This harmonizes with the fact that in Macedonia women had rather more liberty than elsewhere. See J. B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (Macmillan, 41885), pp. 55–57; W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen (Hodder and Stoughton, 141930), p. 227.
BJRL 35, 1952–53, p. 432.
K. and S. Lake, An Introduction to the New Testament (Christophers, 21938), p. 135.
Frame, p. 4.
W. G. Kümmel thinks that ‘several months, but not more’ seem to lie between Paul’s departure from the city and the writing of this letter (Introduction to the New Testament [SCM, 1966], p. 184).
The inscription and other relevant texts are quoted and discussed by Kirsopp Lake in The Beginnings of Christianity, v (Baker reprint, 1966), pp. 460–464. Also in George Ogg, The Chronology of the Life of Paul (Epworth, 1968), pp. 104–111; J. Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth (Glazier, 1983), pp. 141–152.
This date is accepted, among others, by R. H. Fuller, A Critical Introduction to the New Testament (Duckworth, 1966), p. 20; G. Bornkamm, The New Testament, A Guide to its Writings (SPCK, 1974), p. 92; Everett F. Harrison, Introduction to the New Testament (Eerdmans, 1964), p. 249. Others make it a year or two later.
Some scholars, chiefly American, date the letter earlier, say in 45 or 46. But Best seems to have shown that such views are unsatisfactory (Best, pp. 11–13).
Neil, p. xviii.
W. Lock regards this as the ‘strongest support’ of the authenticity of 1 Thessalonians (HDB, iv. p. 745). So also Plummer I, p. xi.
Of the attitude of some critics Moffatt says, ‘It is capricious to pronounce the epistle a colourless imitation, if it agrees with Acts, and unauthentic if it disagrees’ (An Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament [T. & T. Clark, 31918), p. 71].
Cf. Lake, ‘the suggestion of a more prolonged preaching in Thessalonica seems psychologically as unnecessary as it is certainly historically unvouched for’ (The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul [Rivingtons, 1911], p. 65). Ward favours a short ministry (p. 8).
Frame (on 1 Thess. 2:18) differs from this view of Phil. 4:16 only in that he understands hapax kai dis to mean the slightly stronger ‘repeatedly.’ See also my note in Novum Testamentum 1, 1956, pp. 205–208.
W. M. Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, p. 228. Findlay thinks that this is ‘perhaps, an extreme view’ (CGT, p. xx, n. 1), but he thinks the duration of the mission to have been months, rather than weeks. Kümmel argues for a lengthy period (Introduction, p. 182), and W. Marxsen for a longer period than four weeks (Introduction to the New Testament [Fortress, 1974], p. 33).
F. B. Clogg, An Introduction to the New Testament (Hodder and Stoughton, 21940), p. 21.
The Expositor, Fifth Series, VIII, pp. 168ff.
See further, Hendriksen, pp. 12–13.
See, for example, G. Bornkamm, The New Testament, p. 93; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, ii (SCM, 1955). p. 142; H. J. Schoeps sees divided opinions, but excludes it from his list of Paul’s ‘seven certainly genuine letters’ (Paul [Lutterworth, 1961], pp. 51–52).
Cf. F. C. Beare, the theory ‘was demolished … by the studies of apocalyptic literature made by Gunkel, Bousset, and Charles’ (IDB, 4, p. 625).
F. B. Clogg, Introduction, p. 25. Findlay thinks that, since 2 Thessalonians ‘is written on purpose to qualify the former and to correct an erroneous inference that might be drawn from it … a prima facie disagreement on the point is only to be expected’ (CGT, p. lii). Writing in 1911, Kirsopp Lake could say: ‘the result of the last fifteen years of research is decisively to remove the eschatological argument from the list of possible objections to the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians’ (Earlier Epistles, p. 80). Despite the work of some recent scholars, this verdict still appears to be the right one.
See the lists in Rigaux, pp. 133–134.
T. Zahn, Introduction to the New Testament, i (T. & T. Clark, 1909), n. 6, pp. 249–250; Neil, p. xxiii; McGiffert, EB, col. 5045; Milligan, pp. lxxxiv–lxxxv.
