Loading...In my previous post I started to talk about why scholars recognize that 2 Thessalonians is (or appears to be) by a different author than 1 Thessalonians. There are actually lots of reasons, as I will show in subsequent posts, but for now I’m simply giving my discussion as found in my trade book Forged, written for a non-scholarly audience. Here is my full discussion in that context of the authorship of 2 Thessalonians. As you’ll see, it’s short and to the point. The scholarly discussion is much longer and involved, and I’ll be giving that in subsequent posts.
***********************************************************
Paul himself thought the end was coming in his lifetime. Nowhere is this more clear than in one of the letters we are sure he wrote, 1 Thessalonians. Paul wrote the Christians in Thessalonica because some of them had become disturbed over the death of a number of their fellow believers. When he converted these people, Paul had taught them that the end of the age was imminent, that they were soon to enter the Kingdom when Jesus returned. But members of the congregation had died before it happened. Had they lost out on their heavenly reward? Paul writes to assure the survivors that no, even those who have died will be brought into the kingdom. In fact when Jesus returns in glory on the clouds of heaven, “the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air” (4:17). Read the verse carefully: Paul expects to be one of the ones who will still be alive when it happens.
He goes on to say that…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH IT!!!
Thanks for this intriguing look at Thessalonians!
Do you believe that II Thess. was written before or after the destruction of the temple? I would think that the Roman siege of Jerusalem would have readers (listeners) thinking the time was at hand. And surely this event must have further confirmed in Paul’s mind that Christ’s return was imminent.
The author of 2 Thess. was writing after the destruction of the temple, but he couldn’t remind his readers of it because he was pretending to be Paul, who was living/writing *before* its destruction.
Since you say that “Paul” was writing after 70 AD, but pretending to be writing before the destruction of the Jerusalem temple, then how does placing a “man of sin” in the no-longer-existing temple (2:4) help to dissuade the Thessalonians that the parousia was imminent? I would think that since they realized that the temple was already leveled, they would infer that the “man of sin” had to have already “take[n] his seat in the temple of God, declaring himself to be God.”
I think that’s part of the point. The end can’t be imminent because the temple has to be rebuilt first.
If it’s the case that “Paul” had in mind a temple built post-70, then why wouldn’t he “predict” the destruction of Herod’s Temple and make clear that a rebuilt temple is meant?
Because the forger is acting as if Paul doesn’t know — mainly because he wouldn’t have!
Bart, Jesus said “Repent for the kingdom of God is at hand” Therefore, the parousia is imminent for a new Christian, because for him it will take place when the Lord take residence in his heart. This will occur with the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we must keep present that there is an imminent, personal coming of the kingdom of God and the Lord; He also said in Luke 17:20-21, “Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said. “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor will they say, look here it is! Or, there it is! For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” (Jesus was referring to Himself; because He had or He was the Kingdom of God among men.)
Yes, there is also a general coming of the kingdom of God and the Lord, in that coming everyone will see Him, even those who pierced Him. The rest of the stories are all speculation, of which we can be all very good at it. I know that future events have all been set and are beyond my control, therefore “che sara’ sara’; whatever will be, will be.’
I think we’ve moved from a historical analysis of Paul and Jesus to a statement of normative theology and personal belief — which is a different matter. I’d prefer sticking to the historical analysis if that’s OK.
Bart, you should know that there are a total of three comings of the Lord: The first one was when He came as a human, the second one was the day of Pentecost, when He came in the form of the Holy Spirit, the third one will be in the form of a judge, at the end of the age. At present we are living through the second coming: or the so called the dispensation of grace. The imminent coming is for the new converts as they prepare to receive the Lord: or be baptise with the Holy Spirit. In Luke 17: 20-21 in part reads, “The kingdom of God is not coming with signs to be observed, 21 nor will they say, look here it is! Or, there it is! For behold, the kingdom of God is in your midst.” Jesus is the kingdom of God and whomever has the Holy Spirit, has within his heart the kingdom of God. If this is not an historical analysis it is only because some prefer to believe whom they are more comfortable with. In the third coming He will be visible even to those who pierced Him.
