(14 votes, average: 4.93 out of 5)
Loading...Since I am in Greece (starting out in Thessaloniki) I have begun reposting some blogs from five years ago connected with 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. My last post gave the heart of the matter from my trade book for a general 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 a few 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. Schmidt pointed out that 1 Thessalonians is a letter allegedly by Paul that maintains that the end is imminent, whereas 2 Thessalonians warns against a letter allegedly by Paul that maintained that the end is imminent (2:2). How could one explain this situation? If 1 Thessalonians were written first, did Paul not remember what he had written by the time he wrote 2 Thessalonians? If, conversely, 2 Thessalonians were written first, did Paul not remember that he warned his readers against precisely the views that he now embraced in the second letter? “In any case, it remains puzzling why he described in one letter the appearance of Christ as near, and in the other warned not to expect it as being near.”
Schmidt considers the obvious possibilities that…
.
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, WHY DEFER GRATIFICATION???
Is it necessarily a contradiction to say the end is imminent but things must happen first? What if those things happen a week from now and the end comes three days after that?
I already mentioned in another question (just yesterday and you haven’t had a chance to answer yet), there is a similar apparent contradiction in Mark. Jesus says there are people who won’t see death until the kingdom comes, the gospel must first be preached to the nations and suggests that servants not be found sleeping by the master if he comes home suddenly. That sounds like, or at least it could be reasonably interpreted, that the kingdom is soon coming but there will be signs first. That also sounds like, superficially at least (I’m sure more can be said looking deeper), these two letters and Mark are in agreement on the issue.
It’s not *necessarily* contradictory, for the reason you cite. But if one book says it will come unexpectedly and the other says that there will be signs showing you when it will come, yes, that seems to me to be at odds. Mark never says it will come unexpectedly. He says it will happen in his generation ,and that the gospel will first be spread. People like Paul thought both were true at once. That’s why he was urgent to spread the gospel.
What about Mark 13:35-37? Jesus doesn’t explicitly state the end is imminent, but it gives the impression that it could happen at any time. Perhaps my thought that early Christians believed the end to be imminent influences my reading, but I do think it gives that impression.
Does the Greek text use a word that is the equivalent of imminent? How exactly do you define imminent versus soon? And where do you draw the line?
I’m not sure which word you’re asking about. Jesus says it will come within his own generation, before the disciples all die. That’s as specific as he gets. Paul indicates it’ll happen unexpectedly, at any time, before he himself dies. Again he gets no more specific. 2 Thessalonians doesn’t say if it will come in the authors generation, but he does say it won’t happen unexpectedly and suddenly. That’s the difference.
Unless something is lost in the translation I’m reading (or I am just misreading), 2 Thessalonians doesn’t seem to be addressing the belief the end won’t come soon. Rather, it seems to address the belief the end has already come. Is it fair to say that the requirement for events to happen precludes the possibility the end has already come, but still allows a sudden arrival after the events happen? That is, since the lawless one hasn’t come, the end can’t have come yet but it will come at any time once he arrives?
Perhaps that is a bit too much apologizing. The other thing I am getting at is Mark seems to portray a similar (although not as explicit) contradiction. He talks of “signs of the times” similar to the ideas in 2 Thessalonians that things must happen first. Yet the metaphor of the slaves being caught suddenly by the master still suggests it will come unexpectedly (at least to those not paying attention), similar to 1 Thessalonians. If there is a similar contradiction within Mark, and Mark is believed to be written by one person, why doubt the authorship of 2 Thessalonians based on this (apparent) contradiction?
Despite me asking these questions I will say I am inclined to agree with you. The comment about “don’t you remember me telling you this” and signing his name seems a bit fishy. I just don’t think the contradiction is absolute.
You might want to read my posts more closely: that’s the option I deal with here: https://ehrmanblog.org/does-paul-think-the-end-is-coming-soon-does-2-thessalonians/ I explain why that interpretation doesn’t work, even though, you’re right, it has influenced translators who do not want anyone to think there is a discrepancy with 1 Thess.
* So in 1 Thessalonians, Paul says that the day will come like a thief in the middle of the night which at first glance may seem opposite of what the 2 Thessalonians passage says but Paul does say, “But you, brothers and sisters, are not in darkness so that this day should surprise you like a thief.” which sounds much more inline with the 2 Thessalonians passage. Perhaps in 1 Thessalonians, Paul was saying to people who were not Christians, the day would come like a thief in the middle of the night but Christians should not be surprised at the coming. What the writer of 2 Thessalonians seems to be addressing is not whether or not the day would come like a thief in the night but rather whether the day had already come or not.
* Does rest of 2 Thessalonians passage contradict the thief coming to non believers? Again, in 1 Thessalonians Paul told them that they should not be surprised when the day came since they were living in the light. Maybe this light included being informed of the coming of the lawless one?
in 1 Thess Paul is pointing out that unlike outsiders, the followrs of Jesus (the Thessalonian Christians) will not be caught unawares, because they are waiting for it in keen anticipation. In 2 Thessalonians he is not arguing against the view that it has already come but precisely that it might come any moment now. I have a long argument trying to explain this in my book Forgery and Coutnerforgery, and probalby a shorter one in my book Forged, if you’re interested. It’s a very important point for understanding the relationship of the two books.
Thanks for responding. I have read forged. That is what made me look deeper into this.
Great! Forgery and Coutnerforgery may not be your cup of tea, but maybe it won’t be too bitter?
“As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction.”
2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 NRSV
https://bible.com/bible/2016/2th.2.1-3.NRSV
* Isn’t he specifically addressing whether or not “the day of the Lord is already here.”? To me it’s not clear when he says it will come, whether soon or later?
