AUTHOR
AUTHOR
Both letters claim Paul as author. No serious objection has been raised to his authorship of 1 Thessalonians (other than by the TQbingen School, and their objections have not won acceptance). 1The vocabulary and style are Pauline, 2as are the ideas put forward. While there have occasionally been scholars who deny the Pauline authorship of 1 Thessalonians, this has always been rare, and today it is widely recognized that the reasons put forward are unconvincing. If it is not genuine, it is not easy to see why it was composed. As a letter to a young church in need of guidance, it rings true. But why should anyone write a letter like this and claim that it came from Paul? It is hard to think of a reason. The letter shows that the church to which it was written had no complex organization, which points to an early date. So does the discussion of the fate of those who died before the parousia, for this question must have arisen in the church in very early times. It is hard to think that a later writer would have ascribed to Paul words like those in 1 Thess. 4, which might be understood to mean that the parousia would take place during his lifetime. It has also been pointed out that the very existence of 2 Thessalonians, whether written by Paul or by someone else, is evidence for the existence of 1 Thessalonians.
Objections are sometimes raised on the grounds that what is said in the letter does not always agree with what we read in Acts. Thus Luke says that Paul spoke in the synagogue for three Sabbaths (Acts 17:2), whereas Paul says that he worked at his trade in the city, which implies (it is argued) a longer period (1 Thess. 2:7-9). This is often supported by saying that Paul received help from the Philippians more than once while he was in Thessalonica (Phil. 4:16), but it has been shown that the Greek means
"both (when I was in Thessalonica) and more than once (when I was elsewhere) you sent....” 3In any case, we should be clear that neither Paul nor Acts says how long he was in the city. Acts may well give the time he spent among the Jews, after which he preached among the Gentiles. In any case his evangelistic campaign seems to have been short. We get no further with objections such as that in Acts 17:4 the converts are both Jews and Gentiles, while in the letter we read of people turning from idols and thus being Gentiles (1 Thess. 1:9). There were doubtless converts from both groups, and these statements are not contradictory. The accounts are independent, but this gives no reason for ruling out Pauline authorship of the letter. 4
There are more who regard 2 Thessalonians as inauthentic. 5It is urged that the eschatology of this letter is incompatible with that of the first, and indeed with what Paul writes elsewhere. In the first letter the parousia will take place suddenly, whereas in the second there will be signs and the appearance of the lawless one. This objection demands a consistency that we do not find in the apocalypses, which often combine the thoughts of the imminence of the End and of preparatory signs. That there is no parallel to the man of lawlessness in the other Pauline letters is no objection, for there is no exact parallel elsewhere either, and Paul is just as likely as anyone to come up with a novel idea or expression. Paul does not elsewhere face the contention that "the day of the Lord has already come” (2 Thess. 2:2), so it is not surprising that the solution he here proposes does not occur elsewhere.
Some students find a marked difference in tone between the two writings and conclude that one author would not have written in two such different ways. They point to the first letter as warm and colorful and find the second colder and more formal. The difference can be exaggerated. In fact it rests on a few expressions such as "we ought always to thank God for you” (2 Thess. 1:3) and "we command you” (2 Thess. 3:6). We should also bear in mind that the most colorful part of the first letter comes in the section where Paul is defending himself against his critics (2:1-3:13); take that away, and the difference is not very marked. But in any case we should ask why Paul should always write in the same tone. Does anybody?
The principal reason urged for seeing 2 Thessalonians as inauthentic is the combination of likeness and unlikeness to the first letter. In places, not only the ideas being expressed are similar but even the words in which the ideas are expressed are similar. 6A writer as able as Paul, it is urged, would not repeat himself in this way, and these passages are seen as evidence of deliberate imitation. If this sort of thing is taken along with such differences as those we have just noticed in eschatology, it is maintained that we should see someone other than Paul as the writer of 2 Thessalonians. Against this conclusion, some have urged that when we have all Pauline ideas, style, and vocabulary in this second letter, it is better to think of the same author than to posit another. We should notice moreover that passages with similar wording are used differently. Thus in both letters the writer speaks of working with his own hands, but whereas in the first this comes early and shows his love for the converts and his determination not to be a burden to them (2 Thess. 2:9), in the second it comes late and is "in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow” (3:7-9). We should also bear in mind that a good deal of the resemblance in language comes in the literary framework—the opening and the closing. A further consideration is the detailed knowledge of the situation at Thessalonica presupposed by what is said in 3:6-15.
Thus there seem to be no decisive objections to the Pauline authorship, and in view of the positive reasons, we should hold that 2 Thessalonians is an authentic writing of the apostle. 7If we think of this letter as being written a short time after the first letter in response to some difficulties that had arisen, we have as good a solution to the problem as has been offered. We should also allow for the possibility that Paul has made use of a secretary who may well have been responsible for some of the wording. 8We should also bear in mind that the second letter ends with "I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write” (3:17). 9If this letter is not genuine, it is a forgery. 10There is no possibility that the author is an honest man, writing in the name of Paul to express ideas he thinks the apostle would have been pleased to accept. The letter carries a signature it explicitly claims to be that of Paul. Would a forger produce a letter as Christian as this? 11