Again, you’re getting into a theological discussion, and my intentions for this blog is not for us to pursue theology but rather a historical understanding of the New Testament (I’m not saying that this is a *better* approach; but it is different, and I would like it to be our focus.)
Bart,
2nd Thessalonians has to be a forgery. If it was truly written before the destruction of the temple, then the prophecy of the anti-christ sitting in the temple and declaring himself to be God as a sign of the second coming of Jesus would have been debunked. Paul would have had egg on his face because if the temple were destroyed without that event happening, then people would doubt Paul completely, just as they were starting to doubt Paul because believers had been dying and Jesus hadn’t come yet, right?
And if Paul could predict the future, he would have said the temple would needed to be destroyed and built a 3rd time for this prophecy to take place, but he doesn’t. Why did the forger make this claim about the anti-christ sitting in the temple claiming to be God? You know that amongst the evangelical circles this is some ploy of the anti-christ to trick the jews that he’s the messiah, because we all know the jewish messiah has to be anointed on the throne of King David. You think the forger is the original creator of this theory? It seems only logical he came up with this idea.
I don’t know if he came up with it or not; it may have been a tradition in circulation.
Do you also think the forger had Nero in mind as the person who would declare himself god in the temple since everyone thought he was coming back to life and there’s so much emphasis on Nero being the anti-christ amongst early christians? seems to me 2nd Thessalonians, 1st/2nd john, Revelation all had this anti-christ figure in mind. W
It’s not clear how widespread the Nero redivivus idea was
Bart, 2 Thess. was written before the destruction of the temple; because we read in 2 Thess. 2:4, “Who opposes and exalts himself above, every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the TEMPLE OF GOD, displaying himself as being God.” Obviously at this time the TEMPLE is still standing.
Furthermore, from what is written in 1Thess. we can assume that the TEMPLE was no longer standing for we read in 1Thess. 2:16, “hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. BUT WRATH HAS COME UPON THEM TO THE UTMOST.” By the last sentence I assume that the TEMPLE has been destroyed. There wasn’t, and still today a thing more devastating for a Jew than the destruction of the temple.
The art of the forger is to make his work sound like something the alleged author would say. The author of 2 Thessalonians was pretending to be Paul, so of course at the time of “Paul’s” writing, the temple was still standing. That’s part of the fiction — a very common ploy in ancient forgery.
It’s not at all clear what 1 Thes. 2:16 is referring to.
Please reiterate or explain the best scholarly dating of 2 Thess.
Thank you.
It’s usually dated to the end of the first or beginning of the second century.
2nd Thess. was written to the Thessalonians about 20+ years later (after the Temple was destroyed in 70 CE) than 1st Thess. (written 52-54)? Please explain how that is timely relative to the original audience.
I don’t think 2 Thessalonians was sent to the Thessalonians. The author simply put it in circulation as 2 Thessalonians.
It is assumed that Paul wrote First Thessalonians (52-54) years before the start of the Jewish Revolt (66). The siege of Jerusalem would not have had readers/listeners in 52-54 thinking the end was near.
(The comment above was intended for the first post by nacord.)
The teaching you say is Paul’s refers to Christians somehow being swept up in the air to meet Jesus. So does that mean the coming “Kingdom” was – by that date – understood to be in “Heaven” rather than on Earth? When did the change come about?
I certainly wish Paul had spelled out in detail for us what his views were! He definitely thought people would be transformed into immortal beings, but he’s a bit vague about where they would be spending eternity.
Borg dates 2 Thessalonians to the beginning of the 2nd century (~110s CE). What do you think?
It’s possible. But late first century is as well. I don’t think there’s a way to know for sure.
