In my previous post I explained the major theses and emphases of 2 Thessalonians, and pointed out that in many ways it is very similar in its concerns and themes to 1 Thesssalonians. But I also said that it is commonly considered by scholars to be “Deutero-Pauline,” that is, written by a later author only *claiming* to be Paul. How can we know? As I said there, the problem from a historian’s point of view is that someone who had decided to imitate Paul would no doubt try to sound like Paul. If both Paul and an imitator of Paul could sound like Paul, how could we possibly know whether we are dealing with the apostle himself or one of his later followers?
Here’s how I deal with the matter in my textbook on the New Testament (Oxford University Press, ch. 23).
******************************
There is, in fact, a way to resolve this kind of historical whodunit, and it involves looking at the other side of the coin, that is, at the parts of 2 Thessalonians that do not sound like Paul. These peculiar features provide the best indicators of whether the letter is authentic or was written by a member of one of Paul’s churches after the apostle himself had passed from the scene. Such negative evidence is useful because we would expect an imitator to sound like Paul, but we would not expect Paul not to sound like Paul. It is, therefore, the differences from Paul that are most crucial for establishing whether Paul wrote this, or any other, disputed letter.
With respect to 2 Thessalonians, the most intriguing issue is one that I have already alluded to: the author writes to assure his readers that even though the end will be soon it will not come right away. Other things must happen first. They should therefore hold on to their hopes and their jobs, for there is still time left. Does this sound like the same person who urged the readers of his first letter to stay alert so as not to be taken by surprise when Jesus returns (1 Thess 5:3, 6) since the end would come with no advance warning, “like a thief in the night” (1 Thess 5:2), bringing “sudden destruction” (1 Thess 5:3)? According to 2 Thessalonians, there will be plenty of advance warning. That which is restraining the man of lawlessness will be removed, and then the Antichrist figure will reveal himself, exalt himself above all other objects of worship, establish his throne in the Jerusalem Temple, and declare himself to be God. Only then will Christ return. How is this like a thief in the night who comes when people least expect it?
It is particularly interesting that
I don’t see the “In a nutshell” post for 2 Thessalonians :/
It’s like the parousia: cominng soon.
🤣🤣🤣
Not exactly on topic, but why are the Deutero-Pauline and Pastoral Epistles categorized separately? I.e., why not just one six-member category?
Different scholars do it differently. Separating them into two groups can be justified sicne teh Pastorals all appear to have the same author whereas the other three are written by different people, and the Pastorals are more widely considered as a group to be non-Pauline.
Good Sunday morning Professor,
Yesterday at an estate I found an Indexed Bible published by the John A Dickson company, 1907-1909 version. Other than what might be found on EBay or other site, do you think this has any particular value as a rare collectible or as a devotional? I’m not selling but if there is possible value I would donate it to a local church. Thanks.
I really don’t know!
So the author said the Antichrist would establish himself on a throne in the Jerusalem Temple. Did the author most likely have a candidate in mind? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe Caligula tried to put a statue of himself in the Temple for worship. Could the author have been evoking memory of that event?
Yes, that is sometimes argued (that it was inspired by Caligula). I’d say it’s impossible to know if the author had someone specifically in mind.
Do scholars have a theory/ies on how the forged letters of Paul would have been put into circulation. Since they seem to have been written after Paul died, would someone simply claim to have found an old letter and introduce it that way?
Yes, that was the normal way things like that were done. Sometimes the forger actually included a “discovery” story to show how the writing turned up even though it hadn’t been known before (not in any of the NT examples, but in other interesting instances, including the Apocalypse of Paul)
But if the content of the forged letter included references specific to, in this case, late first century happenings like members quitting their jobs, wouldn’t it be clear to its readers that the letter was written in the present time and not during Paul’s lifetime?
