In the previous two posts I began to answer why scholars think that some of the letters that go under Paul’s name were not actually written by him. I have focused on the Second Letter to the Thessalonians, which claims to be written by Paul but appears to have been written instead by someone else who wanted his readers to *think* he was Paul. In those two posts I recounted what I said about the matter in my trade book, written for a lay audience, Forged: Writing in the Name of God – Why The Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are.
In the next several posts I will show how I address the same question for scholars, in my scholarly monograph, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics. I thought this would be worth doing for two reasons. First, I’d like you to know – if you’re interested – what the full reasoning behind the common critical view of 2 Thessalonians is, that is, what the really persuasive arguments are. Some of these are long and complex and not easily simplified for a lay audience. And so I didn’t try in my popular book! Second, I thought it would be interesting to show, by way of example, how a scholarly approach to a question like this differs from a popular approach. I’ve already shown the latter and now I’ll show the former.
This will take about four posts. I hope you don’t find them at all offputting. This first one is not overly technical and should be accessible, I think. The others are reasonably so (we’re not talking nuclear physics here), but they’re not the sort of thing you’re gonna find in Barnes & Noble. In my scholarly discussion, I do at the outset what scholars tend to do: give a brief account of the history of scholarship on the question. This is what I say there (Note: for the sake of convenience, I have not included the footnotes – which, among other things, provide the German quotations of the original sources; if you want the really full monty, just get the book!):
******************************************************************
History of the Question
Problems connected to the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians were first recognized by J. C. Chr. Schmidt in 1801.
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, WHY DEFER GRATIFICATION???
What, in your opinion, is necessary to cease the stalemate among scholars and swing the pendulum to a higher level of certainty in either direction about 2 Thess?
I wouldn’t say there’s a stalemate, just differences of critical opinion. I think that when critical scholars look at the range of arguments, such as I lay out in my fuller discussion, most tend to think it’s not authentic. I’m not sure what more evidence could be adduced.
Bart:
Thx for addressing this issue, and at a more scholarly level. Approaching these things at the level of the lay-
person seems too much mere speculation. It has also been a question on my mind since I first heard about it from your “Great Courses” lectures.
I’ll hold off from saying too much until you wrap this up, but it amazes me that a these two books exist in the same canon. BC
“a sizeable plurality of biblical scholars (counting broadly) hold theological views that make the presence of literary forgeries in the canon of scripture untenable on principle.”
Surely most biblical scholars accept that 2Peter is not from apostle Peter, as the evidence is so overwhelming? So the reason that a plurality of scholars maintain Pauline authorship for 2 Thessalonians, cannot be due to their theological view against forgeries? Scholars who accept non-petrine authorship for 2Peter but maintain Pauline authorship for 2 Thessalonians, cannot be holding this dual view due to outright rejection of forgeries.
Fundamentalist and most conservative evangelical scholars hold to the authenticity of 2 Peter. But even those who can’t hold out, maintain that this is the one exception, because really there can’t be that sort of thing in Scripture….
I wonder which is harder for conservative scholars to stomach: the presence of forgeries in the New Testament, or Paul mistakenly thought Jesus would return in his lifetime. In the Patristic period, how did the Church Fathers typically interpret 1 Thessalonian 4:17? Among scholars who maintain Pauline authorship for 2 Thessalonian, do most of them also maintain Paul did not mistakenly thought Jesus would return in his lifetime?
I imagine they interpreted it like most Christians today do, that when Paul said “we” he didn’t mean “we” (that is, he was not including himself).
Isn’t this the source of the “Wandering Jew” legend: that some listener present was doomed to walk the earth until the Second Coming in order to make the “some off us here will still be alive” quote (or is that in the Gospels somewhere)?
It’s not in the Gospels! It’s a later legend, but I’m not sure what its source is.
Prof Ehrman, Did the early church fathers such as Tertullian and Origen to name a couple ever dispute 2 Thessalonians or any of Paul’s letters?
There were disputes about a number of early Christian writings, but the 13 Pauline letters were not widely doubted among the proto-orthodox, if at all.
I actually met Malherbe. This is a good post especially the last two sentences. The power of “confirmation bias” is truly amazing even among very intelligent and very scholarly people.
I’m finding:
The epistle 2 Thess. was included in Marcion’s canon and the Muratorian fragment; it was mentioned by name by Irenaeus, and quoted by Ignatius, Justin, and Polycarp. (Guthrie, Donald (1990). New Testament Introduction. Hazell Books. p. 593). Its authenticity escaped them?
Second, the Jerusalem Church could have faulted Paul for the heresy of leaving out: “the Great Tribulation occurs before the coming of the kingdom.” Paul spent time with Peter, one of the original 12 disciples who participated in Jesus’ conversation about the coming of the kingdom.
To say the first letter is authentic is to say Paul left out the Tribulation 1) to play to people’s fantasies that the kingdom would come without tribulation, 2) to keep the kingdom-as-carrot urgent, 3) to keep the kingdom simple without having to explain the abomination of desolation (how can we have a desolate Temple and Jerusalem surrounded by armies) and still have a kingdom of God.
Dr. Ehrman, if 2 Thess. is not where Paul changed his mind about the immediacy of the end of the world, where does it happened? I thought you said he did change his mind about the timing of the end.
Okay, you address the first point when you replied: the 13 Pauline letters were not widely doubted among the proto-orthodox, if at all. That leaves 1) could have Paul, as a leader of Gentiles who weren’t all that obligated to the Temple anyway leave out Jerusalem’s tribulation (surrounded by armies, destruction of the Temple, and more) and 2) where does Paul change his mind that the end did not come in the late 30s, it didn’t come in the 40s, it didn’t come in the early 50s, maybe Jesus is not coming any day now? Luke had angels tell the disciples, stop looking in the clouds. I don’t see how Paul, friend of Luke, pumped up Jesus’ imminent return.
Near the end of his life. If 2 Thess. is authentic, then it must have been written within a couple of months of 1 Thessalonians (given it’s content). That would be long before Paul was in prison awaiting execution. 1 Corinthians would be *after* it, and it has the view of 1 Thess, not 2 Thess. (No one doubts or disputes that 2 Thess was accepted as Pauline in the mid second century and afterwards)
Not referring to the actual substance of your book, but was wondering with regard to the workings of the process you are explaining: In your text you give citation, credit and footnote to the many other scholars who have promoted similar points of view to support your claims; but was the point of your writing this book to promote a totally new theory supporting the view of 2nd Thessalonians as a forgery? Or was it just adding your two cent’s to the others? It just seems at this point in time, with regard to biblical theory and innuendo, there would be nothing new under the sun. BTW, I am currently reading The Apocryphal Gospels. I know that it is more of a reference book for scholars, but I am actually enjoying your forwards, and the layout that it incorporates! Thanks again!
Ah, great question. I’ll answer it in a post I think. The point of my book was not simply to argue that this that or the other book was forged, but rather to show that in *order* to make my bigger argument, that these forgeries were generated for specific polemical purposes within the first four Christian centuries. That was the major contribution of my book.