Vinnie

Must admit the evidence is close on this one. New blog on it.

Are you aware of any additional arguments for or against Pauline authorship?

Vinnie

Ben C Smith

Let me inquire as to one of your arguments and counterarguments. Your third pro argument is:

It mentions the Temple of God in II Thess 2:4 and this is argued to mean that it was still standing. Thus the letter predates the fall of the temple in 70 C.E. and Paul was still alive until the mid-sixties. That leaves the time of composition after Paul’s death rather slim if it was a forgery as there are no known instances from this time period of a pseudonymous work being attributed to a man who was still alive.

And your counterargument is:

Number 3 is weighty but not entirely convincing since the reference to the temple could come after it as it is possible the divine temple is being understood symbolically (see Rev. 21:22).

The temple in Revelation 21.22 is transparently symbolic. Do you find any indicator in 2 Thessalonians 2.4 that the temple spoken of there is symbolic?

Ben.

Vinnie

Since you accept authenticity, do you know of any additional "pro" arguments? I would like to include more if I find them! I actually found one in Guthrie's intro which just arrived (personal nature or intimacy of the end)

I actually found that temple response in Brown's Intro to the NT. He cited the argument and said it is possible it could be a symbolic reference though Kummel says it obviously indicates the temple is still standing. Brown claims non liquet, for what its worth. The reference to the temple in 2 Thessalonians is too short for me to conclude anything either way. It merely mentions "God's temple". But could Rev. 21.22 indicate there was a belief in the restoration of the temple by God after its destruction? I would be inclined to think there was. The ABD in its discussion of 2 Thess says "Apocalyptic eschatology flowered at the end of the 1st century, as Revelation and Matthew suggest." Thus, I do not think it unlikely to mention God's temple (even if destroyed) as this work is also of a strong eschatological bent.

In addition, this could be psuedonymous and written before the destruction of the temple though I admit that is cutting things awfully close.

And to engage in something extremely speculative: is it possible the author back-mentions the temple to give the letter an added sense of antiquity (e.g. this actually comes from Paul, its pre-70c.e.)? I would never mention something like this in regards to a text if there were not some considerable doubts about its authenticity.

I just read the Yale Anchor Bible Dictionary entry on this and there are a lot of differences--even more than the ones I mentioned. I may have to add a few more.

Have you read it? I have a digital version, I can pm you a slice of it if you want?

Vinnie

jakejonesiv

The author of 2 Thessalonians dismisses 1 Thessalonians as a forgery.

2 Thessalonians NAB
1 We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him,
2 not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a "spirit," or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.

The reference is to 1 Thess. 4:13ff. Thus we have one pseudopigraphical author seeking to supplant another.

Also, do you not see the irony of "Paul" warning against the profaning of the Temple, something Paul himself is accused of himself in Acts 21:27 ff?

Best,
Jake

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Vinnie, thanks for the neat efforts on this to make the authorship discussion more understandable and focused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie New blog on it. Are you aware of any additional arguments for or against Pauline authorship? Vinnie

On the pro side have you checked the Andreas Köstenberger and Louis Berkhof and Luke Timothy Johnson and Sam Shamoun material that might be referenced. Interestingly Herman Hoskier has a little comment on p. 486 of "Codex B and its allies". Much more can be referenced, I explain below why I sought out the info on these four (I have not visited this topic in depth for a while, so had to review my notes and bookmarks).

The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament (2009)
By Andreas J. Kostenberger, L. Scott Kellum, Charles Quarles
http://books.google.com/books?id=g-MG9sFLAz0C
(discussion on p. 639, put pseudonymity into search and three pages are available, a couple are blocked, and then there is a dating section.)

Introduction to the New Testament - The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (1915) - Louis Berkhof
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/berkhof/newtestament.xx.html
http://www.sandersweb.net/bible/arti...p#_Toc72517056

Sam Shamoun - Critique of Johnny Bravo's Response to Sam Shamoun's
"Rebuttal to Johnny Bravo's Article: Christian Scholars Refuting the Status of the NT as An Inspired Scripture"
http://www.answering-islam.org/Respo.../bravo_r3a.htm

