I’m think 2 Thessalonians is a forgery of 1 Thessalonians. Its christology and eschatology are a serious departure from 1 Thessalonians. It also makes a suspicious assertion of authorship in verse 3:17 (I think this is different than what Paul writes at the end of Galatians, which I regard as authentic). Anyway, I could go on about reasons I think 2 Thessalonians is deutero-Pauline.
But I am having trouble shaking one argument for Pauline authorship:
If there was a forged letter in circulation purporting to be the original letter, why didn’t anyone figure this out? Wouldn’t the early church have rejected it? If it was posing as the original, why was it later changed to a sequel to 1 Thessalonians?
My question to Dr. Ehrman and the community: could you please address this objection and other objections to theories of deutero-Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians? How did this letter come to be regarded as authentic?
Thank you!
joncopeland said
My question to Dr. Ehrman and the community: could you please address this objection and other objections to theories of deutero-Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians? How did this letter come to be regarded as authentic?
I am not able to help you with the questions. The books that are likely most useful are “Forged” (which I have read) and “Forgery and Counterforgery” (more scholarly treatment, I have not read this).
I did want to mention that Dr. Ehrman does not monitor the forum, so you need to comment on a blog post to get his attention. If you’re lucky, he may use it for a mailbag post. Otherwise the answer will be short – as you may already know.
joncopeland said
I’m think 2 Thessalonians is a forgery of 1 Thessalonians. Its christology and eschatology are a serious departure from 1 Thessalonians. It also makes a suspicious assertion of authorship in verse 3:17 (I think this is different than what Paul writes at the end of Galatians, which I regard as authentic). Anyway, I could go on about reasons I think 2 Thessalonians is deutero-Pauline.But I am having trouble shaking one argument for Pauline authorship:
If there was a forged letter in circulation purporting to be the original letter, why didn’t anyone figure this out? Wouldn’t the early church have rejected it? If it was posing as the original, why was it later changed to a sequel to 1 Thessalonians?
My question to Dr. Ehrman and the community: could you please address this objection and other objections to theories of deutero-Pauline authorship of 2 Thessalonians? How did this letter come to be regarded as authentic?
Thank you!
If it was written near the end of the first century, at a time when the various communities started searching for and editing Paul’s letters for inclusion in a “complete works” , there would be opportunities for forgeries. At that time there would also be a need for eschatological revisions, compared to 1 Thess.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)