdehrman.com
—–Original Message—–
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:27 PM
Cc: George F Somsel; Ehrman, Bart D;
by whom? “It is alleged” has the air of a “divine passive.” Was that the intent?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
It really would be funny if Paul had written δι’ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν [DI’ THS
EPISTOLHS hHMWN] — how frequently is an alpha elided before a tau?
—
Carl wrote
< On the other hand, it is alleged by whom? "It is alleged" has the air of a "divine passive." Was that the
intent?>
Hi, Carl,
No, that was not my intent, although I do think that the grammarians were
created a little lower than the angels. How much lower is a matter of opinion.
I phrased it that way I did because I forgot where I read that, and I don’t
really know whether it is true.
EPISTOLHS hHMWN] — how frequently is an alpha elided before a tau?>
Yes, a good point. I was cutting and pasting too. So, including the article
would add TWO syllables. I really do believe that the presence of the definite
article, like some other things in Greek–word order, which connective is used,
even the tenses, is often more a matter of euphony than semantics. Thus, any
way, it is alleged.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________; “Ehrman, Bart D”
; “[email protected]”
Cc: George F Somsel
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 11:27:09 AM
by whom? “It is alleged” has the air of a “divine passive.” Was that the intent?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
It really would be funny if Paul had written δι’ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν [DI’ THS
EPISTOLHS hHMWN] — how frequently is an alpha elided before a tau?
—
I take the “allegation” here to be that grammar sometimes matters and sometimes
doesn’t. I’ve always thought grammar was primarily a matter of speaking and
writing in such a way that what you say and what you write conforms to the
patterns that people expect, and that when what you say and what you write does
not so conform, there’s the peril of ambiguity.
One thing (?) seems clear: there’s a bit of ambiguity in the phrasing of EITE DI’
EPISTOLHS hHMWN in 2 Thess 2:15.
Carl W. Conrad
I have always taught that the article may be dropped in a prepositional phrase.
Robertson’s Grammar XVI.VIII(c) (page 791) has the following under “The Absence of the Article.”
“(c) PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES. These were also often considered definite enough without the article. So ἐν οἴκῳ (1 Cor. 11:34. Cf. ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ, ‘in the house,’ Jo. 11:20)=‘at home.’ So we say “go to bed,” etc. Moulton pertinently cites English “down town,” “on ’change,” “in bed,” “from start to finish.” This idiom is not therefore peculiar to Greek. It is hardly necessary to mention all the N. T. examples, so common is the matter.”
“For διά note διά νυκτός (Ac. 5:19), διὰ μέσου (Lu. 4:30), διὰ μέσον (17:11).”
“For classic examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259 f. The papyri furnish abundant parallels (Völker, Syntax, pp. 15–17) as do the inscriptions (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 92).”
The next section continues:
“(d) WITH BOTH PREPOSITION AND GENITIVE. It is not surprising to find no article with phrases which use both preposition and genitive like εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (Ro. 1:1), ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου (Lu. 19:42), ἐκ δεξιῶν μου (Mt. 20:23), ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς κόσμου (Mt. 24:21), παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας (Heb. 11:11), ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ (Lu. 8:13), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (Mt. 25:34), ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ (Lu. 1:51), etc.”
I hope this helps,
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic vocabulary memorization software:
http://purl.org/net/kmpenner/flash/
—–Original Message—–
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:13 PM
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
In his commentary on 2 Thessalonians, W. Marxsen claims that since 2:15 εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν lacks an article (as in εἴτε δι’ 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?
n Bart Ehrman
Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://www.bartdehrman.com
—
It seems to me that this is a question of “definiteness,” which may be indicated by a definite article. Does not the possessive serve to mark the noun and thus make the article superfluous? If Paul had meant “any ole letter,” this would require specific grammatical marking, would it not?
In Biblical Hebrew, a possessive pronoun makes the noun definite and if one wishes to indicate ownership of an indefinite entity, a prepositional phrase with lamed is required.
