(Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1–2 Timothy, Titus), it is harder to make the case for 2 Thessalonians than, for example, 1 Timothy.90 The case made against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians does not rely on any silver bullet, but rather on cumulative evidence. Now we turn to responses to the above arguments for pseudonymity as well as other factors that offer support for authenticity.
Defending Pauline Authorship
What can we say in response to the copycat or mimicking dynamics of 2 Thessalonians in comparison to 1 Thessalonians? Leon Morris sees the dependence as a point in favor of authenticity—it is as equally likely that 2 Thessalonians is “Paul being Paul” (so to speak) as it is that it was someone else copying him.91 Howard Marshall adds that the high level of structural similarity between the two letters could be explained by the short time between Paul’s writing.92 Gordon Fee offers his own point that, though some structural elements are the same, the way that structure is filled is different. The pseudepigrapher would have been simultaneously working in a dependent way (borrowing skeletal features of 1 Thessalonians) and a creative way (introducing his own ideas and arguments).93 While the “copycat” nature of 2 Thessalonians is admittedly noticeable, it is very difficult to determine what this means for the nature of its authenticity. The arguments based on style fall prey to the same methodological criticism.94 Analysis of the style of 2 Thessalonians is simply inconclusive. Andrew Pitts has recently investigated its style based on insights from linguistics and especially in light of “register influences.”95
The matter of historical implausibility is potentially more significant, but the two issues often raised (appeal to “tradition” and the Lawless One as Nero) can be otherwise explained within Paul’s ministry to the Thessalonians. Paul does mention what he previously taught them several times in 1 Thessalonians (3:4; 5:1–2), and he uses the specific language of “tradition” in 1 Cor 11:2 (cf. Rom 6:17; 16:17). On the matter of Nero redivivus, if a pseudepigrapher were writing after AD 70, Marshall believes it unlikely that the author would refer to this Lawless One setting himself up in the temple (since the Jewish temple was destroyed in 70; see 2 Thess 2:4).96
What about the tone of 2 Thessalonians (as more cold and authoritarian)? Abraham Malherbe defuses this concern aptly:
[I]t needs to be stated that it is fundamentally wrong to compare the language of the two letters in this way. The investigation is shaped by the question of pseudonymity, which means that differences are concentrated on and their significance is exaggerated. There is either no, or at the most insufficient, attention given to how the changes in the situation in Thessalonica may have caused Paul to consciously adopt a different style at points to achieve his present goal, into the one he had when he wrote 1 Thessalonians. All Paul’s letters, after all, have their peculiarities.97
As for 2 Thess 3:17 as a pseudonymous “tell,” the possible scenarios that would give rise for a pseudepigrapher to make such a statement are hard to imagine. The pseudepigrapher would have to be relying on 1 Corinthians 16:21 where Paul also announces, “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand.” How did the pseudepigrapher come to have 1 Corinthians in his possession, and then what would possess him to write a pseudonymous letter to the Thessalonians? If he had a collection of Pauline letters, he would be writing in the second century or later. Aside from the question about why he would write a letter with such specific details to Thessalonica (dealing with issues that would have related to the community in the middle of the first century), there is also the matter of why the pseudepigrapher would make the claim that this is how Paul writes in all his letters (2 Thess 3:17), when knowledge of a wider collection would not demonstrate this.98
The last area of “theological differences” is also not a serious obstacle in view of authenticity. Only a simplistic view of Paul’s theology and how he engages in nuanced ways with churches dealing with various problems can eliminate Paul from the equation of the authorship of 2 Thessalonians. Leon Morris points out that it is rather common for writers with an apocalyptic worldview to “hold to the two ideas of suddenness and the appearance of preparatory signs.”99 John Barclay perhaps says it best:
Apocalypticists are notoriously slippery characters. Many apocalyptic works present conflicting scenarios of the end and inconsistent theses concerning signs of its imminence. That Paul should write both of these apocalyptic passages, and do so within a short space of time, is by no means impossible; why should his apocalyptic statements be any more consistent than his varied remarks about the law?100
Conclusion on Authorship
Despite the surge of popularity in favor of the vote for pseudonymity in the early and middle twentieth century, confidence in this decision has largely waned in the UK and North America.101 Probably many are like me: agnostic.102 I have lost confidence that we have the tools and the samples sufficient to render a judgment of “not written by Paul” on texts like 2 Thessalonians and Colossians. My assumption of authenticity is not borne out of 100 percent confidence, but rather in a lack of persuasive evidence to the contrary. I follow the guidance of Markus Barth in his evaluation of the authenticity of Colossians: in dubio pro reo—“when in doubt, side with the accused” (or as we sometimes say, “innocent until proven guilty”). Those who argue from pseudonymity may have “rescued” Paul from inconsistencies, but they insufficiently explain why someone would write such a letter, in Paul’s name, to one specific church, about issues that relate to 1 Thessalonians and very particular problems there, repeating the first letter quite closely in some ways, and yet obviously wanting to say something new.103 Unless these issues can be resolved, it seems to me to be the most sensible option to attempt to understand the letter as it is written, Paul to the Thessalonians.
1. See Geertz 1973.
2. Later in the commentary we will demonstrate that Paul was likely influenced in his thinking on this matter by the story that Jesus tells in Mark 13:34–37. Even though 1 Thessalonians was undoubtedly written before Mark, Paul probably knew of this kind of Jesus tradition. For a case made that Paul was especially drawing from the Jesus tradition linked to Matthew 24 (more specifically), see Shogren 2012: 31–37; cf. Rigaux 1956: 98–101.
3. See Diogenes 1853: 18.
4. Nigdelis 2015: 2.
5. See Smith 2004: 57.
6. Nigdelis 2015: 4.
7. See Harris 2013: 270.
8. Donfried 2002: 35.
9. Palatine Anthology 4.228.
10. While it was once common for scholars to assume the prominence of this cult in Paul’s time, this is now questioned; see Pillar 2013: 103–5.
11. Some scholars question the historicity of Acts and, thus, its relevance