I think the date is important when establishing whether or not the author of 2 Thess was attempting to discredit 1 Thess by labeling it a forgery. If it was written during the 1st century, don’t you think that there would be surviving members of the community who would be suspicious of this new letter? Whereas a later composition date might be outside of the realm of suspicion; though, I would think even the Thessalonians would find it incredulous that Paul was still living in the early 2nd century!
I don’t think we can assume the letter was actually ever sent to Thessalonica.
Then who is the audience? If it is not a single city, Thessalonica, then what other city? If that audience is a multiple-city audience, Thessalonica would have gotten word of the letter that never reached them. If it was written only to filibuster or to fill pages of a theological library/Bible, or to align Paul with Jesus that the kingdom does not just pop up without tribulation, then it does not belong in the canon, it is only commentary, not a canonical book/epistle.
I think you need a broader understanding of how forgery worked — and so I’d strongly suggest reading my books, especially when they talk about the use of forgery in the Greek and Roman worldss more broadly. 2 Thessalonians was written for a very specific reason (I discuss this in my book) by the forger — not in order to deal with a problem in Thessalonica. That was simply his guise of writing.
That raises a lot of questions, which I am sure you have answered elsewhere and which I recognize you cannot answer in one blog. Here are the big questions that jump out to a layperson:
What date do scholars ascribe to 1 Thessalonians, how do they reach that conclusion and how confident are they in that conclusion?
What date do scholars ascribe to 2 Thessalonians and how do they reach that conclusion?
What factors have scholars considered in reaching the conclusion that 1 Thessalonians is authentic (you mentioned in your first post similar writing styles between 1 Thessalonians and the 6 other letters attributed to Paul by scholars- what other considerations mitigate against the possibility that all 7 letters attributed to Paul are forged?)
Yes, I know – should probably read “Forged”. I look forward to reading the next piece in this series.
Yup, these are all big questions. Short answers are that 1 Thessalonians is to be dated in relationship to what we can establish about the entire contour of Paul’s life, travels, and writings; that’s conplicated, but virtually everyone who goes to all the effort ends up putting it first among Paul’s surviving letters. If 2 Thessalonians is forged, then it is probably, but not certainly, after Paul’s life time. 1 Thess. appears authentic because of it’s relatively primitive views and its coherence with Paul’s other letters.
The obvious question: How do we know 1 Thessalonians isn’t the forgery?
Some scholars have argued that it’s a forgery, but it’s coherence with the other six undisputed seems to suggest it’s authentic.
Dr. Ehrman,
The concerns people had in 1 Thessalonians about dying prior to the second coming make me wonder about the common Mormon temple practice of baptism by proxy for the dead–or those who hadn’t ever been baptised while alive–a concern that appeared to arise shortly after Joseph Smith’s brother had died without being baptised and thus ended up as a top priority in the LDS temples. Like Paul who seemed to be reassuring his converts, Joseph Smith appears to have been doing the same with the new practice. Yet, his claim was that baptism by proxy for the dead is really a restored Christian practice. The defense of such comes from a one-liner in one of Paul’s letters (can’t remember where off the top of my head). I was wondering if in your studies you have ever come across this practice written of in any of the so called “heretical” manuscripts. ???
You’re thinking of the passage in 1 Cor. 15 where Paul mentions those who are “baptized for the dead” — a truly enigmatic statement. This practice is not referred to elsewhere in early Christian writings to my knowledge.
The differences in these two letters about the “end” are fascinating.
Back when I was a believer, I read many conservative theologians who harmonized these two letters using the motif “now but not yet” eschatology. I never bought that, even when I was a conservative. I found it very unconvincing. Still, I wonder how these clear contradictory verses are not seen by current conservative scholars as proof that something “is wrong” at least. Moreover, how early Christians and Church Fathers did not seem to be bothered by these clearly contrasting thoughts?
My sense is that most people don’t see how radically these views contrast unless someone points it out to them.
On this one you have stooped into the farsicall. A far cry from the brilliant professor that you really are.
If you still think so after reading the next four posts, I’ll be happy to hear your reasons.
