Vi. The Authenticity Of 2 Thessalonians 17
This letter claims to be from Paul (1:1; 2:18), and it is Pauline both in language and ideas. We know from Acts that the author's associates, Silvanus and Timothy, were with Paul on his second missionary journey. The letter must be early for various reasons. Church organization is apparently in a very early stage. It is difficult to think that anyone writing after Paul's death would put out in Paul's name a statement that might be understood to mean that the Parousia would take place during the apostle's lifetime (1 Thess. 4:15). The question of the fate of believers who died before the Parousia must have been answered fairly early in the church's life. Yet it is impossible to think of anyone but Paul putting the letter out in early times.28 How could it possibly gain a circulation while the apostle was still engaged in vigorous work, traveling among the churches and well able to denounce it? (Yet we must bear in mind that the possibility of forgery seems to be implied by 2 Thess. 2:2 and the explanation of the autograph in 2 Thess. 3:17.)
Moreover, the letter is as well attested as we could reasonably ask. It is not the kind of letter that would be quoted often, which explains its absence from the few subapostolic writings that have come down to us (though some similarities of language may be more than coincidence29). But it was accepted as sacred Scripture by Marcion (c. A.D. 140). It is included among the canonical books in the list given in the Muratorian Fragment (a list of the books accepted as canonical sometime after the middle of the second century, probably in Rome). And it is definitely quoted by Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180) and later writers.
It scarcely seems to be the kind of letter that would be forged. Why would anyone produce a letter like this? What would he aim to achieve thereby? The letter reads naturally as the reaction of Paul to the situation outlined in an earlier section. But it seems completely out of character as a forgery foisted on the church to serve some devious purpose of its author.
Nothing very considerable can be set over against all this. Some members of the Tubingen school regarded the epistle as inauthentic, but they stand practically alone and their reasons for rejecting it do not commend themselves. Thus we find the objection that it is not doctrinal enough, or again, that it shows too close a dependence on 1 and 2 Corinthians. These two surely cancel each other out, for the former means that it is not Pauline enough, and the latter that it is too Pauline! Neither carries conviction.
No more convincing is the suggestion that the letter cannot be an authentic writing of the apostle because there are serious discrepancies between it and Acts. For example, the epistle gives us a picture of Paul working at his trade (1 Thess. 2:7-9), and this is said to be incompatible with the statement that he preached in the synagogue at Thessalonica on three Sabbaths (Acts 17:2). We have already examined this suggestion in considering the circumstances of the first preaching in the city, and have seen no necessary contradiction. Paul may have stayed in Thessalonica no longer than Acts indicates. Or, if we feel that a longer period is required, Acts may give us the length of his synagogue preaching. The same is true of the allegation that the two contradict each other since Acts 17:4 speaks of the converts as both Jews and Gentiles, while the letter refers to Gentiles only (1 Thess. 1:9; 2:14). So when Acts 18:5 says that Silas and Timothy came to Paul at Corinth, whereas the letter shows that Timothy was with Paul for a time in Athens (1 Thess. 3:1-2). 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."3° Neither is giving the complete story, and we must make use of both. But to say that both must in all points tell all they know is so obviously false that it needs no refutation.
We conclude, then, that there is no real reason for doubting the authenticity of this epistle.31