Who Wrote 2 Thessalonians? A Fresh Look at an Old Problem

Abstract

In light of the New Perspective on Paul, recognition of apocalyptic as a central category in Pauline theology, and the crumbling consensus concerning seven authentic epistles of Paul, it is time to reconsider the arguments for the authenticity of his letters. Here the specific question of the authorship of 2 Thessalonians is re-examined. It is noted that many of the standard arguments for, or against the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians are either irrelevant or inconclusive. This discussion seeks to reveal the slender evidential basis of certain 'classic' arguments against the authenticity of the letter, and also to present some fresh reasons why the epistle should be regarded as written by Paul. The implications of including 2 Thessalonians among the authentic Pauline writings are then examined. In particular, it is suggested that the development in Paul's thinking as reflected in 2 Thessalonians reveals that his theological formulations developed in response to situations in his fledgling communities. In this regard, Paul's theological positions emerged through a negotiated response to pressing pastoral situations.

Exposing Textual Corruption: Community as a Stabilizing Aspect in the Circulation of the New Testament Writings during the Greco-Roman Era

“…One of the most famous instances of the textual corruption of NT writings can be found in the character of Marcion of Sinope, who flourished in the first half of the second century (Foster 2010). He is most infamous in the history of the church for his alleged alteration of Paul's epistles and the Gospel of Luke (Roth 2015).…”

“… 47. Though there are some scholars that do not consider 2 Thessalonians as genuinely Pauline, it appears that the growing consensus is in favor of Pauline authorship; see Foster 2012. Despite the authorship issues, the passage remains as a reflection of Greco-Roman praxis. …”

The Alleged ‘Letter Allegedly from Us’: The Parallel Function of ὡς δι’ ἡμῶν in 2 Thessalonians 2.2

“… 3. Lightfoot 1904: 110; Bauckham 1988: 471 n. 5; Wannamaker 1990: 240; Barclay 1993: 528; Foster 2012: 158; apparently Masson 1957: 94. Some cannot decide between this view and the previous one: Bruce 1982: 164; Morris 1991: 215. …”