No, that’s precisely the passage I discuss at length in Forgery and Counterforgery to show that this is not what it means. (It involves a translation of the Greek: “is already here” is misleading)
Started the audiobook of Forgery and Counterforgery last night.
I just looked up the word in question and one of the definitions was “close at hand”. Is that what I say in the book? (Guess I’ll find out) .
Yes, that’s a better translation of the Greek.
You did indeed go deeper into the 2 Thessalonians being a forgery in the book Forgery and Counter forgery. I’m on chapter 7 (of the audiobook). Thanks for the reference.
Must be a bear to listen to!
I prefer listening to books because I can listen to them when I am on the treadmill, doing house chores, driving, etc. and I typically listen at 1.5 speed, sometimes faster. I watch most YouTube videos at 1.5 speed as well. The only thing annoying about this audio book is the guy keeps saying stuff like “one Thessalonians” and “one Timothy”. Took some getting used to.
Ouch.
The part in “two Thessalonians” ha! where the author says he writes this way in all his letters is really strange. Why would Paul say that if he didn’t sign that way in all his letters and why would a forger say that? The signing part I get but not the “I write this way in all my letters”. What was whoever wrote it trying to accomplish by saying that?
Oh yea. I have another question. It almost seems like Ephesians and Colossians were written out of a template or something. Is it possible that Paul sometimes used templates to write letters or something like that. Kind of seems like Mark was used as a template for Matthew and Luke, and like 2 Peter and Jude used the same template. Is there are Info about using writings as templates?
Right — it’s especially odd for Paul to say it unless he always did this and just didn’t point it out normally. But it was a typical thing for a forger to do, precisely because then someone (you for instance!) would say, Hey, that doesn’t seem like something a forger would do! I.e. it adds verisimilitude.
It’s usually thought these days that the author of Ephesians used Colossians as a kind of template and that neither book was written by Paul. NOthing in Paul’s surviving writings is anything quite like this (that is, no evidence he used a template; quite the contrary: his letters are distinctive in addressing specific issues in specific ways)
Hey got another question. I’m in chapter 13 of the audiobook. You have mentioned various stats that show stylistic differences. Today I was at church and the preacher was talking about chaismus or chiasms (whatever the right right to spell to it’s is) and I started wondering if perhaps Paul’s use of chiasms could account for some of these statistical differences. For instance, I think there may be chiasms in the book of Ephesians. Could this explain some of the statistical anomalies in it?
Your preacher was talking about chiasmus?!? Whoa. From the pulpit? But no, in answer to your question, that doesn’t solve the problem. Paul actually doesn’t use chiasmus all that much (but sometimes! And in interesing ways), and the scholars who do this kind of stylistic analysis are completely aware of it, and every other rhetorical strategy used in his (and other) writings.
Finished the audiobook Forged and Counterforgery just now.
There should be another word than “scholar” for people who mainly start with their conclusion and then bend and cherry-pick evidence and ignore contrary evidence in order to support their desired conclusion.
How frequently did people use signatures to identify themselves in antiquity? I can’t quite see if the author is teaching the Thessalonians something new or just something that’s new to them.
And did Paul himself know that the standard for sharing books and letters was to copy them over from another source? If so, he would have known the limited value of a letter that references a signature for its authenticity.
Oh yes, that was the only way to do it and everyone knew it. He never signed his letters per se, but at the end of one of his letters he idicsates he wrote the last sentence or so by himself, so they could identify his writing. You’re right, that wouldn’t help someone reading a copy, but maybe he didn’t realize anyone would see a point in making a copy? (He didn’t know he was writing for *others*)
I once asked you how it could be that Jesus on the one side taught people to turn the other cheek and at the same time shovel invective against his opponents , like the woes of the pharisees.
Couldn’t we allow Paul to be a bit inconsistent as well, or to change his mind?
Absolutely! I think he definitely did about some things. But not a month or so later with taking precisely the opposite position on one of his major beliefs.
In 1 Thessalonians 3:12, a letter supposedly authored by Paul, did Paul suggests to its recipients Jesus would return in their lifetime?
Is that the right verse? No, it doesn’t seem to say anything about when Jesus would return.h
So how many ways are there to reach Heaven in the New Testament?
1) Mark says* the Kingdom will reach man rather than the other way around.
2) Matthew says* you have to follow the Law, even better than the Pharisees. In fact, you have to sell all you have and follow Jesus. Presumably this hasn’t gotten through to your televangelists. Also you must feed the hungry, visit the sick, etc. Be a good person.
3) Paul says you don’t need to follow the Law (I think? He seems to be very down on things like adultery), but that faith alone will save you. You cannot be good enough for God,
4) James says you need faith and be a good person.
How many more are there? For such an important question, God seems distinctly ambiguous, if one can be such a thing.
* has Jesus say
First thing I’d say is that none of these authors is talking about going to heaven when you die; they are talking about entering the kingdom of heaven that is arriving on earth. How many different ways? Not sure! Depends how you count. But I would say that the four you name have some differences between then (at least I think Matthew and Paul disagree; Paul and Jesus disagree; and Paul and James disagree; probably Matthew and James disagree).
how do you follow the law better than the pharisees when you have to do and obey everything they say ?
2“The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3So practice and observe everything they tell you.
my understanding : “when they tell you about moses or what moses commanded, do and practice everything they tell you.”
they are in position of interpreting moses’ commands.
Is there any evidence in the authentic writings of Paul that suggest or support the claim in Acts that Paul was a Roman citizen?
Nada.
Hi Professor.
In your course From Jesus to Constantine, in a survey you used on “Who was the greatest person in Western Civilization,” Alexander the Great placed first and Jesus and Paul tied for fifth. Who placed second, third, and fourth?
Thank you.
I wish I remembered! It was a poll I saw in the mid-1980s, and I never wrote it all down!