The Anchor Bible Dictionary on the Authorship and Date of 2nd Thessalonians
As I've said before, Christian scholarship debunks itself fine without atheists having to do it. Bible thumpers need to look at the case they make. Here is one example from Christian scholarship on the authorship and dating of II Thessalonians:
3. Theories Assuming Pseudonymous Authorship. Scholars in growing numbers argue against Pauline authorship in favor of authorship by an unknown Paulinist who used 1 Thessalonians as a model to meet a new situation in Macedonia.
a. History of Scholarship. J. E. C. Schmidt first proposed pseudonymous authorship in 1798 (Trilling 1972: 13, with reprint of the key pages of Schmidt’s work, 1972: 159–61). He challenged the authenticity of 2 Thess 2:1–12 on the basis of its eschatology. In 1892 Holtzmann (pp. 213–16) summed up the arguments against authenticity after 90 years of scholarship: no anti-Jewish polemic as in the authentic Pauline letters; non-Pauline form of the language; basically an expansive repetition of parallels from the first letter; no OT citations. Wrede (1903) introduced a new stage into the research by providing evidence for the literary dependence of 2 Thessalonians on 1 Thessalonians in language, order of motifs, and structure. He formulated the questions that dominated scholarship down to 1972 (see Jewett 1986: 35ff.; Collins 1988: 212–13), even though the majority of scholars still held to Pauline authorship. Trilling’s Untersuchungen (1972) ushered in the third stage of discussion, in which more and more scholars incline to pseudonymous authorship, e.g., Bailey (1978), Krodel (1978), Lindemann (1977), Collins (1988), Holland (1988), and Hughes (1989). Trilling supported his historical reconstruction in his 1980 commentary. Krodel and Collins provide convenient summaries of the cumulated argumentation.
b. Linguistic-Literary Evidence.
(1) Vocabulary. Vocabulary statistics are deceptive. Of the ten hapax legomena in 2 Thessalonians five occur in the LXX; the other five are not unusual (Milligan 1908: liii). Bornemann (1894: 471) suggests that the vocabulary of 2 Thessalonians is close to that of Luke–Acts, a suggestion supported by an examination of the eleven words that are Pauline hapax legomena in 2 Thessalonians but occur elsewhere in the NT, and the five that occur only in the Deutero-Pauline Ephesians and Pastoral Epistles. There are also a series of Pauline terms that are completely absent from 2 Thessalonians: agapētos, aiōn, hamartia, an, anēr, apothnēskō, apostolos, ginōskō, gnō rizō, egeirō, egō, ethnos, zēteō, kalos, keryssō, laleō, mallon, men, nekros, polys, syn, sōma, teknon, tis. The particles and prepositions are especially important. Thessalonikeus (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1) and euthynō (1 Thess 3:11; 2 Thess 3:5) are the only terms that occur in both Thessalonian letters, but nowhere else in Paul. The former is striking, because it is the only time Paul uses the term for the inhabitants of a city rather than the city name. Such word statistics allow no firm conclusions.
2 Thessalonians uses a number of terms in a sense unusual for Paul. Gk thlipsis (“suffering”) is viewed as the basis for the retribution of the persecutors in 2 Thess 1:4–6, but as confirmation of the Thessalonians’ election in 1 Thess 1:6–10. Paul regards the basileia tou theou as present in Rom 17:17, 1 Cor 4:20 and 1 Thess 2:12, but future in 2 Thess 1:5. (Paul does regard it as future in the phrase “inherit the kingdom,” 1 Cor 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal 5:21.) 2 Thess 1:7 uses apokalypsis of Jesus’ Parousia (cf. 1 Cor 1:7), while elsewhere Paul uses it of the wrath of God (Rom 2:5), of some specific item of information (1 Cor 14:6, 20; Gal 1:12; 2:2), or of mystical experience (2 Cor 12:1, 7). Gk klēsis has a future orientation in 2 Thess 1:11 (without any tie to baptism), while 1 Thess 4:7 uses it of Christian life in the world. Paul usually relates “calling” to baptism (Gal 1:6, 15; 5:13; 1 Cor 1:26; 7:20).
Unusual turns of phrase are more significant. Frame (1912: 32–34) presents an extensive list of such phrases and turns of thought in 2 Thessalonians, which Trilling (1972: 49–50; cf. Rigaux 1956: 85–87) presents in a convenient format. While Frame claims that the apocalyptic subject matter accounts for many of them, Trilling more persuasively claims that recurring features of style in 2 Thessalonians better account for them: figures of speech, recurrent parallelism (see Trilling 1972: 52–53), and frequent plerophory.
(2) Literary Style. 2 Thessalonians has a distinctive style for such a short letter. On the one hand, it betrays few of the characteristic stylistic features of the authentic Pauline letters described by Weiss (1897: 5): individual, short sentences, rarely formed into periods, even when clauses are introduced by hoti, hina, hopōs, hōste, etc.; asyndetic clauses or clauses joined by the copula or antithetical or comparative particles; frequent appositions; infrequent genitive absolutes. In short, this is the style of the Cynic-Stoic diatribe. Such style uses much figurative language drawn from daily life, with frequent address to the readers.