Have any of the points you are making/going to make about forgeries ever come up in any of your debates?
I don’t think so.
Bart, is there a strong reason to believe the forger of 1 Thessalonians was NOT referring to 2 Thessalonians?
Sorry — I’m confused by your question. My view is that 1 Thessalonians is authentically Pauline, not forged.
I know you already noted elsewhere on the blog that the findings of a considerable number of manuscripts (to include 1st copy of Mark) on the back of mummy masks was just rumor but it seems there have been displays through video of these manuscripts, the process they used to remove them, pictures of some of them etc made available on the internet by Scott Carroll (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSUzWsuLpso), Craig Evans (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kPgACbtRRs) and Josh McDowell most recently to name a few. At your recent meeting with Biblical scholars I would presume that there would be some discussion as Brill is supposed to publish a book at some time in the near future.
I am sure you want to wait until the book is published so you can obtain some perspective or maybe you have signed a document limiting what you can say but the process they are using is somewhat troubling from a lay persons point of view. In addition, it seems that all of these manuscripts are controlled by a couple companies not that this has not gone on before but there could be some aspect of potential monetary gain involved. Anyway, just curious if you have any thoughts on these developments even though I realize this info has been out there since 2012.
If I said that htis was just a rumor, I misspoke. I meant to say (I think) that we know the the fragment of Mark is first century is a rumor. Yes, they are evidently destroying other antiquities to get their paws on manuscript fragments. This is very disturbing indeed. And they don’t seem to recognize that it’s a problem.
Thanks for responding. Yes it is disturbing. Watching this go on is problematic but it doesn’t seem that they care if it is a problem let alone recognize it as a problem. Josh McDowell in his video thought the whole process was fun, “look at all the gold from the masks just go down the drain….All we need is Palmolive soap and water…” I am sure they purchased these masks, so they own them but is this what it has all come down to…their Green Collection? Couldn’t they have found a better way to obtain the manuscripts and yet preserve the masks with the technology we have today?
Yes, it’s very shocking, disappointing, and upsetting. There must be better ways….
[Bart, please delete the above question because I worded it backwards. The correct version of my question follows.].
Bart, is there a strong reason to believe the forger of 2 Thessalonians was NOT referring to 1 Thessalonians?
Ah! Yes, there is, but it’s a complicated argument. I deal with it in Forgery and Counterforgery. Basic line is that 2 Thessalonians refers positively back to the earlier letter (2:15).
Could Paul have been backpedaling in 2 Thes? Maybe time was passing and was just covering his butt.
It’s possible! But as I’ll show in subsequent posts, there are lots of other reasons for thinking Paul didn’t write 2 Thess.
I have to wonder whether you’re overestimating Paul’s own consistency. People’s views do change over time, after all. If someone compared a letter you wrote at 20 to one you wrote at 35, then the two letters might contradict each other in significant ways; but no one should conclude one of the letters had to be a forgery!
In fact, I think you can see several inconsistencies even in the undisputed letters. For example, contrast “Beware of those who mutilate the flesh! For it is we who are the circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God and boast in Christ Jesus and have no confidence in the flesh” (Phil 3:2–3) and “What is the value of circumcision? Much in every way” (Rom 3:1–2).
Sometimes you can even find inconsistencies within a single epistle. On the one hand, there is “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth. So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth.” (I Cor 3:6–7) On the other hand, there is “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ” (I Cor 11:1). If he really thought he wasn’t anything, it would be very strange for him to tell the Corinthians to imitate him.
I can easily imagine a slightly older Paul thinking to himself “All right, the day of the Lord hasn’t come quite as soon as I’d been expecting. Maybe there’s something holding it back. Let’s see, what could that be? It must be such-and-such…” That might account for the changes between I Thessalonians and II Thessalonians.
Yes, obviously you may be right — Paul maybe simply waffled on some things (although I think a closer looks at your examples may lesson the contradictions you see.) But as I’ll be pointing out in subsequent posts, there are even more firm indications that Paul didn’t write the letter.
