3. The authenticity of 1 Thessalonians
3. The authenticity of 1 Thessalonians
The authenticity of 1 Thessalonians has not been seriously doubted other than by the Tübingen school, and the objections they raised have failed to stand the test of time. It is included in Marcion’s canon (c. AD 140), is mentioned in the Muratorian Fragment (a list of books accepted as Scripture, probably at Rome some time after the middle of the second century), and is quoted by name by Irenaeus (c. AD 180), after which it is universally accepted. The contents are all in favour of its being genuine. It is obviously early, for the organization of the church appears to be rudimentary; an answer to the problem of what would happen to those who died before the parousia must have been given early; and it is difficult to imagine a later writer ascribing to Paul after his death statements that might be interpreted to mean that the parousia would occur during his lifetime. The language and ideas are Pauline.
If the letter is not from Paul it is hard to imagine a reason for its composition. There seems no motive for forgery. Indeed, it has been said that the best argument for its authenticity is the letter itself. ‘What is its point if it is not a genuine message from the apostle to a Church he has founded and a people whom he loves?’11 The existence of 2 Thessalonians, whatever its date, seems to imply the existence and acceptance of 1 Thessalonians.12
For such reasons as these practically all accept the epistle as a genuine writing of the apostle. It is sometimes alleged, however, that there are serious discrepancies with Acts, and we must examine these.13
1. Paul says that he worked at his trade while in Thessalonica (1 Thess. 2:7–9), which implies a longer period of residence than that covered by the three sabbaths on which he reasoned in the synagogue (Acts 17:2). This is supported by Philippians 4:16, which is held to mean that the Philippians twice sent gifts to Paul while he was at Thessalonica.
There is no contradiction here. Clearly Paul’s visit was in the nature of an evangelistic campaign; he did not have the time to build up the church as he would have wished, so the period must have been short.14 Even if he was there for only a month it is likely that he would have had to work for his living (not everyone can afford a month without income); and it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, though admittedly not very likely, that within that period the friends from Philippi helped him twice. But the Philippians passage does not necessarily mean that help was sent to Paul twice while he was in Thessalonica. Hapax kai dis appears to mean ‘more than once’, and with kai prefixed it will signify, ‘both (when I was) in Thessalonica and (kai) more than once (hapax kai dis) (when I was in other places) you sent …’.15 Even if Acts gives the total duration of the stay there is no contradiction.
But it is not certain that it does. Acts may well be concerned only with the time spent on the Jewish mission; there is nothing in the narrative to exclude a further period among the Gentiles. According to Ramsay the most likely reading of the evidence is that the stay in Thessalonica lasted about six months.16 This may well be too long, but the point is that the evidence does not support a contradiction.
2. In Acts 17:4 the converts are both Jews and Gentiles, but in Thessalonians there are references to Gentiles (1 Thess. 1:9; 2:14), and the turning from idols points to former pagans rather than to the devout who attached themselves to the synagogues. This, however, shows only that there were various strata among the converts, and that the accounts are independent.
3. Acts 18:5 says that Silas and Timothy rejoined Paul at Corinth, but Thessalonians that Timothy was with Paul in Athens (1 Thess. 3:1–2). This simply means that neither is giving a full report. Clearly Timothy came to Athens, Paul sent him back to Thessalonica, and in due course, in company with Silas, he rejoined Paul at Corinth. As F. B. Clogg says, ‘Discrepancies of this nature prove little except that the authors of Acts and of 1 Thessalonians wrote independently of each other.’17