2 Thessalonians is different. Some things characteristic of Paul’s style are missing. There are no parenthetic expressions, no play on prepositions (cf. Gal 1:11, 12; Rom 11:36), and no initial or end rhyme (except for the one possibility in 2 Thess 2:17). Rigaux (1956: 90) gives an extensive list of pictorial language drawn from daily life in 1 Thessalonians, but finds only two examples of pictorial language in 2 Thessalonians: “rest” in 1:6 and the Word of the Lord “running” in 3:2, a sure indication of nonauthenticity for Trilling (1972: 56). The sentence structure is different. 2 Thessalonians has long sentences (1:3–12; 2:5–12; 3:7–9), formed of elements joined like links in a chain (“kettenartige Verknüpfung,” von Dobschütz 1909: 42). 2 Thessalonians frequently repeats terms or expressions in identical form or a slight variant, a mark of the letter’s “poverty of expression.” Trilling (1972: 62–63) gives a long list that demonstrates this as a distinctive mark of style of 2 Thessalonians. This pleonastic style also led to the frequent use of parallelism, in 2 Thessalonians most frequently synonymous, more rarely synthetic, almost never antithetical. Trilling (1972: 52–53) gives a long list of such passages. Krodel (1978: 82–83) translates part of the list into English and comments that these parallelisms are “all the more important when we recognize their sparsity in 1 Thessalonians.” Weiss (1897: 12–13) points out that Paul himself most frequently used antithetical parallelism, a basic element of his theological thought.
Rigaux (1956: 89) called attention to Paul’s development of thought by triadic groupings in 1 Thessalonians. He identified sixteen such triads. But 2 Thessalonians has only one such triad (2 Thess 2:9). This is striking in view of 2 Thessalonians’ tendency to pleonasm, fullness of expression, seen in compound verbs when the simplex would do (2 Thess 1:3, 4, 5, 10), in the frequent use of pas, pantes, en panti tropō, the use of substantive chains, and the use of hendiadys (2 Thess 2:4, 17; 3:8, 12; Trilling 1972: 58–60). A comparison of the paraenetic sections of the Thessalonians letters makes this clear. 1 Thess 4:4–10; 5:1–11 are formed of short sentences, while 5:14–22 is a series of short, asyndetic imperatives. 2 Thessalonians is different: there are only two short sentences in its paraenesis (2 Thess 3:2b, 17) and four paraenetic imperatives (2 Thess 2:15; 3:13, 14).
(3) Verbal Similarity. Bornemann (1894: 473) already pointed out that the similarity of 1 and 2 Thessalonians went far beyond structure to include “sequence of thought, clauses, turns of phrase and expressions.” Wrede (1903: 3–36) provided massive documentation by presenting the parallels in tabular form, by showing that every paragraph in 2 Thessalonians has a conceptually related section in 2 Thessalonians. He demonstrates that these significant parallels occur in the same order in both letters. (Many of the linguistic similarities are listed in the paragraphs above.) They are not dependent on a specific historical situation in the congregation addressed. Wrede finally concludes in an impassioned paragraph (pp. 29–30) that the coincidence of memory or historical situation is not adequate to explain the similarity.
(4) Lack of Personal Warmth. Commentators point to the striking difference in tone between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians is written with warmth. Paul’s affection for his readers is clear. He recalls their reception of the gospel in a time of great pressure (1 Thess 1:6) and their open announcement of the gospel to others (1 Thess 1:8) so that their faith was known throughout Achaia as well as Macedonia. When separated from them, he felt the loss, repeatedly striving (in vain) to visit them (1 Thess 2:17–18). His affection for them led him to send Timothy N from Athens so that he was bereft of companionship there (1 Thess 3:1–2). And when Timothy returned with the good news of their fidelity in faith and their enduring affection for him, Paul becomes lyrical in his joy (1 Thess 3:7–10). The tone of 2 Thessalonians is quite different. Bornemann (1894: 468; cf. Trilling 1972: 63) spoke of the letter’s consistent impersonal, official tone, closer to prophetic speech than to a true letter. For example, in both thanksgivings 2 Thessalonians uses opheilomen with eucharistein (“we ought to give thanks,” 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13). The opening thanksgiving is impersonal in tone. While adelphoi (“brothers”) is found eighteen times in 1 Thessalonians, it occurs in 2 Thessalonians “only when it is part of a structural formula or when it is taken over from 1 Thessalonians” (2 Thess 1:3; 2:1, 13, 15; 3:1, 6, 13; Collins 1988: 222). 2 Thess 3:6 introduces the paraenesis with the verb “we order” (paraggelomen, cf. 3:4, 10, 12), not “we beseech” (parakaloumen), as in 1 Thess 4:1 (cf. 4:10; 5:11, 14). The relationship between writer and readers differs from that in 1 Thessalonians.
In short, while the structure and language of 2 Thessalonians are in many respects close to 1 Thessalonians, there are significant differences in vocabulary, rhetoric, and tone. Such differences call for explanation.
c. Theological Arguments. 2 Thessalonians introduces no new themes into the Thessalonian correspondence. But there are many differences in theological emphasis or nuance that suggest the writer differs from Paul in theological outlook and probably comes from a later age.