Another comment… (Hope this isn’t overkill!)
If II Thess was indeed a forgery written well after Paul’s time, then it would almost certainly have been written after the Jewish Rebellion. I think it would inevitably remind its first readers of that particular rebellion, and the description of the lawless one would remind them of the way emperors acted afterwards. Roman emperors demanding to be treated as gods was par for the course; for a long while they refrained from making any such demand in Judea itself, but after quashing the rebellion they became less compromising. (I’m surprised the NRSV has “declaring himself to be God”; I see no definite article in the Greek, so I’d think “declaring himself to be a god” is better.)
Now, at first that might seem like an interpretation the forger would be happy with. But then the letter’s readers would be liable to start thinking that the day of the Lord is at hand after all–the necessary preliminaries seem to have already occurred. And that is exactly what the forger wouldn’t want them to think. A clever forger would more likely find some different cause for the slow arrival of the day of the Lord, a cause that wouldn’t remind readers of the recent rebellion.
As far as the autograph is concerned, a forger with access to a collection of Paul’s epistles would surely notice that most of them lack an autograph at the end. So it would be very strange for a forger to say “this is the mark in every letter of mine” when that’s obviously not true. Paul himself, on the other hand, might have only adopted the policy of adding an autograph fairly recently. Maybe he intended for the policy to be permanent, and maybe he did in fact autograph a lot of letters that are now lost. It would then make sense for him to make that sort of statement, even if he wound up dropping the policy sometime later. (So that, e.g., Romans lacks an autograph.)
The author could not remind his readers of the rebellion if he wanted them to think he was Paul writing *before* the rebellion.
Off topic (forgive me): Listening to your Great Courses lesson on Greatest Controversies: you say Alpha and Omega adds up to 801. How? Your lessons also refer to the meaning of 666, etc. Could you post something sometime about how the Greek alphabet was used numerically? I get Alpha as 1, but Omega as 800? Some lessons on Biblical numerology would be interesting.
Maybe I’ll do a post on this. But the short answer is that Omega was used for 800 and alpha for one.
Assuming 1 Thess was written by Paul and 2 Thess was a later forgery, would 2 Thess have been specifically for the Thessalonians, or more for general circulation? Any ideas when 2 Thess was written?
Probalby the forger would have simply put the book in circulation, rather than send it to the Thessalonians (since there would be little reason to do the latter)
Wouldn’t that depend on how long the Thessalonian church survived? A statement that the Thessalonian church did not survive into the second century would strengthen the point.
If a letter is circulating in Asia Minor claiming to be Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonians, fifty years after the original recipients of 1 Thessalonians were all dead, then I don’t think it would matter whether there were Christians still in Thessalonica (a different part of the world).
I think you said later you’re going to provide more evidence about 2 Thess., possibly that it could not have been written in the 50s but written after not only 20 years later but as you reply above, 50 years later.
From the description of your Forgery and Counterforgery: literary battles waged with pagans, Jews, and, most importantly, with one another in internecine disputes over doctrine and practice.
Maybe you know there weren’t any Thessalonians involved in the literary battles. Is that true? You can prove that?
Second, you may have reason to destroy the possibility that the forgery could have happened within 5 years of 1 Thess.
It is quite distressing to learn there is a really good chance the New Testament has a work attributed to Paul that agrees with Jesus and the gospels about the Tribulation but really shows Paul was out of line with the church of Jesus, it wasn’t written by Paul, it dates, likely after Paul, and it didn’t even get to the Thessalonians. I will not be in denial, but this sucks and then 2 Thess. cannot be the Word of God. The Word of God doesn’t act like that.
The problem is that 2 Thessalonians is only one of the forgeries in the NT. That’s what my book is about. You really should read it. There is also Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, and possibly Acts. It’s a major phenomenon in early Chrsitianity.
