2 Thessalonians 2:15

“`html

An Exegetical Analysis of the Anarthrous ἐπιστολῆς in 2 Thessalonians 2:15

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.

  1. “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.
  2. “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.
  3. “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.

“`

People who read this article also liked:

[AuthorRecommendedPosts]

24 thoughts on “2 Thessalonians 2:15

  1. George F Somsel says:

    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

  2. Mark Lightman says:

    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

  3. Carl Conrad says:

    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?

  4. "Ehrman, Bart D" says:

    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; href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

    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?

  5. Mark Lightman says:

    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

    ________________________________
    Cc: George F Somsel ; “Ehrman, Bart D”
    ; “[email protected]
    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?

  6. Carl Conrad says:

    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

  7. Ken Penner says:

    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/
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

    —–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

  8. Donald Vance says:

    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]
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

  9. George F Somsel says:

    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]

    phrase.

    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

  10. Ken Penner says:

    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/
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

    Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:47 PM
    Cc: 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
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

    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]

  11. "Iver Larsen" says:

    —– 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

  12. James Ernest says:

    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

  13. George F Somsel says:

    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

  14. Mark Lightman says:

    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

  15. Carl Conrad says:

    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?

  16. "Ehrman, Bart D" says:

    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; href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

    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?

  17. Mark Lightman says:

    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

    ________________________________
    Cc: George F Somsel ; “Ehrman, Bart D”
    ; “[email protected]
    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?

  18. Carl Conrad says:

    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

  19. Ken Penner says:

    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/
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

    —–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

  20. Donald Vance says:

    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]
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ehrman, Bart D
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

  21. George F Somsel says:

    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]

    phrase.

    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

  22. Ken Penner says:

    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/
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

    Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:47 PM
    Cc: 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
    href=”mailto:[email protected]”>[email protected]

    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]

  23. "Iver Larsen" says:

    —– 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

  24. James Ernest says:

    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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.