(1) Eschatology. 2 Thessalonians is the only Pauline letter in which eschatology is the major topic. Its eschatology, strongly apocalyptic in language and outlook (Giblin 1967), is a response to the persecution undergone by the readers (2 Thess 1:4). 2 Thessalonians exhorts the readers to fidelity and endurance by pointing out that God’s justice (2 Thess 1:5) leads inevitably to the condemnation of the oppressors and the vindication of the faithful at the revelation of the Lord Jesus. Jesus will “execute vengeance on those who do not know God” (2 Thess 1:8–9), a point reinforced in 2 Thess 2:11–12. 2 Thess 2:1–12 reinforces the need to remain faithful by pointing out that a series of events must take place before the Parousia of Jesus can happen. The persecution will grow worse as the opposition develops in intensity. The “Man of Lawlessness, the son of destruction” (2 Thess 2:3) must appear first. He will be a parody of the Lord, whose Parousia, accompanied by false signs and acts of power and miracle, will deceive and lead to destruction all those who “do not receive the love of the truth in order that they might be saved” (2 Thess 2:9–10).
Paul elsewhere makes use of apocalyptic motifs and language, but without such a consistent apocalyptic schema of events. He speaks of the present age and the coming age (Gal 1:4) and sets out in 1 Cor 15:21–28 a periodization of events that lead to the resurrection of believers. In 1 Thessalonians he speaks of the Parousia of Jesus (1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23) in a context strongly influenced by the ruler cult (apantēsis, kyrios), not apocalyptic. The “day of the Lord” in 1 Thess 5:2 is borrowed from prophetic, not apocalyptic, imagery. Krodel (1978: 84) points out that nowhere does Paul “use the idea of divine retribution to comfort believers in distress.”
2 Thess 2:1–2 suggests that some of the readers expected the Parousia very soon. But Christians must be clear about the Lord’s Parousia and their future gathering before him (2 Thess 2:1–2). Paul stressed the nearness of the Lord’s Parousia in 1 Thess 4:15, 17; 5:1–5, while his later letters continued to say “The Lord is at hand” (1 Cor 7:29, 31; Rom 13:11–12; Phil 4:5). 2 Thessalonians stresses the opposite to reinforce the urgency of the need to stand fast and remain faithful (2 Thess 2:15) to the God who called the readers through the gospel (2 Thess 2:14; cf. Krodel 1978: 74–77). And both letters appeal to earlier teaching (1 Thess 5:1–2, explicitly rejecting time speculation; 2 Thess 2:5 affirms a sequence of events).
(2) Christology. 2 Thessalonians never mentions the death or resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is primarily the Lord (kyrios) in 2 Thessalonians (cf. 1:1, 7, 8, 12; 2:1, 8 [13?], 14, 16; 3:3, [5?], 6, 12, 16, 18), but the letter nowhere tells how he became the Lord. It does not cite earlier creedal formulas (1 Thess 1:9–10; 4:14; 5:10 does), does not talk of Jesus’ death as sacrifice (as 1 Thess 5:10 does), or relate his lordship over the Thessalonians to baptism. There is nothing like “the word of the cross” (cf. 1 Cor 1:18) in this letter. In 2 Thessalonians Jesus, the Lord, does not have a past, but only a future, significance. At the Parousia he will punish the oppressors (2 Thess 1:8; cf. “righteous judgment,” 1:5), while the faithful will be gathered before him (2 Thess 2:1). His Parousia will also be his revelation as Lord, i.e., as benefactor and vindicator. His major characteristic is power exercised in the destruction of the “Man of Lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:8). This contrasts strongly with other letters in the Pauline corpus, where the confession “Jesus is Lord” is tied to his resurrection and to baptism (1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9; Phil 2:11).
2 Thessalonians also diverges from Paul by using language about Jesus that Paul reserves for God. The term “Lord,” referring to Jesus, occurs where Paul speaks of God. Thus 2 Thess 2:13 speaks of the “beloved of the Lord,” while 1 Thess 1:4 speaks of the “beloved of God.” 2 Thess 2:14 speaks of the “glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Thess 1:10, 12). Paul ascribes glory only to God (Rom 1:23; 3:7, 23; 4:20; 5:2; 6:4; 1 Cor 10:31, etc.); Jesus only reflects God’s glory (2 Cor 3:18; 4:4, 6). Where 1 Thess 5:23 invokes the “God of peace,” 2 Thess 3:12 calls on the “Lord of peace.” The language of 1 Thessalonians is the normal Pauline expression (Rom 15:33, 16:20; 1 Cor 14:33; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9). 2 Thessalonians reveals a christological development that gives greater prominence to Jesus.
(3) Theology. God’s acts in the past are the basis of the Christians’ hope. He chose the Thessalonians as the “firstfruits” toward salvation (2 Thess 2:13), an election that is the basis for their conviction that they are “beloved by the Lord” and destined “for the sure possession of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Because God called them, they are his assembly (ekklēsia, 1:4) that suffers for the royal rule of God (basileia tou theou). Suffering leads to the demonstration of the “just judgment of God” (2 Thess 1:5) because it leads to the public demonstration that God is just. Twice God is addressed as “our Father” (1:1; 2:16), but never as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Cor 1:3) or as the one who “raised Jesus from the dead” (Rom 4:24; 8:11; 10:9, etc.).