Pauline theology and Christology don’t seem to agree with those of Jesus. And it seems natural that forgeries were necessary. At times Paul seems to write about a Messianic Archetype that he (Paul) believes rather than historical Jesus.
Have you written about the differences between Pauline teachings and Jesus’?
I have a section on this in my textbook on the New Testament.
When Paul says “the dead in Christ will rise first, then we who are alive, who remain, will be caught up together with them to meet the Lord in the air” , does the “we” necessarily include Paul ? Couldn’t it also just refer to the collective of living community members at the day of the Lord’s return?
Usually the word “we” includes the person speaking, otherwise it would be “they.”
Paul (in First Thessalonians) goes on to say that it [the coming of the Kingdom and entrance into it] will be a sudden, unexpected event.
Steefen (author of The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy, 2nd Edition):
Wait a second. In the gospels, Jesus mentions the Great Tribulation occurring before the Son of Man sits on his throne.
First Thessalonians may be an authentic letter of Paul but it shows Paul needed more correction by the Jerusalem Church; and, that is a bigger problem than 2nd Thessalonians not being authentic but in line with Jesus’ teaching on the Tribulation preceding the Son of Man sitting on his throne–the coming kingdom of God.
Dr. Ehrman, do you agree 1st Thessalonians is not recognizing Jesus’ teachings on the question, How will we know the end is near–the apocalypse before the kingdom?
My view is that the historical Jesus taught that the kingdom would arrive with the appearance of the Son of Man in judgment, and that Paul agreed with that (only, unlike Jesus, he thought that Jesus himself was the son of man).
The biblical Jesus definitely mentions the Great Tribulation before the Son of Man comes in glory through the clouds and sits on his throne. You’re saying the historical Jesus does not recognize a period of transition Tribulation? There was transition tribulation when Moses changed the status quo with the Egyptians: surely there would be transition tribulation when the Son of Man changed the status quo of Roman authority over Israel. Please explain why you remove the Great Tribulation as precedent to the arrival of the kingdom. Please let us know if you are putting forth the suggestion that not only was the destruction of the Temple not foreseen but added after 70 CE but the Great Tribulation was also added after 70 CE.
Bart Ehrman: unlike Jesus, Paul thought that Jesus himself was the son of man
Steefen: I have to somewhat disagree. While Jesus does speak sometimes of the Son of Man in third person, in John and in Luke, Jesus identifies himself as the Son of Man. See the two verses below. (“A friend of tax collectors” is a reference to himself, Jesus.)
“… Do you believe in the Son of Man?”
He answered and said, “Who is he, sir, that I may believe in him?”
Jesus said to him, “You have seen him and the one speaking with you is he.”
The Gospel According to John, 9: 35-37
… “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?’”
…“Go and tell John … the blind regain their sight, the lame walk …
“For John the Baptist came neither eating food nor drinking wine, and you said, ‘He is possessed by a demon.’ The Son of Man came eating and drinking and you said, ‘Look, he is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.’ But Wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”
The Gospel According to Luke 7: 20, 22, 34
Yes, of course, I’m familiar with these passages. When talking about what the historical Jesus actually said you have to decide *which* of things he is recorded as saying are things that he actually said. That is a long and arduous critical process. You may want to read my book Jesus: Apocalpytic Prophet of the New Millennium where I deal with these issues.
As this discussion shows, I think Christians make too big a deal out of the destruction of the temple. It wasn’t the first time their temple was destroyed. After the first, Judaism thrived in Diaspora. They managed to deal with it the first time.
The apocalyptic worldview dominated the ANE in the first century. The view was almost universal that it would happen soon, on earth, within a generation or two. There was a trend to spiritualize that apocalypse as the decades rolled on and it never happened. I see that trend even within the NT. 1 Thessalonians still shows the early view, but with people wondering about fellow Christians who had already died and therefore missed it. Paul offered them an untestable consolation. It’s plausible that even Paul experienced that trend within his lifetime. But as Dr. Ehrman has said, this change in view is not the only, or the strongest, reason to doubt Pauline authorship of 2 Thess. Some have also justified differences in writing style as use of a different scribe, and the idea that such a scribe was not a literal stenographer.