Cf. Frame, ‘Apart from the epistolary outline, the agreements are seldom lengthy. Furthermore, the setting of the phrases in II is usually different from their setting in I’ (p. 49).
K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles, p. 86.
‘We are not called upon to assume that Paul at all times lived in the same mood of emotional exaltation … it is unreasonable to expect him always to write in the same key’ (R. H. Walker, ISBE, v. p. 2969). Similarly Findlay reports Bornemann’s view that, by the time of 2 Thessalonians, ‘St Paul was immersed in Corinthian affairs … his heart was no longer away at Thessalonica as when he first wrote’ (CGT, p. xlix).
Frame, p. 35.
A. F. J. Klijn sees no reason to doubt the letter’s authenticity: ‘The second letter is evidently based on more detailed information concerning certain difficulties for which the first letter could not yet provide an explicit answer’ (An Introduction to the New Testament [Brill, 1967], p. 123).
This view attracted Lake (The Earlier Epistles, p. 84; Introduction, p. 134).
Plummer II, pp. xvii–xix. Milligan, however, finds 2 Thess. 1:6–10 the best illustration of his contention that in these two Epistles ‘there are whole passages which are little more than a mosaic of OT. words and expressions’ (pp. lviii–lix), while Findlay thinks the mind of the writer of 2 Thessalonians to be ‘full of the apocalyptic ideas of the Books of Isaiah and Daniel, to a less extent of Ezekiel and the Psalter’ and ‘his prophetical and hortatory passages are so steeped in the OT., beyond what is common with St Paul, that this fact is even urged as evidence for inauthenticity’ (p. lx).
K. Lake, The Earlier Epistles, p. 84. It is adopted in the 26th edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. Alfred Wikenhauser objects that ‘if it were the correct reading we should expect a genitive after it’ (New Testament Introduction [Herder, 1958], p. 371). R. V. G. Tasker argues for ap’ archēs as ‘in keeping with Paul’s thought’ (The Greek New Testament (Oxford and Cambridge, 1964), p. 440).
Plummer finds evidence of LXX phraseology behind six or seven passages in this Epistle (Plummer I, pp. xx–xxii).
Burkitt thought that both letters ‘were drafted by Silvanus-Silas, that they were read to Paul, who approved them and added 1 Thess. 2:18 and 2 Thess. 3:17 with his own hand’ (quoted in NBC, p. 1161). E. G. Selwyn sees Silvanus also as Peter’s secretary (The First Epistle of St. Peter [Macmillan, 1947], pp. 9–17).
W. Lock cites Spitta as holding this view. He thinks Silas more likely than Timothy, ‘but the theory creates more difficulties than it solves’ (HDB, iv, p. 748). Milligan examines this view but finds against it ‘the want … of any satisfactory direct evidence’ (p. xc).
The view goes back to Grotius: ‘Grotius thinks that 2 Thess. was written as early as 38 A.D., before Paul visited Thessalonica, to certain Jewish Christians there’ (Zahn, Introduction, i, p. 241). See also T. W. Manson, BJRL 35, 1952–53, pp. 438–447; R. Gregson, EQ, 38, 1966, pp. 76–80; J. C. Hurd, IDB, v, p. 901, etc.
R. Gregson, art. cit., p. 77.
T. W. Manson, art. cit., pp. 443–444. But ‘it is not difficult to construct a series of questions to which portions of 1 Thessalonians might be an answer. A similar letter of inquiry might be constructed to fit Philippians, but it would go very little way towards proving that any such letter had been written’ (Plummer I, pp. xviii–xix).
But this is the order in the canon of the second-century heretic Marcion, which apparently preceded the rule about length and appears to be based on chronological order.
The autograph occurs in 1 Cor. 16:21 (though 1 Cor. 5:9 shows this to be a second letter); Col. 4:18; but no attention is drawn to it in either case, as is done in 2 Thess. 3:17.
D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Inter-Varsity Press, 1970), p. 577.
Milligan, p. xxxix. Cf. B. Jowett: ‘It is improbable (observe, however, 2 Thess. 2:15) that a previous Epistle could have interposed itself between the visit of the Apostle and chapters two and three of the First Epistle. (Compare Acts 17, 18.)’ (Jowett, p. 67).
