So then, brethren, stand firm
and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether (ειτε) by word of
mouth or (ειτε) by letter from us. (2 Thess 2:15 NASB)
In both Protestant Answers (Colorado,
1995, privately circulated unpublished manuscript) page 55 as well as the later
Evangelical Answers, page 84, Eric D. Svendsen made the following
argument to downplay the (for the Protestant) problematic nature of 2 Thess
2:15:
Paul does not say ‘by word of
mouth and by letter’ (which would be expected if each one was a
different tradition and both were necessary); instead, Paul says ‘by word of
mouth or by letter’ (Greek, eite, implying that one or the other
is equally sufficient to convey Paul’s message, and that both are essentially
the same.
As Karlo Broussard has noted,
citing the Greek eite is
selective and misleading. Eite does not simply mean “or.” It is a
particle used in a series to signal alternatives, and it is commonly translated
“if.” (Karlo Broussard, Meeting the Protestant Response: How to Answer
Common Comebacks to Catholic Arguments [El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers
Press, 2022], 218)
According to the Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
Based on Semantic Domains, 2d ed (cf. 2 Thess 2:15)
89.69 εἴτε ... εἴτε: (normally a doublet, but in 1
Cor 14.27 occurring singly) a double or multiple marker of condition equivalent
in meaning to εἰ 'if,' 89.65) - 'if ... if, whether ... or.' εἴτε δὲ θλιβόμεθα
... εἴτε παρακαλούμεθα 'if we are in difficulty ... if we are encouraged' 2 Cor
1.6; εἴτε Παῦλος εἴτε Ἀπολλῶς εἴτε Κηφᾶς εἴτε κόσμος εἴτε ζωὴ εἴτε θάνατος ...
'whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death ...' 1 Cor
3.22; εἴτε γλώσσῃ τις λαλεῖ 'if someone speaks in a tongue' 1 Cor 14.27.
Robert Sungenis wrote the following direct response to Protestant
Answers:
First, attempting to make a
major distinction in Paul’s thought by hairsplitting the meaning of
conjunctions, or what Paul “could” have said, is not going to prove anything.
Often, the conjunction “and” is ambiguous because we cannot tell whether it is
requiring the second proposition to be included in the first before either of
the propositions can be fulfilled, or whether either of the propositions taken
separately will satisfy what is intended to be fulfilled. We sense that even
the apologist himself is unsure of the distinction he is trying to make, since
he concludes with words such as “implying” and “are essentially the same.” Does
“implying” mean that Paul is making this a doctrinal teaching or not? Does
“essentially the same” mean that they are the same or not? No Catholic
would disagree that Scripture and Tradition are “essentially the same,” for
they both are pointing to the same redemptive truths, but we must insist that
if there is even just one Tradition that says something that Scripture
does not specifically say, then one must conclude that Paul is saying that
Tradition is both necessary and in addition to the information provided in Scripture.
(Robert A. Sungenis, "Point/Counterpoint: Protestant Objections and
Catholic Answers," in Not By Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of
the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura, ed. Robert A. Sungenis [2d ed.;
State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2013],
237)
Further Reading:
Not By Scripture Alone: A Latter-day Saint Refutation of Sola Scriptura