B. Coauthorship 25
In favor of this view is that it points out that Gentiles seem to be the recipients of the first letter (see, for example, the turning from idols in 1:9 and the distinction between "your own countrymen" and "the Jews" in 2:14). In the second letter, it is urged, there is a much stronger Jewish flavor, with appeals couched in Old Testament language. A second point depends on the acceptance of aparchen as the true reading instead of ap' arches (2 Thess. 2:13); that is, "God chose you as a firstfruit" rather than "God chose you from the beginning." The Thessalonians were not the first converts in Macedonia, nor Paul's first converts, so the term does not fit the entire church very well. But the Jews were Paul's first converts in Thessalonica, so the term might apply to them over against the Gentiles. The case is more or less completed by drawing attention to the "all" in the closing section of the first letter (I Thess. 5:26-27). It is felt that something must lie behind Paul's insistence that all be greeted and that the letter be read to all. The autograph (2 Thess. 3:17) was "to avoid the danger which he foresaw of one of the two parties in the Church impugning the authenticity of the other's Epistle." 49
But this evidence is not compelling. The Jewish coloring of 2 Thessalonians is not apparent to all. Thus there is not one quotation from the Old Testament in this letter. While admittedly some of the language, particularly in the section dealing with the Parousia, is reminiscent of that in the Old Testament, it is significant that Plummer's close scrutiny of both epistles for traces of Septuagint language reveals that this is "less conspicuous" in the second letter than the first.50 But in any case Old Testament language is not at all decisive for a Jewish destination. Paul quotes the Old Testament most frequently in Romans, a letter addressed to a church that was predominantly Gentile. Not much can be built on a variant reading, especially when, as here, competent critics (Best, for example) prefer the alternative. Again, the "all" at the end of 1 Thessalonians is not emphatic, and is capable of being explained otherwise. Paul wanted his greetings to embrace everybody and left no doubt about this (see the notes ad loc.). And Lake's explanation of the autograph is not at all convincing.
Thus the evidence in favor of the theory is not strong. There are also good reasons for rejecting it. The most important of these is the impossibility of thinking that Paul would have acquiesced in such a situation. He was strongly opposed to disunity within a church (cf. I Cor. 1:11-17) and did not hesitate to rebuke those who disturbed the unity of the churches; the absence of such a rebuke in the Thessalonian correspondence is surely significant. Again and again in his letters he speaks of the unity of those in Christ. It is impossible to understand his joy in the Thessalonians if they were divided so deeply that the two segments did not even worship together.
Quite apart from Paul's attitude there is the fact that we do not know of any church divided in this way. While there are many things about the early church that we do not know there are also many that we do. And none of them gives countenance to the idea that the early Christians would anywhere have accepted a situation like that posited by Harnack and Lake. We need very strong evidence to establish such a division, but the reasons we are offered are not at all convincing.
There are also some points about the epistles themselves that militate against the theory. Thus the superscriptions are practically the same, which is strange if they were intended for different groups. Harnack was driven to suppose that the words "which are of the circumcision" have been lost from the superscription of 2 Thessalonians. Then we have such curious facts as Paul's praise of the Jewish churches in a section that on this view was intended for the Gentile church (1 Thess. 2:13-16); he praises his readers for imitating the Jewish churches. This for Gentiles who would not even meet together with the Jewish Christians in their own city!
A more acceptable view is that of E. Earle Ellis, who argues that "the brothers" are "Paul's Thessalonian co-workers" (though he does not notice that the expression always lacks the article in 2 Thessalonians, and that it is more common in the first letter [19 times] than in the second [9 times]). His view is that the first letter is sent to the whole church and the second to "a group of Christian workers." He finds support for this in the reading "firstfruits" (2 Thess. 2:13), which he thinks refers to "the consecrated first-born who, like the Levites, are set apart for the work of God." He regards "the idlers" as people who receive financial support or at least meals, and thus as "Christian workers."51 It is not easy to understand why Christian workers should be dubbed simply "idlers," and in view of the statistics of "brother" and the textual doubt about "firstfruits" I do not regard this view as having been substantiated.
Thus it appears that neither hypothesis should be accepted. There are difficulties with both, and it is simpler to accept the view that both letters were meant for the whole Thessalonian church. As they stand, neither is addressed to a group within the church but each is addressed to the whole church; there is no evidence that either ever had any other address.