Who wrote the Books of . . . 1
and 2 Thessalonians?
Posted by Clark Bates
July 30, 2016
Paul's missionary journey to
Thessalonica was a volatile one, but resulted in two epistles that
have become foundational to the church overall and in varying degrees
to particular denominations. Continuing with our series regarding
New Testament authorship, we push forward with the contested letters
of Paul. While 1 Thessalonians is widely accepted as authentically
Pauline, 2 Thessalonians is not. However, the connection between
these letters is such that it would be detrimental to not write of
both together. In recent years, contemporary skeptical scholarship
has all but dismissed the possibility of Pauline authorship in these
letters and it is because of this that we now turn our attention to
them.
Against Pauline Authorship
Paul visited the city on his second
missionary journey, as recorded in the book of Acts (17:1-9). It was
a tumultuous stay for three Sabbaths, resulting in a riot, created by
Jews within the city. Because of this, Paul and Silas were sent out
of the city. Luke's account of Paul's time in Thessalonica, it is
suggested, differs dramatically from the references to the visit
found in the epistles. If, as Luke recounts, Jews were among the
converts during his time, it would be unlikely for Paul to refer to
them as having “turned to God from idols” (1 Thess.1:9).
What's more, Luke suggests that Paul's
visit was merely three to four weeks (three Sabbaths), yet the
epistles speak of activities that surely would have taken longer.
For instance, Paul claims to have worked long enough to set an
example (1 Thess. 2:9) and praises the Philippians for sending him
money twice while he was in Thessalonica (Phil.4:15-16).
Beyond this opposition there are three
matters that must be addressed regarding the authorship of 1 and 2
Thessalonians:
The Co-Authorship of the Letters
The Alleged Interpolations in 1
Thessalonians
The Pauline authorship of 2
Thessalonians
Co-Authorship
Both letters name Paul, Silas, and
Timothy as the authors of the letters, yet they are traditionally
ascribed strictly to Paul. Many scholars argue that this is not
accurate, nor is it fair. The dominant use of the first-person
plural within the writing of
the epistles, even in the thanksgiving section stands out among the
rest of the Pauline corpus, including those letters that name someone
else in the salutation (1 Corinthians, Philippians, and Philemon).
In antiquity, it was rare to include multiple people within a
salutation and the use of the plural “we” would likely have been
understood as referring to authorship.
Interpolations of 1
Thessalonians
The authenticity of 1
Thessalonians is not questioned by many scholars today. It exists as
one of the seven letters ascribed to Paul in the critical canon
Pauline writings. However, critical scholars do argue for the
addition of non-Pauline material into the letter known as
interpolations. Some suggested sections of interpolation are 2:1-10
and 5:1-11, but most support for this view surrounds 2:13-16.
The use of the phrase “wrath
of God” coming upon the Jews, it is argued, must refer to the
destruction of the temple in AD70.
Therefore, this section could not have been included in the original
text which is dated within the mid-50s. What's more, the section
reflects a very negative view of the Jew's hope for final salvation
which is in direct conflict with Romans 11:26. It is reasonable to
assume, then, that this section is especially non-pauline.
Against the Pauline
Authorship of 2 Thessalonians
Skepticism regarding the
Pauline authorship of this second epistle began in the 19th
century with F.C. Bauer, but much of the modern force against
traditional authorship is indebted to the writings of Charles Mason
in 1957 and Wolfgang Trilling in 1972. While the usual critical
arguments have been employed regarding vocabulary and style as
theology have been employed these have not survived into much of the
contemporary debate. The two main points of debate regarding the
letter in modern scholarship are rather paradoxical. It is argued
that 2 Thessalonians is too similar to 1 Thessalonians to have been
written by Paul and 2 Thessalonians is too unlike 1 Thessalonians to
be written by Paul.
The thrust behind the
“similarities” argument is that no author would duplicate
material from one letter to another so soon after to the same
audience. Both letters share commonalities in salutation, verbal
application and structural configuration. It is said that every
paragraph in 1 Thessalonians has a counterpart in 2 Thessalonians.
Both letters feature the unusual double thanksgiving (1 Thess. 1:2
and 2:13; 2 Thess. 1:3 and 2:13) and a transitional benediction (1
Thess. 3:11 – 13; 2 Thess. 2:16-17). These similarities lead many
scholars to conclude that whoever wrote the epistle clearly utilized
1 Thessalonians as their template.
The striking differences
between the letters are also pointed out by much of critical
academia, centered largely around the eschatology of the two
epistles. It is suggested that Paul displays a sense of imminence in
1 Thessalonians which is very typical of the early church. He has an
expectation of being alive for the second coming (4:17) and cautions
his readers against trying to calculate the times and dates (5:1-4).
However, in 2 Thessalonians warns against thinking that the second
coming is imminent. He even states that the rebellion and
introduction of the “man of lawlessness” must precede the second
coming (2:1-4). If 1 Thessalonians is Pauline and reflects his
actual eschatology, it must be that 2 Thessalonians is not.