מכתבנו “the letter of ours” = “our (specific) letter”
מכתב לנו “any ole letter of ours”
Sent from my iPhone
Donald R. Vance
Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Oral Roberts University
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
In Hebrew the fact that there is a possessive does not necessarily indicate that
the noun is to be considered definite. I have lifted two examples from Futato,
_Beginning Biblical Hebrew_
סוּס־הַמֶּלֶךְ *the* king’s horse (the horse of the king)סוּס־מֶלֶךְ *a* king’s
horse (a horse of the king or perhaps a royal horse)
Whether the noun is considered definite or indefinite is determined not by the
construct relation (which is one way to indicate possession among other uses)
but by whether the nomen rectum is definite and not simply by its presence
following a noun in the construct. As noted, there are other ways to express
possession such as pronominal suffixes to nouns and the use of the prefixed
preposition ל with the “owner.”
I really don’t think an appeal to Hebrew can be used to determine how Greek may
have functioned.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Cc: “[email protected]”
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 1:52:18 PM
It seems to me that this is a question of “definiteness,” which may be indicated
by a definite article. Does not the possessive serve to mark the noun and thus
make the article superfluous? If Paul had meant “any ole letter,” this would
require specific grammatical marking, would it not?
In Biblical Hebrew, a possessive pronoun makes the noun definite and if one
wishes to indicate ownership of an indefinite entity, a prepositional phrase
with lamed is required.
מכתבנו “the letter of ours” = “our (specific) letter”
מכתב לנו “any ole letter of ours”
Sent from my iPhone
Donald R. Vance
Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Oral Roberts University
phrase.
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
George and Donald are both right, but George might have misunderstood Donald. Donald’s point was not that just ANY possessive makes the noun definite, but that the Hebrew possessive PRONOUN suffixed on a noun makes the noun definite.
The appeal to Hebrew to explain a usage in Greek would be appropriate if there is a reasonable chance of linguistic interference, for example, if the author’s native language was Hebrew. But Ephesians certainly does not give me that impression.
I think Donald’s point was that the rule regarding the definiteness of noun in Hebrew is a cross-linguistic phenomenon. Even in English, “our letter” is definite, and if we want to express indefiniteness, we need a circumlocution such as “a letter of ours.”
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic vocabulary memorization software:
http://purl.org/net/kmpenner/flash/
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:47 PM
Cc:
In Hebrew the fact that there is a possessive does not necessarily indicate that the noun is to be considered definite. I have lifted two examples from Futato, _Beginning Biblical Hebrew_
סוּס־הַמֶּלֶךְ *the* king’s horse (the horse of the king)
סוּס־מֶלֶךְ *a* king’s horse (a horse of the king or perhaps a royal horse)
Whether the noun is considered definite or indefinite is determined not by the construct relation (which is one way to indicate possession among other uses) but by whether the nomen rectum is definite and not simply by its presence following a noun in the construct. As noted, there are other ways to express possession such as pronominal suffixes to nouns and the use of the prefixed preposition ל with the “owner.”
I really don’t think an appeal to Hebrew can be used to determine how Greek may have functioned.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Cc: “[email protected]”
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 1:52:18 PM
It seems to me that this is a question of “definiteness,” which may be indicated by a definite article. Does not the possessive serve to mark the noun and thus make the article superfluous? If Paul had meant “any ole letter,” this would require specific grammatical marking, would it not?
In Biblical Hebrew, a possessive pronoun makes the noun definite and if one wishes to indicate ownership of an indefinite entity, a prepositional phrase with lamed is required.
מכתבנו “the letter of ours” = “our (specific) letter”
מכתב לנו “any ole letter of ours”
Sent from my iPhone
Donald R. Vance
Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Oral Roberts University
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
—– Original Message —–
Sent: 30. december 2010 20:12
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
—
What Iver says seems right to me.
As for the article usually being dropped after DIA or other prepositions, a
quick search for DIA THS in the letters of Paul turns up quite a few hits.
One could dredge through them, comparing them with similar phrases without
the article. I haven’t done that. I’ll just point to the most pertinent hit
in the list: 2 Thess 3:14, EI DE TIS OUX hYPOKOUEI TW LOGW hHMWN DIA THS
EPISTOLHS, TOUTON SHMEIOUSTHE.