As it turns out, no, probably not. That’s a literary technique known as “verisimilitude,” where a forger includes specific details in a communication to make it appear that he is familiar with what exactly was happening on the ground. There is a full-length study of this phenomenon by a German scholar named Norman Brox, which unfortunately has never been translated into English, in which he shows how this kind of thing happens a lot in ancient writings that no one really much doubts were forgeries. (The most striking occurrence of the phenomenon is 2 Timothy, filled with personal comments by Paul to Timothy, even though it almost certainly could not be a book written by Paul)
Dear Dr Ehrman,
Isn’t the prediction that “the lawless one” will take “his seat in the temple of God” an indication that 2 Thessalonians may have been written while the temple in Jerusalem was still existing? Or is there another interpretation of “temple” here?
Not necessarily. Even Rabbinic writings produced centuries later talk about the temple as still standing and functioning.
If 2 Thessalonians was actually written after the destruction of the temple, I don’t understand why the author would refer to the man of lawlessness sitting in the temple of God as a key sign of the Lord’s return.
Either because he assumed it would be rebuilt by then or because, like later Jewish authors, he spoke of it as standing even though it had long been gone. Or because he didn’t think his readers hundreds of miles away would even know about it.
Wouldn’t the absence of any reference to rebuilding undercut the idea of a future temple? he assumes the temple exists and can be defiled now. Wouldn’t the destruction in 70AD indicate the end had already begun? Yet the author’s entire point is to assure the church that the day of the Lord has not yet come(2:2).
In Jewish writings, present-tense references to the temple typically preserve memory, express longing, or sustain identity but 2 Thessalonians doesn’t treat the temple nostalgically/symbolically. Rather, it presents the temple as the location of a literal/observable future event—a prophetic sign that precedes Christ’s return.
If the temple had already been destroyed, wouldn’t the author need to explain how this prophecy could still be fulfilled?
Could a Christian community in Thessalonica really have been unaware of the temple’s destruction decades later? Moreover, if the readers were that disconnected from the situation in Jerusalem, wouldn’t that call into question the effectiveness of using Jerusalem’s temple as the key marker for the timing of the Lord’s return? If the audience was too geographically or culturally removed to know the temple had been destroyed, how could they be expected to respond to a sign that takes place within it?
I’d say it’s impossible to know what someone living 2000 years ago must have known about muc hof anything, given that, ironically, we know much more about their world than anyone living in it did. Someone yesterday was talking to me about a major crisis that his Northern Ireland recently, and I had never heard of it — in these days of instantaneous communication internationally. All we know is that the author speaks about the temple as a place a future figure will enter. Did he himself know it was no longer standing? Would it have mattered if he did (think: Rabbis) Would he imagine his pagan converts living in a far distant land could paossibly know? There are too many uncertainties to know any of this, but I’d say one of the main things to guard against is the idea that they “must have known.” (Among other things: recall, the only converts in Thessalonica were pagans and we don’t know about their interactions with Jews, let alone Jews in a distant country).
I think there’s a reasonable case to be made that Paul may not have written 2 Thessalonians—but even if that’s true, why should that necessarily mean it was written after his death?
If the audience was unaware of the temple’s destruction in 70 CE, it would seem counterintuitive for the author to use temple-centric imagery as an eschatological indicator. This suggests that the audience had a certain level of knowledge about the temple and events that were occurring around it (ie the lawless one taking his seat), which would inform their understanding of the author’s argument.
You might persuade me that the letter was forged, but based on the internal evidence, any such forgery would more likely have taken place before 70 AD, not after.
Reading your analysis like I’m being let in on a secret, respectfully submitted.
In this short letter, the author discusses the destruction of God’s enemies. In verse 9 of chapter 1, it states that they will face Everlasting destruction. Some versions suggest that this punishment occurs away from the presence of the Lord, while others, like the New King James Version, indicate it happens from the presence of the Lord, implying that it is due to His presence. I tend to align with this interpretation, especially considering what is stated in the next chapter. In verse 8, it mentions that the Lawless One will be consumed by the breath of the Lord and destroyed by the brightness of His coming.
I believe the author intended to convey that at the Lord’s return, all the ungodly will be destroyed because of His appearance, rather than being sent away to be punished consciously forever. What are your thoughts?
I agree.
Perhaps it would be most effective as a forgery if it were meant to be read by a community in which the issues addressed by the letter had arisen, but not the Thessalonians. Then its delayed “discovery” would cause less suspicion…