We observe other trends in Paul’s writing. His earliest show no evidence of the existence of local church leadership or organization. We see authority claimed only for Paul and Timothy (sent by Paul). 1 Corinthians shows a charismatic body, with each person exercising his own ‘gift’ as he sees fit, not by any hierarchy of leaders. In the later letters, Paul does refer to local leaders.
Dear Dr. Ehrman, the New Testament is in a way spiritual software. If the software is faulty, garbage in, garbage out. One important reason for textual criticism is to brush off “archaeological pieces” so they can be presented in the museum of the mind–the Ancient Israel wing of our mind.
Jesus said we don’t know when things will happen; the time is appointed by the Father. The angels told the disciples, stop looking in the clouds for Jesus. In 30 CE or 33 CE, people wouldn’t know how, when, or if the Great Revolt would start and end. Technically, Paul had no reason to suspect Rome would go after Gentiles; but, Gentiles that were in Jerusalem, Perea, Galilee, etc. when Rome took action were in danger.
It is irresponsible for Paul to have taught people there would be no tribulation before the kingdom. Jesus’ idealism had already matured and that maturity was communicated in the gospels: the Son of Man is going to have suffer and even die for “kingdom come.” Even without prophecy of destruction of Temple and People, Paul from firsthand experience knew Temple authorities were not supporting “kingdom come.” Later in life, after the Thess. letter, Paul appealed to Caesar, not Son of Man.
Although scholars may not want to go on record with the opinion that the Destruction of the Temple and the Great Tribulation are post-Revolt additions to the gospels, you and other scholars have that train of thought. You have already dated books of scripture with that criterion (Jesus did not prophecy, history happened then the gospel writers placed Jesus in the past and had him voice history as if it were the future.)
1 Thess. has no defense for not including tribulation before kingdom. That Jews in authority had Jesus killed before the Jewish Revolt is evidence that the kingdom ran the chance of being a failed proposition.
The question of the value of 1 Thess. against 2 Thess. is raised at the point of: one does not have preceding events before “kingdom come” and the other does. 1 Thess. is naive or manipulating. 2 Thess. reflects the maturity and wisdom of a Jesus chastised by scribes, pharisees, and Pontius Pilate–the maturity that the fervor and fantasy of a kingdom of purists and zealots will run into conflict with scribes, pharisees, and Rome.
Will you be able to confirm that the logical conclusion to no prophecy of the Temple Destruction is also no prophecy of the Great Tribulation with the level of detail provided in the gospels?
Wait a second, please. So, you’re saying more than: there are letters of Paul and there are letters of Paul’s followers who used his name. A follower of Paul could try to correct his teacher’s heresy to better the standing of Paul. The follower would read the gospels in say, 90 C.E.. He’d see Jesus said the Tribulation has to happen before “kingdom come.” Paul didn’t write that in 1 Thess. so I’ll just re-copy 1 Thess. but insert things happen before the kingdom suddenly appears.
It’s okay/allowable for Paul and Paul’s followers using his name to be in canonical scripture. These other people are problematic.
Now, if these are just theological disputes, you tend to stay away from those–this is all interesting to you from textual criticism? Is there one or more forgeries that correct or dis-corrects historical fact/s? (Sorry, no time for a thesaurus, gotta do some Christmas Eve shopping ASAP.)
Yes, I’d suggest you read my full account in Forgery and Counterforgery. There were all sorts of people writing in Paul’s name, including some that he would have whole-heartedly disagreed with. My book is principally about theological disputes.
Hi Bart. I just wanted to clarify your view. Forgive me, I’m more used to conservative scholarship, these are new views for me. Do you believe that 1 Thessalonians is teaching that nothing has to happen before the day of the Lord and 2 Thessalonians is teaching that a great deal has to happen first?
Yes I do.