In 3:14, LOGOS and EPISTOLH are count nouns referring to a particular
utterance in a particular letter (NRSV says “in this letter,” which seems
slightly non-obvious to me; I don’t know what Marxsen and others make of
that–this letter or a previous letter?); in 2:15 (and in 2:2, which Iver
points out) both words are in effect mass nouns, referring not so much to a
particular utterance or a particular letter but to (possibly faked–the
concern expressed in 2:2 and 3:17) utterance-of-Paul or letter-of-Paul as
means of communication.
James Ernest
—
Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ
λόγου εἴτε διʼ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
ARA OUN, ADELFOI, STHKETE KAI KRATEITE TAS PARADOSEIS hAS EDIDAXQHTE EITE DIA
LOGOU EITE DI’ EPISTOLHS hHMWN.
It is generally understood that mentioning an item with an article indicates
that the subject is known to the reader. Whether one can therefore say that
when there is an absence of an article it indicates an item which is not known
to the reader might be a bit questionable. In this case I would think that
while it does not point to any specific letter (despite the fact that this is
known as 2nd Thess), but rather it must be understood in the same way that DIA
LOGOU is to be understood. It is not some specific statement to which reference
is made but rather to whatever ORAL tradition he may have imparted. So DI’
EPISTOLHS would reference any written communication.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 10:12:55 AM
In his commentary on 2 Thessalonians, W. Marxsen claims that since 2:15 εἴτε
δι’ ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν lacks an article (as in εἴτε δι’ 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?
n Bart Ehrman
Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://www.bartdehrman.com
—
On the other hand, it is alleged that in Koine a noun in a prepositional phrase
may omit the article even if a definite reference is intended. εἴτε δι’ τῆς
ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν may have sounded funny with the extra syllable, but there is a
chance that that is what Paul meant.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 10:32:08 AM
Ἄρα οὖν, ἀδελφοί, στήκετε καὶ κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε εἴτε διὰ
λόγου εἴτε διʼ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν.
ARA OUN, ADELFOI, STHKETE KAI KRATEITE TAS PARADOSEIS hAS EDIDAXQHTE EITE DIA
LOGOU EITE DI’ EPISTOLHS hHMWN.
It is generally understood that mentioning an item with an article indicates
that the subject is known to the reader. Whether one can therefore say that
when there is an absence of an article it indicates an item which is not known
to the reader might be a bit questionable. In this case I would think that
while it does not point to any specific letter (despite the fact that this is
known as 2nd Thess), but rather it must be understood in the same way that DIA
LOGOU is to be understood. It is not some specific statement to which reference
is made but rather to whatever ORAL tradition he may have imparted. So DI’
EPISTOLHS would reference any written communication.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 10:12:55 AM
In his commentary on 2 Thessalonians, W. Marxsen claims that since 2:15 εἴτε
δι’ ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν lacks an article (as in εἴτε δι’ 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?
n Bart Ehrman
Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://www.bartdehrman.com
—
by whom? “It is alleged” has the air of a “divine passive.” Was that the intent?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
It really would be funny if Paul had written δι’ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν [DI’ THS
EPISTOLHS hHMWN] — how frequently is an alpha elided before a tau?
—
Good point about the elision. 🙂 (I bet he didn’t copy and paste as I did, either!)
— BDE
Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://www.bartdehrman.com
—–Original Message—–
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:27 PM
Cc: George F Somsel; Ehrman, Bart D;
by whom? “It is alleged” has the air of a “divine passive.” Was that the intent?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
It really would be funny if Paul had written δι’ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν [DI’ THS
EPISTOLHS hHMWN] — how frequently is an alpha elided before a tau?
—
Carl wrote
< On the other hand, it is alleged by whom? "It is alleged" has the air of a "divine passive." Was that the
intent?>
Hi, Carl,
No, that was not my intent, although I do think that the grammarians were
created a little lower than the angels. How much lower is a matter of opinion.
I phrased it that way I did because I forgot where I read that, and I don’t
really know whether it is true.
EPISTOLHS hHMWN] — how frequently is an alpha elided before a tau?>
Yes, a good point. I was cutting and pasting too. So, including the article
would add TWO syllables. I really do believe that the presence of the definite
article, like some other things in Greek–word order, which connective is used,
even the tenses, is often more a matter of euphony than semantics. Thus, any
way, it is alleged.
