THE RECEPTION HISTORY OF 2 THESSALONIANS WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, HAIMO OF AUXERRE, AND JOHN CALVIN ANDREW RHETT TALBERT, B.A., M.Div. Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy FEBRUARY 2012 Abstract Taking up the concept of reception history/Rezeptionsästhetik, as described by its founder, Hans Robert Jauss, this project considers the way in which diverse contexts shape the ways in which readers of 2 Thessalonians have historically interpreted the epistle. Supplementing Jauss’ methodology with insights from theological scholars, the larger questions of biblical meaning and continuity between biblical interpreters enters the discussion. In the former case, this research discounts the bifurcated directions of historical positivism that equates biblical meaning either with historical background or authorial intent. Related to this, the research proposes the continuity between historical interpreters of 2 Thessalonians be construed in terms of historical dialogue, which constitutes the being of the work. Three historical interpreters of 2 Thessalonians from different historical periods of the Church serve as the receptive foci in this dissertation: John Chrysostom (early Church), Haimo of Auxerre (Medieval Church), and John Calvin (Reformation). Following Jauss’ Rezpetionsästhetik, these interpreters are placed in their compositional contexts and in dialogue with modern interpreters of the same epistle. By passing through the various dimensions of the letter’s otherness, the research brings to the fore potential present appropriations of meaning. i Acknowledgements I would like to begin by acknowledging and thanking my wife, Bethany, for all of the support and encouragement that she has offered in this process. She has been exponentially more helpful than she realises. Her willingness to go anywhere that this academic path will take us is something that she has always freely and joyfully displayed. Our son Langston has been a constant source of joy and a reminder each day that there is more to life than reading and writing about theology. My father, Rhett, and brother, Ansel, have been important, pastoral gauges for my thoughts. My work would be poorer if it lacked their insight. Together with my sisters, Katie and Callie, they have encouraged our family as a whole on this journey. My mother, Beth, whom we lost too young, was that foundational source of encouragement in all that I have done. She never accepted laziness in academic endeavours and was one who constantly provoked theological reflection. On a daily basis she remains dearly missed. I would also like to thank my in-laws, Mark and Sylvia Rogers, who opened their home to us in the closing months of the writing-up period while we transitioned back from England. Were it not for an e-mail response from Prof. Anthony Thiselton, I would not be in the position that I am now. Anthony is a deep source of wisdom and has helped this process through corrections, resources, balance, and pastoral consideration. I am also very grateful to Prof. Richard Bell for taking over supervision after Anthony retired. He has helped greatly in offering advice and corrections. Prof. Roland Deines is a necessity for every Ph.D. candidate in that he does not allow careless remarks to slide and he challenges students to attend to any weakness in their arguments. Like Richard and Anthony, Roland has suggested engaging a wealth of materials (mostly German) as essential for my research. I would also like to thank Christoph Ochs, Peter Watts, Matthew Malcolm, Emily Gathergood, Eric Lee, and Joseph Vnuk— members of our informal seminar group— for their valuable feedback. Joseph I thank in particular for his assistance with Latin and Christoph, Peter, and Matt for their detailed comments on the entire dissertation. Additional scholars who deserve mention are Joel Green, who directed me toward this topic initially through Angus Paddison’s monograph on 1 Thessalonians; Mary Cunningham, who continually offered invaluable insights on patristic scholarship; Wendy Mayer, for her responses to e-mails about John Chrysostom; and Johannes Heil, who gladly offered a pre- publication article on Haimo of Auxerre for my research. I appreciate greatly the financial support of Christuskirche FGUMC, Pasadena Presbyterian Church, Pawleys Island Presbyterian Church, and the Gathergood family, as well as the fellowship at Beeston Free Church and Cornerstone Evangelical Church. Lastly I should acknowledge the revelation of God in Jesus Christ that propels this research. ii Contents Abbreviations vii Introduction 1 Chapter 1- Modern Biblical Studies and Rezeptionsästhetik 8 1. The Dis/continuity of Pre-Modern and Modern Biblical Scholarship 8 I. Objectivity/Neutrality 8 II. History 16 