V. The Authenticity Of 1 Thessalonians 15

1 Thessalonians was written shortly after Timothy had reached Paul (1 Thess. 3:6) and not long after he himself had left his converts (1 Thess. 2:17). Paul sent Timothy to Thessalonica from Athens (1 Thess. 3:1-2), so that Timothy would have rejoined him in Athens. From Acts 18:5 we discover that Timothy also joined him in Corinth. This meeting would be within a few months of Paul's departure from Thessalonica, and would therefore be early enough to fit in with 1 Thessalonians 2:17. There is no way of saying with absolute certainty whether the letter was written just after Timothy came to him in Athens or in Corinth, but in general the latter is more likely. The situation envisaged in the epistle must have taken a little time to develop. People died. Strange ideas about the second coming appeared. Jewish propaganda and Gentile persecution made their presence felt. Paul also speaks of the widespread reputation of the Thessalonian church (1 Thess. 1:8; cf. 4:10), and we must allow time for this to eventuate. The epistle can scarcely come after Paul's stay in Corinth, for he was there for eighteen months (Acts 18:11), but he speaks of being separated from the Thessalonians only "for a short time" (1 Thess. 2:17). A negative consideration is that there is no indication of anything happening after Paul's visit to the city; the letter has reminiscences of what happened while Paul was there (e.g., 3:1-6), but nothing later. Perhaps this is because Paul wrote too soon for anything much to have occurred. Had the time of his absence been a matter of years Paul would surely have had information about what had happened subsequent to his visit, but there is no indication of any such information. We should also bear in mind that Silvanus was with Paul when he wrote the letter (1:1), but we have no indication that the two were together at any time after Paul's second missionary journey (he is last mentioned in Acts 18:5). A further consideration is that neither letter mentions officebearers. This does not prove an early date, but it would be consistent with a time when officebearers had not yet emerged or had not yet become important. We conclude that Paul wrote from Corinth at the time indicated in Acts 18:5.

Now it happens that one of the important dates for a determination of New Testament chronology is associated with just this period. The proconsul Gallio (mentioned in Acts 18:12) referred a question to the Emperor Claudius, and the Emperor's reply is found on an inscription at Delphi. The date given is the 12th year of Claudius's power as a tribune, and after his 26th acclamation as Emperor. His 12th year was from January 25, 52 to January 24, 53. The date of the 26th acclamation is not known exactly, but the 27th acclamation took place before August 1, 52. That means that the Emperor's decision would have been given in the months preceding this. Thus it must have been during the earlier rather than the later part of the year 52. It was the custom for proconsuls to assume their office in early summer, which makes it unlikely that Gallio began his term in 52. It does not seem possible for him to assume office, come across the difficulty, refer the question to Claudius, and receive his answer in the time. He must have been in office a year earlier, that is, in 51.22

Acts 18 does not say at what stage of Gallio's proconsulship Paul was brought before him, though it seems as if it was early. The great apostle was in Corinth for a period of eighteen months (Acts 18:11), but again, we do not know at what point in this period he came before Gallio. Clearly he had exercised a considerable ministry by then. Yet it was not at the very end of his time there, for he stayed in Corinth after this incident "for some time" (Acts 18:18). All in all it seems likely that Paul had been in Corinth for rather more than a year before Gallio's arrival. Probably the best we can do is to say that Gallio assumed office early in the summer of 51 and that Paul came to Corinth in the first half of the preceding year. 1 Thessalonians would thus have been written in the early part of the year 50.

It will be obvious that this date must be taken as approximate only. To the uncertainties already noted must be added another. Proconsuls sometimes spent two years in office instead of one. Thus Gallio may have been at Corinth earlier than we have so far allowed. The date of the epistle may vary a year or two from our date, but it will scarcely vary more than that. Almost all commentators are agreed that the epistle must be dated in the early 50s.23

As we have already seen, there is every indication that the second letter followed within a period of weeks after the first. The same sort of situation is envisaged and the same sort of advice given. Another point confirmatory of an early date arises from the fact that Paul is recorded as visiting Macedonia, going through those parts and giving much exhortation (Acts 20:1-2). 2 Thessalonians must come before this, for it is hard to think of so similar a situation to that in 1 Thessalonians emerging again after Paul had had an opportunity of dealing with it in person. Now Corinth is the only place we know of where Silas and Timothy were with Paul during the period up to Acts 20. Thus 2 Thessalonians as well as 1 Thessalonians was written from this city. This brings the dates together. It seems impossible to assign 2 Thessalonians to any other period.

The letter is dated later by some who deny its authenticity. Thus W. Marxsen says that it was written "soon after A.D. 70,"24 but since he cites no evidence this assertion cannot be taken seriously. N. Perrin and D. C. Duling hold that 2 Thessalonians is "a deliberate imitation of 1 Thessalonians by a member of a Pauline school," and they date it at "the stage we know from the book of Revelation, itself a text from the end of the first Christian century."25 These authors do not even notice, let alone explain, the difficulty of reconciling this view with the fact that 2 Thessalonians was included in Marcion's canon c. A.D. 140. But it seems impossible that an inauthentic letter, not written till long after Paul's death, could have been accepted as canonical within the space of about forty years, and that even by Marcion, a man who rejected most of the New Testament books. A further problem is posed by the reference to the Man of Lawlessness as sitting "in God's temple" (2 Thess. 2:4). This is a more than curious statement if it was written after the temple had been destroyed and was no longer available for the Man of Lawlessness's purposes.

In recent years some have argued that the letters should be dated in the 40s (notably John Knox). The basic idea is that we should not try to reconcile these letters with what is said in Acts, but concentrate on what the letters themselves say. When we do this, it is argued, we must date the letters well before such writings as Galatians. Various dates in the 40s have been reached by this method. But Robert Jewett has shown that, even if we rely on the other Pauline letters and omit all reference to Acts, a date "in the spring of C.E. 50" is indicated.26

The evidence, then, is such that we should accept a date about A.D. 50 for both letters;27 the Thessalonian epistles are among the earliest that Paul wrote. Some scholars put Galatians earlier, but none, I think, would place any of the other Pauline epistles so early. These are among the oldest Christian writings we have, and they "probably carry us closer to the time of Christ than any other written documents which have come to us in unaltered form" (Rolston, p. 8).

↑ Back to top