Mark L
FWSFOROS MARKOS
________________________________; “Ehrman, Bart D”
; “[email protected]”
Cc: George F Somsel
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 11:27:09 AM
by whom? “It is alleged” has the air of a “divine passive.” Was that the intent?
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics, Washington University (Retired)
It really would be funny if Paul had written δι’ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν [DI’ THS
EPISTOLHS hHMWN] — how frequently is an alpha elided before a tau?
—
I take the “allegation” here to be that grammar sometimes matters and sometimes
doesn’t. I’ve always thought grammar was primarily a matter of speaking and
writing in such a way that what you say and what you write conforms to the
patterns that people expect, and that when what you say and what you write does
not so conform, there’s the peril of ambiguity.
One thing (?) seems clear: there’s a bit of ambiguity in the phrasing of EITE DI’
EPISTOLHS hHMWN in 2 Thess 2:15.
Carl W. Conrad
I have always taught that the article may be dropped in a prepositional phrase.
Robertson’s Grammar XVI.VIII(c) (page 791) has the following under “The Absence of the Article.”
“(c) PREPOSITIONAL PHRASES. These were also often considered definite enough without the article. So ἐν οἴκῳ (1 Cor. 11:34. Cf. ἐν τῷ οἴκῳ, ‘in the house,’ Jo. 11:20)=’at home.’ So we say “go to bed,” etc. Moulton pertinently cites English “down town,” “on ‘change,” “in bed,” “from start to finish.” This idiom is not therefore peculiar to Greek. It is hardly necessary to mention all the N. T. examples, so common is the matter.”
“For διά note διά νυκτός (Ac. 5:19), διὰ μέσου (Lu. 4:30), διὰ μέσον (17:11).”
“For classic examples see Gildersleeve, Syntax, p. 259 f. The papyri furnish abundant parallels (Völker, Syntax, pp. 15–17) as do the inscriptions (Radermacher, N. T. Gr., p. 92).”
The next section continues:
“(d) WITH BOTH PREPOSITION AND GENITIVE. It is not surprising to find no article with phrases which use both preposition and genitive like εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ (Ro. 1:1), ἀπὸ ὀφθαλμῶν σου (Lu. 19:42), ἐκ δεξιῶν μου (Mt. 20:23), ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς κόσμου (Mt. 24:21), παρὰ καιρὸν ἡλικίας (Heb. 11:11), ἐν καιρῷ πειρασμοῦ (Lu. 8:13), ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου (Mt. 25:34), ἐν βραχίονι αὐτοῦ (Lu. 1:51), etc.”
I hope this helps,
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic vocabulary memorization software:
http://purl.org/net/kmpenner/flash/
—–Original Message—–
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 1:13 PM
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
In his commentary on 2 Thessalonians, W. Marxsen claims that since 2:15 εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολὴς ἡμῶν lacks an article (as in εἴτε δι’ 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?
n Bart Ehrman
Bart D. Ehrman
James A. Gray Professor
Department of Religious Studies
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
http://www.bartdehrman.com
—
It seems to me that this is a question of “definiteness,” which may be indicated by a definite article. Does not the possessive serve to mark the noun and thus make the article superfluous? If Paul had meant “any ole letter,” this would require specific grammatical marking, would it not?
In Biblical Hebrew, a possessive pronoun makes the noun definite and if one wishes to indicate ownership of an indefinite entity, a prepositional phrase with lamed is required.
מכתבנו “the letter of ours” = “our (specific) letter”
מכתב לנו “any ole letter of ours”
Sent from my iPhone
Donald R. Vance
Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Oral Roberts University
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
In Hebrew the fact that there is a possessive does not necessarily indicate that
the noun is to be considered definite. I have lifted two examples from Futato,
_Beginning Biblical Hebrew_
סוּס־הַמֶּלֶךְ *the* king’s horse (the horse of the king)סוּס־מֶלֶךְ *a* king’s
horse (a horse of the king or perhaps a royal horse)
Whether the noun is considered definite or indefinite is determined not by the
construct relation (which is one way to indicate possession among other uses)
but by whether the nomen rectum is definite and not simply by its presence
following a noun in the construct. As noted, there are other ways to express
possession such as pronominal suffixes to nouns and the use of the prefixed
preposition ל with the “owner.”
