3. Reversal of order
6. The relation between the two epistles
To decide in favour of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians does not settle the question of the relationship between the two epistles. A number of suggestions have been put forward.
1. A church in two sections
Harnack thought that the Jews and the Gentiles in the church at Thessalonica were so out of step with each other that they met separately.30 He thought that 1 Thessalonians is addressed to the Gentile section of the church, and 2 Thessalonians to the Jewish section. He claimed that, whereas the first epistle seems to have Gentiles in mind (cf. the references to turning to God from idols, 1 Thess. 1:9), there is a marked Jewish colouring in the second, which points to a different public and one familiar with Old Testament phraseology. This, however, does not amount to very much, for Paul’s most copious use of the Old Testament is in Romans, addressed, most agree, to a church that was predominantly Gentile.
Moreover, the Jewish tone of 2 Thessalonians is not very clear. There is not one direct quotation from the Old Testament, and Plummer, who has searched both epistles for traces of LXX phraseology, finds this ‘less conspicuous’ in the second than in the first.31
A second argument is based on the fact that, where the text usually accepted reads ‘from the beginning (ap’ archēs) God chose you’ (2 Thess. 2:13), there is a variant, ‘a first-fruit (aparchēn)’. The variant has sufficiently strong manuscript support for Lake to say, ‘there is about as much to be said for the one reading as the other’.32 If it be accepted, it supports Harnack’s view, for, while the Thessalonians were not in any sense a first-fruit (being neither Paul’s first converts, nor the first in Macedonia), the Jewish Christians were the first-fruits of the Thessalonian church.
Then there is the use of ‘all’ (1 Thess. 5:26–27). It is felt that there must be something behind the insistence that all the brothers be greeted, and that the letter be read to all.
There seem, however, to be insuperable difficulties in the way of this view.
1. It is incredible that the man who wrote 1 Corinthians 1:11–17 should meekly acquiesce in a situation where a church of his foundation was so hopelessly divided. The idea contradicts his repeated stress on unity.
2. It is difficult to explain Paul’s evident pleasure in the Thessalonians if such a split existed.
3. The division of a church into two communities of this kind is so contradictory of all that we know of apostolic Christianity that we could accept it only on the basis of very strong evidence.
4. Even if there was a split church anywhere, the evidence that the church in Thessalonica was so divided is very weak, to put it mildly.
5. The superscriptions of the two epistles are practically identical, and there is not the slightest indication that they are addressed to different groups. Harnack has to suppose that the words ‘which are of the circumcision’ have dropped out of the text in the second epistle.
6. On this hypothesis, a passage intended for the Gentile section of the church (1 Thess. 2:13–16) holds up for admiration the conduct of the churches in Judea and commends the Thessalonians for following this example. We should also notice that there are traces of LXX language behind some of the phraseology of the first epistle.33
7. Each of the points adduced in favour of the hypothesis may fairly be disputed; the more Jewish tone of 2 Thessalonians is difficult to sustain; the variant reading does not carry conviction; the ‘all’ (1 Thess. 5:26–27) is not particularly emphatic and is accounted for by Paul’s desire to send his greetings to everybody (see the commentary, ad loc.).
2. Co-authorship
Some have felt that the best solution is to think of Silas34 or Timothy35 as the real author of one or both epistles, with Paul simply adding a general authentication. But this really solves nothing. If, with Burkitt, we think of Silas as the author of both epistles, we are faced with exactly the same problems as when we think of Paul as the author of both. If we take Paul to be the author of the first epistle and Timothy or Silas to have written the second, we are faced with the problem of the similarities of style and language in the two letters. Nor is the theory any better when it comes to explaining the differences between the two, for Paul clearly signed 2 Thessalonians (2 Thess. 3:17), and we cannot imagine him putting his signature to something with which he disagreed.
3. Reversal of order
We have assumed that 1 Thessalonians was written first and 2 Thessalonians after a short interval, but some scholars have felt that many of the difficulties are solved if we reverse the order. The reason for thinking Thessalonians unauthentic, they suggest, is that we read it in the shadow of 1 Thessalonians, and beside that letter it does appear as something in the nature of a pale copy. But, as a first letter, it is full of life and interest, though it leaves some things unsettled and thus calls for the fuller letter to follow.36
The chief arguments for seeing 2 Thessalonians as written first seem to be these:
1. The trials and tribulations are at their height in 2 Thessalonians, but seem past in 1 Thessalonians (cf. 1 Thess. 2:14).