In Favor of Pauline Authorship
It should be noted that Luke's account
of Paul's time in Thessalonica makes reference to “God-fearers”
as well as Jews becoming converts to the gospel. God-feareres were
Gentiles that worshiped the Hebrew God and would still be, in Jewish
eyes, Gentiles. Because of this, embracing the one true God found
through Jesus Christ would be to “turn from idols to the true
God.”
Regarding the length of Paul's sojourn
in the city, Luke is actually rather vague. The Acts narrative
states that Paul and Silas preached for three Sabbaths and that some
time after that certain Jews
instigated a riot. There is no clear direction of time, therefore a
stay of several months cannot be ruled out. Even with this
possibility, however, it is not as unreasonable as critics might
suggest that Paul could have accomplished the activity detailed in
the Thessalonian epistles over the period of one month.
Co-Authorship
While
it is true that the use of first person plurals dominate the
epistles, that does not mean the author(s) only
uses plurals. In fact, there are several instances of first person
singular references in both letters (1 Thess. 2.:18; 3:5; 5:27; 2
Thess. 2:5; 3:17). If the letters had been genuinely co-authored,
this would be rather unusual. The use of a first person plural can
be seen as a literary device, but it is also possible that Paul makes
mention of Silas and Timothy so prevalently precisely because they
were closely associated with the church at Thessalonica. Even if it
is accepted that the letter is co-authored, Paul would be the primary
author and voice of the writing, and thus the ascription of 1 and 2
Thessalonians to the apostle is not unjustified.
Interpolation
of 1 Thessalonians
While
it shouldn't be minimized that this passage contains harsh overtones
toward the Jewish people and its potential conflict with Romans 11,
there exists no textual evidence that this passage was ever absent
from the epistle. What's more, the suggestion that early Christians
would have been able to merely insert new sections into widely
distributed Pauline letters without difficulty or trace runs into
insurmountable logistic difficulties.
What's more, the verses themselves are not out of context. Paul's
commendation of the Thessalonian's reception of the Word of God and
encouragement regarding their persecution fit the theme of 2:1-12
nicely. The use of “God's wrath” against the Jews is a sentiment
found in other areas of the New Testament related to the widespread
Jewish rejection of the Messiah (Matt. 23:32; Acts 7:51-53) and
brings to close the sin of Israel and her refusal to listen to God.
In
Favor of Pauline Authorship of 2 Thessalonians
The
letter claims to be written by Paul, Silas, and Timothy, and is even
attested by Paul to be in his own writing (3:17). No responsible
early church authority questioned Paul's authorship of 2
Thessalonians.
It is included within the Muratorian Canon as well as the Marcion
Canon and known by the early church fathers, Polycarp, Ignatius,
Justin and Irenaeus.
Despite
the conventional arguments against Pauline authorship attributed to
similarities and dissimilarities, many scholars, not all evangelical,
still maintain traditional authorship. The verbal parallels should
be acknowledged, but much of the similarities are overblown. The
passages in question largely circulate in the opening and closing
portions of the letters where you might expect a repetitious
formulation. The differences in the letter, especially regarding the
body of 2 Thessalonians betray any suspicion of reliance on 1
Thessalonians by a pseudonymous author.
The
main point regarding the dissimilarities between the epistles is
theological. This argument is considered all but certain by critical
scholars but hinges upon the preconceived notion that the apostle
could not have held these two eschatological positions
simultaneously. As a point of fact, many Jewish apocalypses contain
the same mixture of imminence and warning signs that we see in 1 and
2 Thessalonians. Even more to the point, the same mixture is found
within the gospels. One need only consider Matt. 24:33 with Matt.
24:44b for an example. Like so many circumstances in the dual
letters of Paul, the difference in content (eschatological included)
rests on the different pastoral needs for each writing.
Critics
often overemphasize the teaching of “immediacy” within the early
church while also downplaying the importance of imminence in later
Christian writings. The eschatology of 2 Thessalonians seems to be
dependent on the book of Daniel causing some to consider that the
eschatology of each letter are not in conflict but rather two stages
of the same crisis.
If this consideration is correct, there ceases to be any difficulty.
While most critical scholars posit a pseudonymous author for 2
Thessalonians, the same difficulties that plague this suggestion
regarding other Pauline epistles plague this one as well.
Conclusion
While
it can be agreed that there is a potential of co-authorship within
the letters, the existence of Paul the apostle as the primary author
for both remains the more reasonable position. The argument from
tradition, the ratification of verbal and structural similarities and
eschatological dissimilarities, and the insurmountable difficulties
with the suggestion of pseudonymity should lead readers to find
assurance in Pauline authorship. These letters are written by an
apostle with a sincere pastoral desire toward his church, seeking to
commend them, encourage them, and calm them in times of distress and
persecution. They are yet another intimate window into the heart the
“least of the apostles.”