First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary
Luke Timothy Johnson (2001)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...0/ai_n9125819/ - review by Robert Yarbrough (2002)
"Johnson shows the independence of judgment that makes his work so valuable. He challenges the majority consensus that the Pastorals could not have been written by Paul. He demonstrates conclusively that a truly critical approach would acknowledge that the majority consensus has at least as many weaknesses as the traditional view of Pauline authorship." (my note - Johnson does often look at interpretative questions through the eyes of both genuine authorship and pseudonymity within the book, one after the other)
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...6/ai_n9244785/ - review by Richard E. Randolph (2003)
You an read some by getting to pages in the Amazon search method, a bit awkward, yet helpful.
http://www.amazon.com/reader/0385484...horship#reader

My goal here was to give four of the "true-pro-Pauline-authorship" view sources, each one with a substantive section, and while they must be overlapping in arguments they are quite independent and unique in approach. If you like I would try to help you compare their views with your lists of arguments, time permitting. Note: I realize that Sam Shamoun is directly in apologetics rather than historical scholarship, yet often his material is very helpful.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Vinnie

Interesting as a theory but your statement is most likely incorrect. The authenticity of 1 Thessalonians is not worth challenging. I don't even think there is strong enough evidence to view 1 Thess 2:14-16 as an interpolation. At any rate, you have to come up with a reason why someone decided to claim Paul thought he would be alive during the parousia when he was already known to be dead--if 1 Thess, is in fact inauthentic. The entire subject matter (an imminent eschatology) is inconceivable after Paul's death, the language is clearly Pauline, the church structure is clearly early (5:12), and there is no real motive for creation--unless its to discredit Paul with an imminent eschatology. The external evidence is also tight though we know some works with equally strong external attestation slipped through.


Pure eisegesis. Paul does not say the day of the Lord is at hand as 2 Thess is warning against. Its still in the future. He probably expects to be alive during it--or at least some of those he is writing to (we we we we throughout).

Vinnie

Vinnie

Thanks for the resources Steve. A few of those sources were on the pastoral, not 2 Thess. I am looking through the other two though on 2 Thess. I think I covered most of the content in the CCEL one and the sandersweb one is the CCEL article on another page.

Vinnie

Vinnie

Oh, yeah, the 1 Thess 2 reference show the Thess crowd was already concerned about why some had died before the Lord came. They, in other wrods, already had an urgent eschatology. 2 Thess says "don't be alarmed by someone claiming the day of the Lord is at hand". The Thessalonians already believed the Lord would be returning soon. So either way "at hand" is interpreted makes this view improbable.

I find it possible this letter might attempt to atone for an imminent eschatology now known to be false...in other words...to vindicate Paul. But it does not call 1 Thess into question.

Vinnie

Ben C Smith

Is at hand is an archaic and misleading English translation. The verb is in the perfect tense here, which means that the action has already happened with present consequences or effects. More modern translations render it as has come. Compare 1 Corinthians 3.22, where the perfect of this verb is set in contrast to what is to come in the future.

The Thessalonians (real or imagined) in the second epistle are not concerned that the day of the Lord is coming soon. They are concerned that it already happened.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

My acceptance of the authenticity of 2 Thessalonians is provisional, and hinges almost entirely on the temple reference. In fact, I think the usual lists of reasons to accept its authenticity are easy to dispose of. So Marcion accepted it, for example... he also accepted Colossians and Ephesians.

I would be happy to call the epistle pseudepigraphical. If only the temple reference were easier to interpret nonliterally. It just plain looks literal to me. That is all.

While obviously might be too dogmatic, I think that is the best explanation to date.

That belief would have to be very widespread in order to assume it. It would be like me saying that a future meeting of world leaders is going to take place in the World Trade Center in New York. Sure, there has been talk of rebuilding the towers, but until there is a widespread agreement that such is going to be the case I do not think I would ordinarily make such an unadorned, unmodified statement about the WTC without at least mentioning its rebuilding in the meantime.

I agree it is cutting things close. But it may well be the case.

Let me add that it could be that the forgery was made while Paul was still alive, one of your statements on your blog notwithstanding. The very warning in 2 Thessalonians 2.2; 3.17 — it matters not in this case whether it is genuine or spurious — envisages a case in which letters were forged during the lifetime of the namesake. That someone of that time period could think this possible is good reason for us to think it possible, too.

I think this founders on the WTC analogy above. Contrast the epistle of Barnabas, which specifically mentions that the temple will be rebuilt.

Sure, thanks. That would be great.

Ben.