2. In 2 Thessalonians the internal difficulties in the church are spoken of as a new development of which the letter-writers have just heard, whereas in 1 Thessalonians they are referred to as completely familiar to all concerned.
3. The emphasis on the autograph (2 Thess. 3:17) as a mark of genuineness is pointless except in a first letter.
4. The statement that the Thessalonians have no need to be instructed about times and dates (1 Thess. 5:1) is very relevant if they are acquainted with 2 Thessalonians 2. Gregson finds the eschatology of the first epistle ‘more mature’ than that of the second.37
5. As we saw above (p. 25), there are expressions which might be held to indicate that 1 Thessalonians is the reply to a letter from the church in that city. Manson thinks that the answers may well be to certain questions arising from what Paul says in 2 Thessalonians.38
6. 1 Thessalonians precedes 2 Thessalonians in our Bibles only because it is longer.39
7. When Timothy was sent to Thessalonica (1 Thess. 3:2) he would have taken a letter with him. If not 2 Thessalonians, where is it?
8. 2 Thessalonians says nothing about Paul’s proposed visit (1 Thess. 2:18). The desire was formed after 2 Thessalonians was written.
9. Wherever the two letters have common material, 1 Thessalonians is fuller and has new material.
None of these is really convincing. It is by no means clear from 1 Thessalonians that the trials are over (cf. 1 Thess. 3:3) and, indeed, most students have felt that part, at least, of the purpose of that epistle is to encourage the readers in view of the difficulties ahead. The idea that the internal difficulties mentioned are a new development in 2 Thessalonians seems to rest on the words, ‘We hear that some …’ (2 Thess. 3:11); but this is just as compatible with a report reaching Paul after 1 Thessalonians as before it. Otherwise the injunctions in the second letter are very similar to those in the first. That an autograph is likely in a first letter is negated by the fact that it is not usual in the Pauline correspondence.40 Its occurrence here seems to be due to special circumstances (2 Thess. 2:2). The eschatological argument is unconvincing and could support the priority of either letter. The use of ‘Now about …’ is no proof of a letter; it could well refer to matters mentioned by Timothy in his verbal report to Paul. The canonical order proves nothing one way or the other. Timothy was co-author of 2 Thessalonians, which makes it unlikely that he would have been its bearer. The absence of a reference to Paul’s desire to visit the church in 2 Thessalonians proves nothing. An abbreviated reference to earlier matter is just as likely as the introduction of new material. In any case the treatment of the idlers is fuller in the second letter than the first. D. Guthrie is justified in saying, ‘none of these reasons is convincing taken separately, nor is the cumulative effect any more so’.41
Against the position we may note some points:
1. Each of the problems occupying Paul’s attention—persecution, the parousia, idleness—seems to intensify and deepen as we pass from the first epistle to the second.
2. There are passages in 2 Thessalonians that refer to a letter (2:2, 15; 3:17). Unless we take these to refer to 1 Thessalonians, we must posit some lost epistle.
3. The personal reminiscences that form so prominent a part of the first letter are lacking in the second, which is perfectly natural if the latter is something of a sequel to the first, but not so natural in a first letter. So conclusive did this seem to Milligan, that he could say that the idea of the priority of 2 Thessalonians ‘is excluded by I. 2:17–3:6 which could hardly have been written by St Paul, if he had previously addressed a letter to Thessalonica.’42
4. We have seen that the warmth of the expressions in the first letter springs naturally out of the news that Timothy brought, while the slightly cooler tone of 2 Thessalonians is natural later on. It is difficult to reverse the situation.
5. There is no definite proposal for a visit in 1 Thessalonians 2:17–19, but only longing. This could take place at any time.
Thus the balance of evidence seems to indicate that the usual order of these letters is the right one. Best makes the interesting point that no-one who has written a commentary on 2 Thessalonians holds that it was written first.43