God’s election and justice determine the content of the gospel in 2 Thessalonians. God will carry out his apocalyptic plans for them. “The gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess 1:8) describes how Jesus’ Parousia executes judgment and gathers the faithful. God is responsible for all that happens: their election (2 Thess 2:13), their growing faith and love (2 Thess 1:3), his past love for them (2 Thess 2:16), the sanctification of the spirit (2 Thess 2:13), their past comfort and hope (2 Thess 2:16). It is not surprising that grace (charis) plays so small a role in this book. It occurs twice in stock formulas (2 Thess 1:2; 3:18). 2 Thess 1:12 relates grace to the Parousia of the Lord, while 2:16 ties it to God’s love and the gift of comfort and hope in the past to pray that God exhort and establish them in the present. The familiar Pauline contour is absent.
(4) Tradition and Life. 1 Thess 3:8 urges the Thessalonians to “stand fast in the Lord.” 2 Thessalonians urges its readers to “stand fast and hold on to the traditions” (paradoseis, 2 Thess 2:15; the singular is used in 3:6). By tradition 2 Thessalonians means the content of the letter itself, that is, the apocalyptic teaching that God will vindicate those faithful under persecution. Tradition is thus a criterion for action. Paul’s work in order not to accept any money from the Thessalonians (2 Thess 3:8–9) is described in language reminiscent of 1 Thess 2:9. The imitation of Paul is a part of the tradition they must (dei, 2 Thess 3:7) keep.
Prayers in 1 Thessalonians pray for the survival of the readers in the Parousia (1 Thess 5:23), since the coming of Christ is the basis for comfort and encouragement (1 Thess 4:18; 5:11). 2 Thessalonians prays for a right action in word and deed (2:16–17), for “love of God and the endurance of Christ” (3:5), for a life lived in peace (3:16). The eschatology determines the content of the prayer. Thus it is not surprising that 2 Thessalonians urges the readers to proper action against those “who live [walk] without order” (2 Thess 3:6, 11), because of the imminent Parousia of the Lord Jesus (2 Thess 2:8). The Thessalonians themselves should not grow tired of doing what is good (2 Thess 3:13).
4. Reconstruction of Historical Origin. Apocalyptic eschatology flowered at the end of the 1st century, as Revelation and Matthew suggest. The last two decades (80–100 c.e.) was a time of persecution for the Church. The stress on authoritative tradition also suggests a later age in which Paul has become a revered figure. This dating also provides a good historical context for interpreting the reference to spurious Pauline revelation, theological argument (logos), or correspondence mentioned in 2 Thess 2:2. People were invoking Paul’s name as authority for their teaching—and 2 Thessalonians does the same. The reference to Paul’s handwriting in 2 Thess 3:17 is based on the earlier references in 1 Cor 16:21, Gal 6:11, and Philemon 19. Nowhere does Paul suggest it as a mark of authenticity; in Galatians it is a mark of his personal feelings for the addressees. 2 Thess 3:17 is the only place the handwriting is used as a mark of authenticity. (The word semeion elsewhere in Paul always refers to miraculous events or to evidence of the Spirit’s activity.) Bailey (1978: 138) comments that 3:17 “makes more sense as the product of the pseudonymous author who wished by it to allay any suspicions of inauthenticity which his letter might arouse.” Krodel’s proposal (1978: 85), supporting the suggestion of Lindemann (1977: 35–47) that 2 Thess 2:2 might refer to 1 Thessalonians, now misinterpreted at this later date, is attractive, but not compelling. In short, 2 Thessalonians is the work of a late Paulinist who rethinks Paul in terms of apocalyptic eschatology and the Pauline tradition to reinforce the fidelity of persecuted Christians.
By Edgar M. Krentz, Professor of NT, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:519). New York: Doubleday.
3. Theories Assuming Pseudonymous Authorship. Scholars in growing numbers argue against Pauline authorship in favor of authorship by an unknown Paulinist who used 1 Thessalonians as a model to meet a new situation in Macedonia.
a. History of Scholarship. J. E. C. Schmidt first proposed pseudonymous authorship in 1798 (Trilling 1972: 13, with reprint of the key pages of Schmidt’s work, 1972: 159–61). He challenged the authenticity of 2 Thess 2:1–12 on the basis of its eschatology. In 1892 Holtzmann (pp. 213–16) summed up the arguments against authenticity after 90 years of scholarship: no anti-Jewish polemic as in the authentic Pauline letters; non-Pauline form of the language; basically an expansive repetition of parallels from the first letter; no OT citations. Wrede (1903) introduced a new stage into the research by providing evidence for the literary dependence of 2 Thessalonians on 1 Thessalonians in language, order of motifs, and structure. He formulated the questions that dominated scholarship down to 1972 (see Jewett 1986: 35ff.; Collins 1988: 212–13), even though the majority of scholars still held to Pauline authorship. Trilling’s Untersuchungen (1972) ushered in the third stage of discussion, in which more and more scholars incline to pseudonymous authorship, e.g., Bailey (1978), Krodel (1978), Lindemann (1977), Collins (1988), Holland (1988), and Hughes (1989). Trilling supported his historical reconstruction in his 1980 commentary. Krodel and Collins provide convenient summaries of the cumulated argumentation.
b. Linguistic-Literary Evidence.