III. Meaning 21 IV. Revelation 27 2. Rezeptionsästhetik: A Hermeneutical Paradigm for Biblical Studies 29 I. Gadamer and Wirkungsgeschichte 30 i. Preconceptions, Traditions, and Horizons 30 ii. History 34 iii. Meaning 38 II. Jauss and Rezeptionsästhetik 45 i. Rezeptionsästhetik: Marxism and Formalism 46 ii. Rezeptionsästhetik: Seven Theses 50 iii. Rezeptionsästhetik: Question and Answer 62 iv. Rezeptionsästhetik: Three Readings 66 3. Challenges 71 I. Relativism 71 III. Reconstructing the Original Horizon and Otherness 74 IV. Horizons and Methodology 75 V. Misinterpretation and “Use” Versus “Effect” 78 VI. Social Formation/Application 80 4. Rezeptionsästhetik in Biblical Studies 80 I. Major Works on Reception History 82 i. Brevard Childs 82 ii. Ulrich Luz 83 iii. The Blackwell Bible Commentary (BBCS) 85 II. A Reception History of 2 Thessalonians 90 Chapter 2- The Early Church: John Chrysostom 92 1. 1. Background 92 I. 2 Thessalonians Homilies: Provenance, Audience, and Structure 94 II. Influential Impulses for Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 99 2.1. Receptive Impulses: Antiochene Exegetical Heritage 102 I. Homily 1 (ὑπόθεσις): An Example of θεωρία and Paranaesis 105 II. Homily 2 (2 Thess 1:1-8): Examples of Translation, Paraenesis, and Exhortation 107 III. Homily 3 (2 Thess 1:9-2:5): Paul’s Rhetorical Aim 109 IV. Homily 4 (2:6-3:2): Translating τό κατέχον 110 V. Homily 5 (3:3-18): Translating “Patience” and Moral Formation 112 2.2. Esteem for Paul 114 I. Structural Influence 114 II. Exegesis of Epistolary Practices 115 i. Contemporary Scholarship 116 iii ii. Modern Scholarship 117 III. Exegeting the Apostle’s Virtue 117 IV. The Influence of Pauline Language 119 V. The Apostle as Imitative Model 119 VI. Writing an Epistle in the Walls of Prayer 120 2.3. Reading Rhetorically 121 I. Rhetoric: Aim and Function 122 i. Contemporary Scholarship 122 ii. Modern Scholarship 122 II. Rhetoric: “Grace” as Invocation 124 i. Contemporary Scholarship 124 ii. Modern Scholarship 125 III. Rhetoric: Prayer as Encouragement 126 i. Contemporary Scholarship 126 ii. Modern Scholarship 127 IV. Rhetoric: “Bringing Down Their Minds” 128 i. Contemporary Scholarship 130 ii. Modern Scholarship 131 V. Rhetoric: “Preparing Their Hearts” for Reproof 133 i. Contemporary Scholarship 134 ii. Modern Scholarship 134 2.4. Reading the “Word of God” Canonically 135 I. Reading Canonically: The Origin of Scripture 136 II. Reading Canonically: The Manner 137 i. Contemporary Scholarship 140 ii. Modern Scholarship 141 2.5. Monastic/Ascetic Influences 143 I. Pride 143 i. Contemporary Scholarship 144 ii. Modern Scholarship 150 II. Concern for the Poor 152 i. Contemporary Scholarship 153 ii. Modern Scholarship 157 2.6. Hell and Apocalyptic 160 I. Hell and Apocalyptic: 2 Thessalonians 1 160 i. Contemporary Scholarship 162 ii. Modern Scholarship 164 II. Hell and Apocalyptic: 2 Thessalonians 2 165 i. Contemporary Scholarship 167 ii. Modern Scholarship 169 2.7. General Pastoral Concern 172 I. Love 173 II. Education 174 3. Conclusion 176 Chapter 3- The Medieval Church: Haimo of Auxerre 178 1. Background 178 I. 2 Thessalonians Commentary: Provenance, Audience, and Structure 181 II. Influential Impulses for Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 185 iv 2.1. Receptive Impulses: The Fathers 186 I. Augustine 186 II. Ambrosiaster 190 III. Jerome and Gregory 192 IV. Hippolytus and a Collective Patristic Tone 196 i. Contemporary Scholarship 197 ii. Modern Scholarship and the Fathers 198 2.2. Receptive Impulses: Methodology and Murethach 201 I. Grammatical Attention and Classical Examples 201 2.3. Receptive Impulses: Against Heresies 206 I. Double- or Single-Predestination? 206 i. Modern Scholarship 208 II. Simon Magus 210 i. Contemporary Scholarship 215 ii. Modern Scholarship 216 2.4. Receptive Impulses: Sermon Preparation 217 I. Language 218 II. Audience 218 III. Sermon and Homilaries 220 i. Contemporary Scholarship 222 ii. Modern Scholarship 222 2.5. Receptive Impulses: Apocalyptic Realism 225 I. Augustine’s Spiritual Interpretation 225 II. Haimo’s Apocalyptic Eschatology 227 i. Contemporary Scholarship 232 ii. Modern Scholarship 234 2.6 Receptive Impulses: Haimo’s Antichrist 237 I. Antichrist: Son of the Devil 237 i. Contemporary Scholarship 238 ii. Modern Scholarship 241 3. Conclusion 243 Chapter 4- The Reformation: John Calvin 246 1. Background 246 I. 2 Thessalonians Commentary and The Institutes: Provenance, Audience, and Structure 247 II. Influential Impulses for Interpreting 2 Thessalonians 252 2.1 Receptive Impulses: Humanist Rhetoric 254 I. Effective Rhetoric 256 i. Contemporary Scholarship 258 ii. Modern Scholarship 260 II. Reassertion of the Divine Reality 262 i. Contemporary Scholarship 264 ii. Modern Scholarship 268 2.2 Receptive Impulses: