1–2 Thessalonians. Nijay K. Gupta
Читать онлайн книгу.
Both letters also ask the “God/Lord of peace” to do something (1 Thess 5:23–24; 2 Thess 3:16). Additionally, both letters use the same rare word kateuthynai, although in different contexts (1 Thess 3:11; 2 Thess 3:16). Krentz’s point here is not to show similarities, but rather what seems like copying or a conscious dependence on the first letter. This leads to the natural question, “Why would Paul copy himself in this almost mechanical way?”80 The implication is that Paul would have no need to copy himself, but this is the kind of thing that a pseudonymous writer would do, having 1 Thessalonians in his possession and wanting to create another letter that appears Pauline.81
Style
Every writer has his or her own writing personality or style. One person (today) says “you know?” at the end of a sentence, while another says “you know what I mean?” Some scholars, examining the “styles” of 1 and 2 Thessalonians, note a difference.82 Second Thessalonians employs certain turns of phrases (such as “good hope” and “eternal comfort”) that don’t resonate with the style of Paul’s other undisputed letters (like 1 Thessalonians, but also Galatians, Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Philippians, and Philemon).83 Another possible difference in style is the author of 2 Thessalonians’ preference for longer and more complex sentences.84 Christina Kreinecker has argued recently that 2 Thessalonians diverges from 1 Thessalonians in the way that the author makes requests (using the verbs erōtaō and parangelō).85
Historical Implausibility
A third matter involves the discovery of features of a text that simply do not fit into the timeline of a historical Paul. For example, some scholars have noted the two appeals to “tradition” in 2 Thessalonians (2:15; 3:6)—is this not language that is indicative of a more developed age of Christianity, rather than something Paul would have appealed to in AD 51–52?86
Another issue that has raised questions about historical plausibility is the way that the Lawless One is portrayed in 2 Thessalonians 2:1–12 as what appears to be Nero back from the dead (hence, Nero redivivus). Some scholars argue that if this Lawless One is a return of Nero, then the author of 2 Thessalonians must have already thought Nero was dead—and he died in AD 68, a time too late to fit into Paul’s ministry to the Thessalonians.
Tone
Several scholars have raised the issue of the difference in tone between 1 and 2 Thessalonians. It appears that the tone of 2 Thessalonians is impersonal and formal, while that of 1 Thessalonians is more affectionate and intimate.87 The difference is so stark that it seems to some that this is probably not the same Paul.
Pseudonymous “Tells”
Perhaps one of the most important arguments made by those who do not think Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians is that the text features elements that seem like a pseudonymous “tells” or giveaways. The best example of this is 2 Thess 3:17 where the author directly states: “I, Paul, write this greeting with my own hand. This is the mark in every letter of mine; it is the way I write.” Could this be a pseudonymous writer trying too hard to present himself as Paul? As Krentz facetiously comments: “The author of 2 Thessalonians doth protest too much, methinks.”88
Theological Differences
A final matter in this debate specifically relates to theological divergences in 2 Thessalonians compared to 1 Thessalonians. As this argument goes, in 1 Thessalonians, Paul’s eschatological emphasis is on the soon-coming return of Jesus. However, in 2 Thessalonians the point is the opposite. Linda McKinnish Bridges offers this summary of how 2 Thessalonians is different: “The motion slows; the action shifts into low gear. The author of 2 Thessalonians states that a series of selected events must first take place before the end. The list is long, systematic, and highly descriptive, using stock imagery from the world of apocalyptic language.” She summarizes, “In 1 Thessalonians the end is near. In 2 Thessalonians, however, the end is way out of sight!”89
To be fair, among those Pauline letters that scholars consider pseudonymous or deutero-pauline (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.”