(1) Vocabulary. Vocabulary statistics are deceptive. Of the ten hapax legomena in 2 Thessalonians five occur in the LXX; the other five are not unusual (Milligan 1908: liii). Bornemann (1894: 471) suggests that the vocabulary of 2 Thessalonians is close to that of Luke–Acts, a suggestion supported by an examination of the eleven words that are Pauline hapax legomena in 2 Thessalonians but occur elsewhere in the NT, and the five that occur only in the Deutero-Pauline Ephesians and Pastoral Epistles. There are also a series of Pauline terms that are completely absent from 2 Thessalonians: agapētos, aiōn, hamartia, an, anēr, apothnēskō, apostolos, ginōskō, gnō rizō, egeirō, egō, ethnos, zēteō, kalos, keryssō, laleō, mallon, men, nekros, polys, syn, sōma, teknon, tis. The particles and prepositions are especially important. Thessalonikeus (1 Thess 1:1; 2 Thess 1:1) and euthynō (1 Thess 3:11; 2 Thess 3:5) are the only terms that occur in both Thessalonian letters, but nowhere else in Paul. The former is striking, because it is the only time Paul uses the term for the inhabitants of a city rather than the city name. Such word statistics allow no firm conclusions.
2 Thessalonians uses a number of terms in a sense unusual for Paul. Gk thlipsis (“suffering”) is viewed as the basis for the retribution of the persecutors in 2 Thess 1:4–6, but as confirmation of the Thessalonians’ election in 1 Thess 1:6–10. Paul regards the basileia tou theou as present in Rom 17:17, 1 Cor 4:20 and 1 Thess 2:12, but future in 2 Thess 1:5. (Paul does regard it as future in the phrase “inherit the kingdom,” 1 Cor 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal 5:21.) 2 Thess 1:7 uses apokalypsis of Jesus’ Parousia (cf. 1 Cor 1:7), while elsewhere Paul uses it of the wrath of God (Rom 2:5), of some specific item of information (1 Cor 14:6, 20; Gal 1:12; 2:2), or of mystical experience (2 Cor 12:1, 7). Gk klēsis has a future orientation in 2 Thess 1:11 (without any tie to baptism), while 1 Thess 4:7 uses it of Christian life in the world. Paul usually relates “calling” to baptism (Gal 1:6, 15; 5:13; 1 Cor 1:26; 7:20).
Unusual turns of phrase are more significant. Frame (1912: 32–34) presents an extensive list of such phrases and turns of thought in 2 Thessalonians, which Trilling (1972: 49–50; cf. Rigaux 1956: 85–87) presents in a convenient format. While Frame claims that the apocalyptic subject matter accounts for many of them, Trilling more persuasively claims that recurring features of style in 2 Thessalonians better account for them: figures of speech, recurrent parallelism (see Trilling 1972: 52–53), and frequent plerophory.
(2) Literary Style. 2 Thessalonians has a distinctive style for such a short letter. On the one hand, it betrays few of the characteristic stylistic features of the authentic Pauline letters described by Weiss (1897: 5): individual, short sentences, rarely formed into periods, even when clauses are introduced by hoti, hina, hopōs, hōste, etc.; asyndetic clauses or clauses joined by the copula or antithetical or comparative particles; frequent appositions; infrequent genitive absolutes. In short, this is the style of the Cynic-Stoic diatribe. Such style uses much figurative language drawn from daily life, with frequent address to the readers.
2 Thessalonians is different. Some things characteristic of Paul’s style are missing. There are no parenthetic expressions, no play on prepositions (cf. Gal 1:11, 12; Rom 11:36), and no initial or end rhyme (except for the one possibility in 2 Thess 2:17). Rigaux (1956: 90) gives an extensive list of pictorial language drawn from daily life in 1 Thessalonians, but finds only two examples of pictorial language in 2 Thessalonians: “rest” in 1:6 and the Word of the Lord “running” in 3:2, a sure indication of nonauthenticity for Trilling (1972: 56). The sentence structure is different. 2 Thessalonians has long sentences (1:3–12; 2:5–12; 3:7–9), formed of elements joined like links in a chain (“kettenartige Verknüpfung,” von Dobschütz 1909: 42). 2 Thessalonians frequently repeats terms or expressions in identical form or a slight variant, a mark of the letter’s “poverty of expression.” Trilling (1972: 62–63) gives a long list that demonstrates this as a distinctive mark of style of 2 Thessalonians. This pleonastic style also led to the frequent use of parallelism, in 2 Thessalonians most frequently synonymous, more rarely synthetic, almost never antithetical. Trilling (1972: 52–53) gives a long list of such passages. Krodel (1978: 82–83) translates part of the list into English and comments that these parallelisms are “all the more important when we recognize their sparsity in 1 Thessalonians.” Weiss (1897: 12–13) points out that Paul himself most frequently used antithetical parallelism, a basic element of his theological thought.
Rigaux (1956: 89) called attention to Paul’s development of thought by triadic groupings in 1 Thessalonians. He identified sixteen such triads. But 2 Thessalonians has only one such triad (2 Thess 2:9). This is striking in view of 2 Thessalonians’ tendency to pleonasm, fullness of expression, seen in compound verbs when the simplex would do (2 Thess 1:3, 4, 5, 10), in the frequent use of pas, pantes, en panti tropō, the use of substantive chains, and the use of hendiadys (2 Thess 2:4, 17; 3:8, 12; Trilling 1972: 58–60). A comparison of the paraenetic sections of the Thessalonians letters makes this clear. 1 Thess 4:4–10; 5:1–11 are formed of short sentences, while 5:14–22 is a series of short, asyndetic imperatives. 2 Thessalonians is different: there are only two short sentences in its paraenesis (2 Thess 3:2b, 17) and four paraenetic imperatives (2 Thess 2:15; 3:13, 14).
(3) Verbal Similarity. Bornemann (1894: 473) already pointed out that the similarity of 1 and 2 Thessalonians went far beyond structure to include “sequence of thought, clauses, turns of phrase and expressions.” Wrede (1903: 3–36) provided massive documentation by presenting the parallels in tabular form, by showing that every paragraph in 2 Thessalonians has a conceptually related section in 2 Thessalonians. He demonstrates that these significant parallels occur in the same order in both letters. (Many of the linguistic similarities are listed in the paragraphs above.) They are not dependent on a specific historical situation in the congregation addressed. Wrede finally concludes in an impassioned paragraph (pp. 29–30) that the coincidence of memory or historical situation is not adequate to explain the similarity.
(4) Lack of Personal Warmth. Commentators point to the striking difference in tone between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. 1 Thessalonians is written with warmth. Paul’s affection for his readers is clear. He recalls their reception of the gospel in a time of great pressure (1 Thess 1:6) and their open announcement of the gospel to others (1 Thess 1:8) so that their faith was known throughout Achaia as well as Macedonia. When separated from them, he felt the loss, repeatedly striving (in vain) to visit them (1 Thess 2:17–18). His affection for them led him to send Timothy N from Athens so that he was bereft of companionship there (1 Thess 3:1–2). And when Timothy returned with the good news of their fidelity in faith and their enduring affection for him, Paul becomes lyrical in his joy (1 Thess 3:7–10). The tone of 2 Thessalonians is quite different. Bornemann (1894: 468; cf. Trilling 1972: 63) spoke of the letter’s consistent impersonal, official tone, closer to prophetic speech than to a true letter. For example, in both thanksgivings 2 Thessalonians uses opheilomen with eucharistein (“we ought to give thanks,” 2 Thess 1:3; 2:13). The opening thanksgiving is impersonal in tone. While adelphoi (“brothers”) is found eighteen times in 1 Thessalonians, it occurs in 2 Thessalonians “only when it is part of a structural formula or when it is taken over from 1 Thessalonians” (2 Thess 1:3; 2:1, 13, 15; 3:1, 6, 13; Collins 1988: 222). 2 Thess 3:6 introduces the paraenesis with the verb “we order” (paraggelomen, cf. 3:4, 10, 12), not “we beseech” (parakaloumen), as in 1 Thess 4:1 (cf. 4:10; 5:11, 14). The relationship between writer and readers differs from that in 1 Thessalonians.
In short, while the structure and language of 2 Thessalonians are in many respects close to 1 Thessalonians, there are significant differences in vocabulary, rhetoric, and tone. Such differences call for explanation.
c. Theological Arguments. 2 Thessalonians introduces no new themes into the Thessalonian correspondence. But there are many differences in theological emphasis or nuance that suggest the writer differs from Paul in theological outlook and probably comes from a later age.
(1) Eschatology. 2 Thessalonians is the only Pauline letter in which eschatology is the major topic. Its eschatology, strongly apocalyptic in language and outlook (Giblin 1967), is a response to the persecution undergone by the readers (2 Thess 1:4). 2 Thessalonians exhorts the readers to fidelity and endurance by pointing out that God’s justice (2 Thess 1:5) leads inevitably to the condemnation of the oppressors and the vindication of the faithful at the revelation of the Lord Jesus. Jesus will “execute vengeance on those who do not know God” (2 Thess 1:8–9), a point reinforced in 2 Thess 2:11–12. 2 Thess 2:1–12 reinforces the need to remain faithful by pointing out that a series of events must take place before the Parousia of Jesus can happen. The persecution will grow worse as the opposition develops in intensity. The “Man of Lawlessness, the son of destruction” (2 Thess 2:3) must appear first. He will be a parody of the Lord, whose Parousia, accompanied by false signs and acts of power and miracle, will deceive and lead to destruction all those who “do not receive the love of the truth in order that they might be saved” (2 Thess 2:9–10).
Paul elsewhere makes use of apocalyptic motifs and language, but without such a consistent apocalyptic schema of events. He speaks of the present age and the coming age (Gal 1:4) and sets out in 1 Cor 15:21–28 a periodization of events that lead to the resurrection of believers. In 1 Thessalonians he speaks of the Parousia of Jesus (1 Thess 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23) in a context strongly influenced by the ruler cult (apantēsis, kyrios), not apocalyptic. The “day of the Lord” in 1 Thess 5:2 is borrowed from prophetic, not apocalyptic, imagery. Krodel (1978: 84) points out that nowhere does Paul “use the idea of divine retribution to comfort believers in distress.”
