‘The day of the Lord is already here’ – A key problem to the understanding of the second letter to the Thessalonians. 2 Thessalonians 2:2b, that is, the words ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου are a crux interpretum. At the same time their interpretation is crucial for the overall understanding of 2 Thessalonians. Does this text offer a view of early Christian eschatology totally different from Paul’s or is it compatible to what we read for example in 1 Thessalonians? The (...) article deals critically with two recent monographs by Norbert Baumert and Maria-Irma Seewann who offered a new interpretation of the passage according to which 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is not concerned with matters of Parousia, but with Christ’s presence in the community. It offers an overview of the development of the ‘Day of the Lord’ traditions in the Old Testament and Early Judaism and shows that Baumert and Seewann’s interpretation is untenable. After an analysis of the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 the article develops an own interpretation of 2 Thessalonians’ 2:2 in light of a parallel in Hippolyt’s Commentary on Daniel. The eschatology of 2 Thessalonians 2 finally, provides an argument for the text’s pseudepigraphy. (shrink)

‘The day of the Lord is already here’ – A key problem to the understanding of the second letter to the Thessalonians. 2 Thessalonians 2:2b, that is, the words ἐνέστηκεν ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ κυρίου are a crux interpretum. At the same time their interpretation is crucial for the overall understanding of 2 Thessalonians. Does this text offer a view of early Christian eschatology totally different from Paul’s or is it compatible to what we read for example in 1 Thessalonians? The (...) article deals critically with two recent monographs by Norbert Baumert and Maria-Irma Seewann who offered a new interpretation of the passage according to which 2 Thessalonians 2:2 is not concerned with matters of Parousia, but with Christ’s presence in the community. It offers an overview of the development of the ‘Day of the Lord’ traditions in the Old Testament and Early Judaism and shows that Baumert and Seewann’s interpretation is untenable. After an analysis of the context of 2 Thessalonians 2:1–2 the article develops an own interpretation of 2 Thessalonians’ 2:2 in light of a parallel in Hippolyt’s Commentary on Daniel. The eschatology of 2 Thessalonians 2 finally, provides an argument for the text’s pseudepigraphy. (shrink)