I really don’t think an appeal to Hebrew can be used to determine how Greek may
have functioned.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Cc: “[email protected]”
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 1:52:18 PM
It seems to me that this is a question of “definiteness,” which may be indicated
by a definite article. Does not the possessive serve to mark the noun and thus
make the article superfluous? If Paul had meant “any ole letter,” this would
require specific grammatical marking, would it not?
In Biblical Hebrew, a possessive pronoun makes the noun definite and if one
wishes to indicate ownership of an indefinite entity, a prepositional phrase
with lamed is required.
מכתבנו “the letter of ours” = “our (specific) letter”
מכתב לנו “any ole letter of ours”
Sent from my iPhone
Donald R. Vance
Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Oral Roberts University
phrase.
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
George and Donald are both right, but George might have misunderstood Donald. Donald’s point was not that just ANY possessive makes the noun definite, but that the Hebrew possessive PRONOUN suffixed on a noun makes the noun definite.
The appeal to Hebrew to explain a usage in Greek would be appropriate if there is a reasonable chance of linguistic interference, for example, if the author’s native language was Hebrew. But Ephesians certainly does not give me that impression.
I think Donald’s point was that the rule regarding the definiteness of noun in Hebrew is a cross-linguistic phenomenon. Even in English, “our letter” is definite, and if we want to express indefiniteness, we need a circumlocution such as “a letter of ours.”
Ken M. Penner, Ph.D.
Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic vocabulary memorization software:
http://purl.org/net/kmpenner/flash/
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:47 PM
Cc:
In Hebrew the fact that there is a possessive does not necessarily indicate that the noun is to be considered definite. I have lifted two examples from Futato, _Beginning Biblical Hebrew_
סוּס־הַמֶּלֶךְ *the* king’s horse (the horse of the king)
סוּס־מֶלֶךְ *a* king’s horse (a horse of the king or perhaps a royal horse)
Whether the noun is considered definite or indefinite is determined not by the construct relation (which is one way to indicate possession among other uses) but by whether the nomen rectum is definite and not simply by its presence following a noun in the construct. As noted, there are other ways to express possession such as pronominal suffixes to nouns and the use of the prefixed preposition ל with the “owner.”
I really don’t think an appeal to Hebrew can be used to determine how Greek may have functioned.
george
gfsomsel
… search for truth, hear truth,
learn truth, love truth, speak the truth, hold the truth,
defend the truth till death.
– Jan Hus
_________
________________________________
Cc: “[email protected]”
Sent: Thu, December 30, 2010 1:52:18 PM
It seems to me that this is a question of “definiteness,” which may be indicated by a definite article. Does not the possessive serve to mark the noun and thus make the article superfluous? If Paul had meant “any ole letter,” this would require specific grammatical marking, would it not?
In Biblical Hebrew, a possessive pronoun makes the noun definite and if one wishes to indicate ownership of an indefinite entity, a prepositional phrase with lamed is required.
מכתבנו “the letter of ours” = “our (specific) letter”
מכתב לנו “any ole letter of ours”
Sent from my iPhone
Donald R. Vance
Professor of Biblical Languages and Literature
Oral Roberts University
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
—– Original Message —–
Sent: 30. december 2010 20:12
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
—
What Iver says seems right to me.
As for the article usually being dropped after DIA or other prepositions, a
quick search for DIA THS in the letters of Paul turns up quite a few hits.
One could dredge through them, comparing them with similar phrases without
the article. I haven’t done that. I’ll just point to the most pertinent hit
in the list: 2 Thess 3:14, EI DE TIS OUX hYPOKOUEI TW LOGW hHMWN DIA THS
EPISTOLHS, TOUTON SHMEIOUSTHE.
In 3:14, LOGOS and EPISTOLH are count nouns referring to a particular
utterance in a particular letter (NRSV says “in this letter,” which seems
slightly non-obvious to me; I don’t know what Marxsen and others make of
that–this letter or a previous letter?); in 2:15 (and in 2:2, which Iver
points out) both words are in effect mass nouns, referring not so much to a
particular utterance or a particular letter but to (possibly faked–the
concern expressed in 2:2 and 3:17) utterance-of-Paul or letter-of-Paul as
means of communication.
James Ernest
—