2 Thess 2:1–2 suggests that some of the readers expected the Parousia very soon. But Christians must be clear about the Lord’s Parousia and their future gathering before him (2 Thess 2:1–2). Paul stressed the nearness of the Lord’s Parousia in 1 Thess 4:15, 17; 5:1–5, while his later letters continued to say “The Lord is at hand” (1 Cor 7:29, 31; Rom 13:11–12; Phil 4:5). 2 Thessalonians stresses the opposite to reinforce the urgency of the need to stand fast and remain faithful (2 Thess 2:15) to the God who called the readers through the gospel (2 Thess 2:14; cf. Krodel 1978: 74–77). And both letters appeal to earlier teaching (1 Thess 5:1–2, explicitly rejecting time speculation; 2 Thess 2:5 affirms a sequence of events).
(2) Christology. 2 Thessalonians never mentions the death or resurrection of Jesus. Jesus is primarily the Lord (kyrios) in 2 Thessalonians (cf. 1:1, 7, 8, 12; 2:1, 8 [13?], 14, 16; 3:3, [5?], 6, 12, 16, 18), but the letter nowhere tells how he became the Lord. It does not cite earlier creedal formulas (1 Thess 1:9–10; 4:14; 5:10 does), does not talk of Jesus’ death as sacrifice (as 1 Thess 5:10 does), or relate his lordship over the Thessalonians to baptism. There is nothing like “the word of the cross” (cf. 1 Cor 1:18) in this letter. In 2 Thessalonians Jesus, the Lord, does not have a past, but only a future, significance. At the Parousia he will punish the oppressors (2 Thess 1:8; cf. “righteous judgment,” 1:5), while the faithful will be gathered before him (2 Thess 2:1). His Parousia will also be his revelation as Lord, i.e., as benefactor and vindicator. His major characteristic is power exercised in the destruction of the “Man of Lawlessness” (2 Thess 2:8). This contrasts strongly with other letters in the Pauline corpus, where the confession “Jesus is Lord” is tied to his resurrection and to baptism (1 Cor 12:3; Rom 10:9; Phil 2:11).
2 Thessalonians also diverges from Paul by using language about Jesus that Paul reserves for God. The term “Lord,” referring to Jesus, occurs where Paul speaks of God. Thus 2 Thess 2:13 speaks of the “beloved of the Lord,” while 1 Thess 1:4 speaks of the “beloved of God.” 2 Thess 2:14 speaks of the “glory of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Thess 1:10, 12). Paul ascribes glory only to God (Rom 1:23; 3:7, 23; 4:20; 5:2; 6:4; 1 Cor 10:31, etc.); Jesus only reflects God’s glory (2 Cor 3:18; 4:4, 6). Where 1 Thess 5:23 invokes the “God of peace,” 2 Thess 3:12 calls on the “Lord of peace.” The language of 1 Thessalonians is the normal Pauline expression (Rom 15:33, 16:20; 1 Cor 14:33; 2 Cor 13:11; Phil 4:9). 2 Thessalonians reveals a christological development that gives greater prominence to Jesus.
(3) Theology. God’s acts in the past are the basis of the Christians’ hope. He chose the Thessalonians as the “firstfruits” toward salvation (2 Thess 2:13), an election that is the basis for their conviction that they are “beloved by the Lord” and destined “for the sure possession of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Because God called them, they are his assembly (ekklēsia, 1:4) that suffers for the royal rule of God (basileia tou theou). Suffering leads to the demonstration of the “just judgment of God” (2 Thess 1:5) because it leads to the public demonstration that God is just. Twice God is addressed as “our Father” (1:1; 2:16), but never as “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (cf. 2 Cor 1:3) or as the one who “raised Jesus from the dead” (Rom 4:24; 8:11; 10:9, etc.).
God’s election and justice determine the content of the gospel in 2 Thessalonians. God will carry out his apocalyptic plans for them. “The gospel of our Lord Jesus” (2 Thess 1:8) describes how Jesus’ Parousia executes judgment and gathers the faithful. God is responsible for all that happens: their election (2 Thess 2:13), their growing faith and love (2 Thess 1:3), his past love for them (2 Thess 2:16), the sanctification of the spirit (2 Thess 2:13), their past comfort and hope (2 Thess 2:16). It is not surprising that grace (charis) plays so small a role in this book. It occurs twice in stock formulas (2 Thess 1:2; 3:18). 2 Thess 1:12 relates grace to the Parousia of the Lord, while 2:16 ties it to God’s love and the gift of comfort and hope in the past to pray that God exhort and establish them in the present. The familiar Pauline contour is absent.
(4) Tradition and Life. 1 Thess 3:8 urges the Thessalonians to “stand fast in the Lord.” 2 Thessalonians urges its readers to “stand fast and hold on to the traditions” (paradoseis, 2 Thess 2:15; the singular is used in 3:6). By tradition 2 Thessalonians means the content of the letter itself, that is, the apocalyptic teaching that God will vindicate those faithful under persecution. Tradition is thus a criterion for action. Paul’s work in order not to accept any money from the Thessalonians (2 Thess 3:8–9) is described in language reminiscent of 1 Thess 2:9. The imitation of Paul is a part of the tradition they must (dei, 2 Thess 3:7) keep.
