Loading...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
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
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?
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?
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.
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…
Indeed, one of the difficulties the proponents of forgery (whose arguments are quite convincing) must deal with, is that while imitating Paul was cleverly done, it is hard to imagine this would have passed as an actual letter of Paul to the presumed recipients (the Thessalonians) if it were written well after Paul’s death. If you get a letter, dealing with your current situation, from a person you have known (or presumed) to be dead for years, you are not likely to say “oh how nice and provident that he wrote that for us, and what a shame the postal service took decades to deliver it”, or even “he must have temporarily risen to write us that letter”.
So if it never served as actual letter, some other means of making it public must have been devised, a convenient accidental discovery as you say. But with Paul’s earlier letter presumably being considered Scripture (in the sense of authoritative) by then, this forgery would then be written with the *intention* of also becoming Scripture, unlike most texts that ended up doing so.
I’m afraid I don’t see it as a problem. 3 Corinthians is still seen as scripture in parts of the church today. The letter of Laodiceans is in numerous Latin manuscripts of the New Testament. Paul’s correspondence with Seneca seen as authentic for centuries. And you have the same phenomeon in Greek and Roman literature. The letters were never actually delivered to the alleged recipients, but were circulated in other parts of the world as if they had been in circulation for years, decades, and sometimes even centuries….