Prayers in 1 Thessalonians pray for the survival of the readers in the Parousia (1 Thess 5:23), since the coming of Christ is the basis for comfort and encouragement (1 Thess 4:18; 5:11). 2 Thessalonians prays for a right action in word and deed (2:16–17), for “love of God and the endurance of Christ” (3:5), for a life lived in peace (3:16). The eschatology determines the content of the prayer. Thus it is not surprising that 2 Thessalonians urges the readers to proper action against those “who live [walk] without order” (2 Thess 3:6, 11), because of the imminent Parousia of the Lord Jesus (2 Thess 2:8). The Thessalonians themselves should not grow tired of doing what is good (2 Thess 3:13).
4. Reconstruction of Historical Origin. Apocalyptic eschatology flowered at the end of the 1st century, as Revelation and Matthew suggest. The last two decades (80–100 c.e.) was a time of persecution for the Church. The stress on authoritative tradition also suggests a later age in which Paul has become a revered figure. This dating also provides a good historical context for interpreting the reference to spurious Pauline revelation, theological argument (logos), or correspondence mentioned in 2 Thess 2:2. People were invoking Paul’s name as authority for their teaching—and 2 Thessalonians does the same. The reference to Paul’s handwriting in 2 Thess 3:17 is based on the earlier references in 1 Cor 16:21, Gal 6:11, and Philemon 19. Nowhere does Paul suggest it as a mark of authenticity; in Galatians it is a mark of his personal feelings for the addressees. 2 Thess 3:17 is the only place the handwriting is used as a mark of authenticity. (The word semeion elsewhere in Paul always refers to miraculous events or to evidence of the Spirit’s activity.) Bailey (1978: 138) comments that 3:17 “makes more sense as the product of the pseudonymous author who wished by it to allay any suspicions of inauthenticity which his letter might arouse.” Krodel’s proposal (1978: 85), supporting the suggestion of Lindemann (1977: 35–47) that 2 Thess 2:2 might refer to 1 Thessalonians, now misinterpreted at this later date, is attractive, but not compelling. In short, 2 Thessalonians is the work of a late Paulinist who rethinks Paul in terms of apocalyptic eschatology and the Pauline tradition to reinforce the fidelity of persecuted Christians.
By Edgar M. Krentz, Professor of NT, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Freedman, D. N. (1996, c1992). The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6:519). New York: Doubleday.
8 comments:
Hi John,
I have doubted the Pauline authorship and the canonicity of 2 Thess for quite some time. I personally do not think it should be in the Bible.
Check out this YouTube video about this very subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cTmCxyPh_c
It has a touch of humor which I like.
I can sort of see why there might be some motivation to ditch 2nd Thessalonians, esp. 2:11-12.
"And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
It makes God out to be a liar, and what is the lie that he tells? "that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but hat pleasure in unrighteousness."
It's kind of an escape clause for non believers, isn't it?
Well, I'm no Bible scholar though.
dude, you don't need 2 Thess to have God threatening unbelievers with hellfire... it's all over the NT
No, Hell is a false translation and false understanding of Gehenna, Hades, Sheol, the eternal fire, and the Lake of Fire. NONE of those is Hell. I have done 1000's of hours of research on this one subject.
Hi John,
I would like to add one small addendum to your article. The Anchor Bible Dictionary is comprised of the finest historians and scholars today and remains a definitive and trustworthy source for biblical studies. I think it would be doing the work a slight disservice by labeling it "Christian". Indeed the editor, David Noel Freedman, was considered one of the most highly esteemed scholars in Judaic studies of our time, and was not a christian. Though this article appears to be written by an evangelical, I have found while utilizing this work for research (and mostly for old testament studies) that by and large most contributing scholars are not practicing Christians. In fact I would say that Christian contributors to this work could be counted on one hand (I have not, nor do I plan on going through the list of contributors so you may qualify that last statement as conjecture).
My only reason in pointing this out is because the ABD is a fabulous reference and one that should be consulted by all who are interested in Judaic, early Christian, or Christian studies despite their personal beliefs and convictions. I know you never called the ABD a Christian work but *just in case* and for clarity's sake, I wanted to separate the ABD from the mountain of biased and misinformed scholarship that exists in biblical studies today.
Why spend so much time debunking Christianity? Maybe there's something there that's not simply academic. Read the Bible and separate it from religion and you might just come face to face with something you don't expect. God.
Your example does little to advance your "debunking" objective.
First, Pauline scholarship of II Thessalonians is rather obviously not critical to Christianity's central claims. Second, you opt for selection presentation of views on the question where objective alternative views were readily available to you. see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Epistle_to_the_Thessalonians.
Rather than present a reasoned argument, you simply block cite a text from one scholar on a subject from one perspective. Worse for your objective of "debunking" Christianity, your argument-by-quotation is simply a clear example of the ignorantia elenchi fallacy as well as a bald appeal to authority. Not impressed.
David Noel Freedman was an ordained Presbyterian minister.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Noel_Freedman
Post a Comment